Why is polygamy wrong?

[AgnosticBoy]

You are on a Catholic forum.

You should know that we do not use the Bible to get our doctrines or morality.

As the apostle Paul states in Romans 7:7, we wouldn’t know what a “sin” is if it were not for the Law. Church teachings should not conflict with Jesus’ teachings. Sure the Church also relies on ‘natural law’, something which in many cases is largely subjective, but either way natural law should not conflict with God’s revealed Law in the Bible.

God’s revealed Law and judgements show that polygamy is moral.

Well, as I’ve already stated, God blesses each and every one of us. And each and every one of us is a sinner.

My point is not just about blessings but also about what’s stated in God’s Law and God’s declarations of righteousness. God did not just bless polygamists, he also helped their relationship function, and even declared some polygamists righteous.

More specifically to your claim, I disagree that God blesses each and every person because he has punished and destroyed entire civilizations, at least according to the Bible.

So if we use your reasoning, God blesses an alcoholic with, say, a baby, you should conclude that God is promoting alcoholism.

I don’t know what God blesses with or who he blesses unless He says so. A baby being born is a purely biological. No God needed. I see no logical basis for distinguishing between a natural occurrence and God’s blessing using your reasoning.

Let me disabuse you of the very Pelagian idea that you’re proposing: “God looks favorably on us because of what we do.”
That is not the Catholic view.

God looks favorably on all of us because we are his children. Not because we do good things.

God loves all but he will not provide blessings when you’re walking outside of his will. If you read the OT then it’s clear that Israel was a failed civilization because they violated God’s law. If what you were saying was correct, Israel in the OT would not have fallen.

Using your reasoning, God hates a severely disabled person because he cannot “do” any good deed.

If the Church believed what you said then they would leave gays alone. If some good happen to them it must be because God allowed it. This is how I view your reasoning since it is devoid of God’s moral standard and besides that I really don’t feel that it even applies to me.

God loves and blesses and adores us because we are made in His image. Whether we practice polygamy, or adultery, or alcoholism is inconsequential to his blessings.

The Health And Wealth Gospel you seem to be promoting is antithetical to the Catholic Gospel.

I’ve already addressed your reasoning at the beginning of my post.

 

[Tomdstone]

God’s revealed Law and judgements show that polygamy is moral.

I don’t see where God forbade polygamy in the OT. Polygamy was widely practiced even by the Jewish prophets. So at one time, it was not thought to be immoral.

 

[PRmerger]

I don’t see where God forbade polygamy in the OT. Polygamy was widely practiced even by the Jewish prophets. So at one time, it was not thought to be immoral.

Beating one’s wife also was not forbidden in the OT as well, and was, at one time, not thought to be immoral.

Are you proposing that Christians should beat their wives?

 

[PRmerger]

As the apostle Paul states in Romans 7:7, we wouldn’t know what a “sin” is if it were not for the Law.

How do you reconcile this St. Paul stating that the Gentiles actually know what’s a sin *without *the Law?

 

[Tomdstone]

Are you proposing that Christians should beat their wives?

Yes. Of course that is what I was proposing.

 

[PRmerger]

Yes. Of course that is what I was proposing.

That seems to be the logical conclusion of your argument.

 

[AgnosticBoy]

Of course you are right. David had several wives and Moses had 3 wives. I don’t see anywhere in the OT where polygamy was prohibited.

Thanks. The Bible is what early Christians and the Catholic Church used to formulate their doctrines but it’s clear that they can be in error on some issues.

 

[PRmerger]

My point is not just about blessings but also about what’s stated in God’s Law and God’s declarations of righteousness. God did not just bless polygamists, he also helped their relationship function, and even declared some polygamists righteous.

I think the correct way to say it is that God declares some men, sinners all, to be righteous. NOT because of their immorality, but DESPITE it.

More specifically to your claim, I disagree that God blesses each and every person because he has punished and destroyed entire civilizations, at least according to the Bible.

Well, you’re begging the question, aren’t you.

You’ll have to prove first that God didn’t make it up to these entire civilizations with an eternity in paradise, right?

I don’t know what God blesses with or who he blesses unless He says so. A baby being born is a purely biological. No God needed. I see no logical basis for distinguishing between a natural occurrence and God’s blessing using your reasoning.

Every baby is a blessing, AB.

But it’s really beside the point.

The medieval (and tribal) mentality you’re proposing is antithetical to the kerygma of Christianity. “What bad thing did he do to deserve his blindness?” and “Wow. He must be really holy because look how rich he is!” are NOT part of the Catholic paradigm.

