Why is polygamy wrong?

[Trident_H]

Immoral activity is condemned by the law of God. God does not approve of immoral activity such as robbing a bank.

Well He seems to be a bit too busy to stop it ATM so

Does not approve does not mean does not allow.

 

[Vico]

True. But robbing a bank is not a morally acceptable activity according to the law of God.

Yes. However, you wrote “God does not allow immoral activity.” Now, I suppose you did not mean that.

Collins dictionary***:
allow ***(transitive) to permit (to do something); let

 

[AgnosticBoy]

He allowed you though, right?

God allowing people to sin does not translate into Him having to give these same people blessings, help them carry out their sin, and then to call them righteous. At this point, God was doing more than just “allowing” polygamy.

If I’m righteous according to God, then there’s nothing for me to repent from.

 

[AgnosticBoy]

Yes. However, you wrote “God does not allow immoral activity.” Now, I suppose you did not mean that.

Collins dictionary***:
allow ***(transitive) to permit (to do something); let

Okay, simple fix. God does not approve of immorality. It is true that God can allow sin but then he calls out the person for it and expects them to repent. The way you’re making it sound is that we can go on sinning unrepentantly and God is okay with that.

 

[Tomdstone]

Yes. However, you wrote “God does not allow immoral activity.” Now, I suppose you did not mean that.

Collins dictionary***:
allow ***(transitive) to permit (to do something); let

Allow can also mean to give permission to do something. It can also mean to approve or to sanction. Do you say that God gives us permission to rob and murder our neighbor?

 

[Tomdstone]

Does not approve does not mean does not allow.

That is not correct according to one dictionary. Allow can mean to give permission to do something. It can also mean to approve or to sanction. Allow has more than one meaning.

 

[AgnosticBoy]

Is it possible for God to not focus on something that’s not perfect morally while He’s busy focusing on something else instead? Sure. Why not?

Parents do that all the time.

I disagree with your logic. An omnipotent and omnipresent God should be more than capable of focusing on many problems at one time.

Remember, God called out king David for adultery only when it involved another man’s wife. That’s also because polyandry is not allowed. But yet God did not call king David an adulterer when it came to all of his other wives.

 

[Trident_H]

God allowing people to sin does not translate into Him having to give these same people blessings, help them carry out their sin, and then to call them righteous. At this point, God was doing more than just “allowing” polygamy.

If I’m righteous according to God, then there’s nothing for me to repent from.

lol you back again? You going to answer my last post to you or what?

BTW, glad to see you paying such close attention to the Bible suddenly. Cherry pick much?

 

[Trident_H]

That is not correct according to one dictionary. Allow can mean to give permission to do something. It can also mean to approve or to sanction. Allow has more than one meaning.

We getting pedantic now? Gonna quibble over semantics?

I think we both know what I meant. And I think it’s pretty clear that allowing stuff to happen He doesn’t like is exactly what’s going on. I mean he’s letting you run around trying to scare guys like me online. I’m sure that’s getting a big laugh in heaven. I’m sure God’s super worried about that right now, hey?

 

[Trident_H]

I disagree with your logic.

Says the guy who figures legalizing polygamy will solve China’s problem with having too many males to females.

An omnipotent and omnipresent God should be more than capable of focusing on many problems at one time.

Sure. But can WE? Parents focus on one thing at a time to make sure the kid doesn’t get correction overkill. Ever heard a boss complain about everything wrong with an employee all at once and then wonder why nothing gets better? Or does a good boss usually try to bring up 2 positives and then step down on that 1 negative that really was the point of the meeting to start with?

Remember, God called out king David for adultery only when it involved another man’s wife. That’s also because polyandry is not allowed. But yet God did not call king David an adulterer when it came to all of his other wives.

Yeah. So you really have a hankering for that, huh? You really get deep into that ‘progressive’ stone age morality. Gotta get me that old fashioned religion, hey?

I guess He just must have sort of gotten bored of polygamy at some point though. Because it seems to have dropped form sight somewhere along the way. Sort of like stoning women caught in adultery. I wonder if we should focus on modern day things or look back to when people still thought they had to work for a girl’s father in order to buy her from him? Such a hard choice to figure out which society was kinder to women, hey? These things are just so hard sometimes.

 

[AgnosticBoy]

Says the guy who figures legalizing polygamy will solve China’s problem with having too many males to females.

Yes, it would reduce the amount of men left single just as polygyny can reduce the amount of women left single if there was a surplus of women. It’s simple math.

Polygyny can increase the population and polyandry can decrease a population. The latter is just one of the things that China can use.

Sure. But can WE? Parents focus on one thing at a time to make sure the kid doesn’t get correction overkill. Ever heard a boss complain about everything wrong with an employee all at once and then wonder why nothing gets better? Or does a good boss usually try to bring up 2 positives and then step down on that 1 negative that really was the point of the meeting to start with?

First, your original claim was about GOD and not parents. Secondly, there’s a difference between IMMORALITY and ‘mistakes’ done out of error. If an employee kept doing immoral things like trying to murder, steal, commit adultery, then his butt is out. In fact, according to the OT he’s supposed to be DEAD - stoned to death as a punishment! Remember, God should not be showing favoritism.

It would also be stupid for someone to reward, help out, and state that such an employee is not doing anything wrong IF the act is indeed wrong. God did this for polygamists. This point of mine you keep skipping over.

 

[clem456]

Again Rau, completely unreasonable. Do you think a same-sex married couple is going to repent when God blesses them with wealth, calls them righteous, and then helps the relationship function? This goes beyond rewarding a supposed immoral behavior but this is exactly what we find God doing for polygamists.

• God’s moral law revelation was already complete in the OT - the NT just repeats it which is why adultery, same-sex acts, bestiality, fornication are all OT rules and they are still wrong even in the NT.
• Secondly