God loves all but he will not provide blessings when you’re walking outside of his will. If you read the OT then it’s clear that Israel was a failed civilization because they violated God’s law. If what you were saying was correct, Israel in the OT would not have fallen.

Again, this is a primitive POV extinguished by the Cross.

If the Church believed what you said then they would leave gays alone.

What do you mean? How is the Church NOT leaving gays alone?

If you mean, the Church should say that their same sex attraction isn’t disordered…why should she do that when it’s contrary to reality?

If some good happen to them it must be because God allowed it.

Sure. God’s permissive will.

This is how I view your reasoning since it is devoid of God’s moral standard and besides that I really don’t feel that it even applies to me.

I don’t know what this means. Could you please explicate?

 

[PRmerger]

Thanks. The Bible is what early Christians and the Catholic Church used to formulate their doctrines

No, AB.

You have been duped by someone who told you this. You heard him say it, and repeated it, without ever verifying whether it’s true or not.

The Catholic faith was whole and entire before a single word of the NT was ever put to writ.

Think about this…just mathematically. Or chronologically.

When was the NT canonized?

And when did the apostles go out to all the nations and preach?

Think about it…

And if they didn’t have the Bible (which they didn’t)…what, exactly, were they preaching and getting their doctrines from?

 

[AgnosticBoy]

How do you reconcile this St. Paul stating that the Gentiles actually know what’s a sin *without *the Law?

There are no perfect answers to this unless we consider that the apostle Paul was speaking about the Gentiles knowing the law to a degree as opposed to fulfilling all of the requirements of the Law. The difference here may be subjective/instinctual compared to objective law (God’s standards) and the two coinciding at times.

Romans 7:7 clearly says that there’s no knowledge of sin unless you have a law. Passages like Deuteronomy 31:13 shows that not everyone knew about God’s law.

Even if God’s law existed before being revealed to Moses, that still doesn’t justify your claim that your Church doesn’t get the moral Law from the Bible. The bottom line is that we have the Law in the OT, and even if your Church got it without reference to the Bible, then that would just be like an additional copy. Although, lets face it, Moses beat your Church by centuries!

 

[AgnosticBoy]

I think the correct way to say it is that God declares some men, sinners all, to be righteous. NOT because of their immorality, but DESPITE it.

What you say is true if repentance is involved, but seeing as to how no polygamist repented of their additional wives, that to me shows that polygamy was not immorality. Otherwise, if repentance is not needed, then the Devil and all other non-repentant people would be considered righteous by your standards.

In relation to my Genesis 29:30-33 passage, God is all-good, so His actions to help polygamy function, must necessarily be good. So it’s not a matter my labelling “righteous” because of immorality involved because God’s actions can not be immoral.

In relation to my 2 Chronicles 24:2-3, I also disagree with your point due to the immediate context. It doesn’t make sense that a chief priest would willfully sin by offering a man two wives and then the man receiving the two wives is described as righteous, and then all of this is in the context of painting the picture of righteous man.

You’ll have to prove first that God didn’t make it up to these entire civilizations with an eternity in paradise, right?

Killing someone is not a blessing and that’s true whether you make it up later or you don’t. At the point that the killing took place, that time frame was not a blessing.

What do you mean? How is the Church NOT leaving gays alone?

Well, by trying to oppose gay marriage around the world, for starters.

I don’t know what this means. Could you please explicate?

You’ve claimed that God blesses the good and bad people but my claim is that he doesn’t bless those who are not interested in following him.

 

[AgnosticBoy]

No, AB.

You have been duped by someone who told you this. You heard him say it, and repeated it, without ever verifying whether it’s true or not.

I’ve read the sacrament of marriage from the Catechism of the Catholic Church. Much of the reasoning stems from biblical passages, like paragraphs 1605 and 1610. You can read here…vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P51.HTM

The Catholic faith was whole and entire before a single word of the NT was ever put to writ.

Think about this…just mathematically. Or chronologically.

When was the NT canonized?

Using the words “church doctrine” was incorrect on my part. I should’ve specified that I was referring to Catechism of the Catholic Church and individual writers like Tertullian and Justin Martyr. The works by these authors references the OT which was already in circulation as a canon during the 1st century, going by Josephus. And of course, they at times reference some parts of the writings from the apostles.

 

[Rau]

…seeing as to how no polygamist repented of their additional wives, that to me shows that polygamy was not immorality.

It shows to me that God did not call upon the cessation of polygamist relationships at that time.

In relation to my Genesis 29:30-33 passage, God is all-good, so His actions to help polygamy function, must necessarily be good. So it’s not a matter my labelling “righteous” because of immorality involved because God’s actions can not be immoral.

You’ve mentioned this passage so many times, I thought I’d look and read for myself. My goodness, I read something rather different than you!

Jacob’s married life (with 2 wives or 4 counting the handmaidens) turns out to be most unsatisfactory, and never seems to be a good advert for polygamy. We have a marriage in which one woman (Leah, having “weak eyes”) is desperately sad and unloved, for her husband loves the other woman (Rachel, married second, but “beautiful in form and appearance”) more, and at various times the women are competitive and jealous. [It might make a great sitcom today.]

The actions that God takes (to “open Leah’s womb”) are presented as a kindness toward Leah - addressing the sadness and lack of love experienced by her. It was Leah herself (not God) who expresses expectations that her newborns would improve the marital relationship, however this failed to materialise. We’re told her lot did not improve after the first son Reuben, and the Lord provided another (Simeon). Still no signs of attachment from her husband, again she conceived (Levi), still no improvement, and then a fourth son was born - Judah. But now, *Rachel does not seek improved attachment from Jacob, but rather resolves to “praise the Lord”. *

One can take a great deal from this story, but nothing that supports a position that polygamy is, per se, immoral, or moral (notwithstanding your additional proviso that all participants agree who may join in).

Of course, for Christians (and it is “morality” under Christian principles that is discussed here), it should be noted that marriage in OT times is what might be called today “natural marriage”. It is certainly the case that God allowed polygamy among the Patriachs for a time, and to my mind equally clear that such was a dispensation, for the strict law of marriage was made known to our first parents: “They shall be two in one flesh” (Genesis 2:24). God dispensed the early peoples from this strictness, and Christ later revoked that dispensation, repeating the description of “two becoming one flesh”.

God allowing polygamy at this time may have related to ensuring the survival and increase of the Israelites, quite analogous to the propagation of the species after Adam and Eve - their children would have had to marry siblings and close cousins of necessity.

It seems reasonable to conclude that polygamy is not “intrinsically evil” for it was proper for a time. It enabled the principal aims of marriage to be fulfilled. Similarly, marriage in the collateral line is not intrinsically evil and was indeed necessary (among the closely related) from the time of Adam and Eve. But that is not sufficient to make a thing “moral”, for now intentions and circumstances must be considered.

Heaven forbid that the circumstances could arise again that God may again see fit to grant a dispensation!

The question “Is polygamy moral?” is not a question that can be answered universally with a yes or a no. Polygamy was not the model God set out from the beginning, God granted a dispensation for a time, and Christ revoked that dispensation and re-instituted the model given “from the beginning”.

 

[PRmerger]

There are no perfect answers to this unless we consider that the apostle Paul was speaking about the Gentiles knowing the law to a degree as opposed to fulfilling all of the requirements of the Law. The difference here may be subjective/instinctual compared to objective law (God’s standards) and the two coinciding at times.

Yes. That’s correct. So it’s possible to know right/wrong WITHOUT the Mosaic Law.

Romans 7:7 clearly says that there’s no knowledge of sin unless you have a law.

And yet St. Paul says that there IS knowledge of good/bad because it’s “written in their hearts”.

Even if God’s law existed before being revealed to Moses, that still doesn’t justify your claim that your Church doesn’t get the moral Law from the Bible.

You simply believe this because you were told this. But you did not investigate its veracity, AB.

The Church received the kerygma from a Person, not from a book, no matter how holy.

Again, Catholicism is not a religion of the Book. We are a religion of the Word.

 

[PRmerger]

What you say is true if repentance is involved, but seeing as to how no polygamist repented of their additional wives, that to me shows that polygamy was not immorality

Again, you’ve been duped into believing some very primitive and tribal views-“He rewards you if you are good!”

The “most good” person was given the most horrific suffering…so, clearly, we cannot view blessings and sufferings as a result of our actions.

(Well, not as only a result of our actions. Sometimes our sufferings do come as a natural consequence of our actions–for example, choosing to commit adultery, and then one’s spouse divorces you…that’s suffering that’s a natural consequence).

 

[PRmerger]

Killing someone is not a blessing and that’s true whether you make it up later or you don’t.

This is an absurd comment. Everyone dies, AB.

Well, by trying to oppose gay marriage around the world, for starters.

The Church also opposes abusing the poor, killing innocents, and all sorts of injustice.

Are you saying the Church shouldn’t speak up?

You’ve claimed that God blesses the good and bad people but my claim is that he doesn’t bless those who are not interested in following him.

This is just something you’ve heard someone else say, and you believed it, but you didn’t investigate its veracity or not.

God loves all people. His blessings are not dependent upon whether we do good things.

That is a tribal and primitive way to view God.

 

[Trident_H]

If you’re going to buy into the idea that someone can paint a picture of a man being righteous and then in the next breath mention the man living in a blatant sinful lifestyle, then that’s on you. But it doesn’t make an ounce of sense based on the immediate context. SPECULATION about motives and other matters that is not in the text does not help your case.

What are you talking about? I clearly said:* “[God] also didn’t think it was terrible.*”
That’s a far trip from what you’re focusing on. And since I’ve said more than 3 times that both polygamy and slavery were shrugged at by God at the time, I think you need to explain why you keep skipping and jumping back to assuming I’m on to thinking it was a terrible sin. This is getting dull.

There is no 1:1 ratio of guys and girls in China which is why I only bring up polyandry being good for that country. In any other society, what I advocate for is for polygamy in ALL forms between consenting adults. When it’s based on choice and outside of religious influence, then you’ll see women with multiple men which is what we see in the polyamory crowd.

No man. We settled already that polyandry was a pipe dream to solve China’s problem. So unless you can show me a country right now suffering from a population implosion and that also seems to have a heck of a lot of extra girls hanging around I’m just going to ignore any more talk of China. I don’t mind the odd rehash. But it coming up every 3 posts is getting old.

Shellfish would be more of a dietary or ceremonial law. Your point does not apply to my point about the moral laws not being progressive.

Slavery was wonderful in the olden days when no social safety net existed. But find me a recent Catholic teaching calling for its return. If you can’t then you have to accept that moral laws are progressive.

What I’m trying to get across to you is that you’re reasoning basically is that since it was a reward then it is immoral.

Nope. I’m saying that back at the time when women were given as gifts this was a reward for good behavior. Giving gifts wasn’t immoral back then. It still isn’t. What’s changed is we no longer think of women as being property. So they can’t be given away.

Yes, the chief priest, who would’ve known the law and was entrusted with it along with God’s covenant just as Aaron was (Leviticus 10:8-11 and 1 Chronicles 12:27).

Glad you agree with me.

If someone is just putting up with something that they don’t really like, as your reasoning involves, then why the hek are they (GOD) giving blessings, relationship troubleshooting, and judgements of righteousness towards that something (polygamy) that they don’t like?

Since no such thing was happening. And since I’ve made that really quite clear about 4 or 5 times I don’t see why I have to explain this again. But 1 last time, k? If polygamy isn’t thought of as righteous, but is just accepted as part of the day to day of the era (HINT: just like slavery was)? Then your argument falls flat. Since that seems a lot more likely than thinking God thought polygamy & slavery were awesome enough to be labeled righteous, I think this is a dead end for you. I never said God didn’t really like it. I’ve always said He just tolerated it. I don’t think God really cared at the time. It was a different society with different priorities. No reason for God to care especially much about things like that back then. He was too busy teaching people to wash their hands before eating. And stuff.

I’m not old but I’m old-fashioned in that I like to take the lead role in a relationship. I don’t boss anyone around, I just believe we each have our own strengths and lots of times I naturally find myself thrust into that position anyways. So presuming that another man would be the same way, it would be distasteful for me. I’m not saying that it’s immoral for women to have multiple husbands, but it’s not a relationship that I’m attracted to.

Ok. Thanks for being clear about that.

Of course this does go back to the whole patriarchy thing that was the first argument I made against polygamy. And the first thing you said to counter that was that all members of the group would be equal. But here you’re pretty much admitting some would be more equal than others. So that’s a bit of a reset.

Open marriages don’t have to involve commitment and I’ve heard of many involving different partners, like swingers. Polygamists tend stay married to the same spouses for a long time or even lifetime, ideally.

But you clearly said if one of your wives doesn’t agree with you she’s free to leave. So there’s not really much more commitment in your plans than there would be in an open marriage, is there?

 

[AgnosticBoy]

It shows to me that God did not call upon the cessation of polygamist relationships at that time.

The underlined part of your statement is your assumption but I find no reason nor evidence to accept it, especially in light of all the counterevidence I’ve been presenting to you here.

You’ve mentioned this passage so many times, I thought I’d look and read for myself. My goodness, I read something rather different than you!

Jacob’s married life (with 2 wives or 4 counting the handmaidens) turns out to be most unsatisfactory, and never seems to be a good advert for polygamy. We have a marriage in which one woman (Leah, having “weak eyes”) is desperately sad and unloved, for her husband loves the other woman (Rachel, married second, but “beautiful in form and appearance”) more, and at various times the women are competitive and jealous. [It might make a great sitcom today.]

Your point here is long so I just want to stay on track to my point that you’re supposedly objecting to. Despite some biblical polygamous marriages being unsatisfactory, the logic behind my point still remains that polygamy is good when an all-good God aides the relationship rather than calling it sin and breaking it up.

The actions that God takes (to “open Leah’s womb”) are presented as a kindness toward Leah - addressing the sadness and lack of love experienced by her. It was Leah herself (not God) who expresses expectations that her newborns would improve the marital relationship, however this failed to materialise. We’re told her lot did not improve after the first son Reuben, and the Lord provided another (Simeon). Still no signs of attachment from her husband, again she conceived (Levi), still no improvement, and then a fourth son was born - Judah. But now, *Rachel does not seek improved attachment from Jacob, but rather resolves to “praise the Lord”. *

The story actually goes from Genesis 29:30 to Genesis 30:24. While Leah was not content after having one or two children but later on in the storyline we can see that it took Leah having several children before she became content and satisfied. She ended up having more children than her sister (Genesis 35:22-26).

One can take a great deal from this story, but nothing that supports a position that polygamy is, per se, immoral, or moral (notwithstanding your additional proviso that all participants agree who may join in).

My moral point is based on God acts which are all-good. In my Genesis passage it’s clear that God’s acts in a polygamous relationship involved enabling two women have kids which would only happen through an act of sex (adultery by your reasoning). If God helped out by just giving Jacob directions to get to a place, then that is nothing unique to polygamy, and therefore I wouldn’t consider that aiding polygamy. But being concerned about a man not loving TWO women and then acting on that concern to help both women have kids with ONE man is an act by God that is uniquely tailored for polygamy.

Of course, for Christians (and it is “morality” under Christian principles that is discussed here), it should be noted that marriage in OT times is what might be called today “natural marriage”. It is certainly the case that God allowed polygamy among the Patriachs for a time, and to my mind equally clear that such was a dispensation, for the strict law of marriage was made known to our first parents: “They shall be two in one flesh” (Genesis 2:24). God dispensed the early peoples from this strictness, and Christ later revoked that dispensation, repeating the description of “two becoming one flesh”.

A lot of unproven assumptions here in your statement or in whatever source you used. I’ve already explained how my view does not conflict with Genesis 2:24 and how the reasons behind the view that polygamy was only allowed for a period of time is an unsupported statement.

God allowing polygamy at this time may have related to ensuring the survival and increase of the Israelites, quite analogous to the propagation of the species after Adam and Eve - their children would have had to marry siblings and close cousins of necessity.

Speculation. I can think of lots of rationales for polygamy, including it being about something as basic as love. It can have more to do than just about propagation of the species. I can see this being the case in the time period that Genesis covers, which is why even perhaps incest was not outright banned by God, but even way after Genesis we see polygamy continuing while incest was outright banned in the Law.

 

[AgnosticBoy]

he question “Is polygamy moral?” is not a question that can be answered universally with a yes or a no. Polygamy was not the model God set out from the beginning, God granted a dispensation for a time, and Christ revoked that dispensation and re-instituted the model given “from the beginning”.

You look at polygamy as some type of dispensation because you presume that monogamy is what God wanted. Without proving that initial premise then there would not even be a need to consider polygamy as being something allowed any more than considering that adultery was only allowed for a time. I’ve already posted my explanation of how polygamy does not conflict with Genesis 2:24 and I’ve yet to receive a response.

 

[davidv]

You look at polygamy as some type of dispensation because you presume that monogamy is what God wanted. Without proving that initial premise then there would not even be a need to consider polygamy as being something allowed any more than considering that adultery was only allowed for a time. I’ve already posted my explanation of how polygamy does not conflict with Genesis 2:24 and I’ve yet to receive a response.

God wanting monogamy is not a presumption. It is revealed in the words of Jesus in the Gospel.
Matthew 19:

And Pharisees came up to him and tested him by asking, “Is it lawful to divorce one’s wife for any cause?” 4 He answered, “Have you not read that he who made them from the beginning made them male and female, 5 and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one’?[a] 6 So they are no longer two but one.** What therefore God has joined together, let not man put asunder.” 7 They said to him, “Why then did Moses command one to give a certificate of divorce, and to put her away?” 8 He said to them, “For your hardness of heart Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so. 9 And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for unchastity,[c] and marries another, commits adultery; and he who marries a divorced woman, commits adultery.”**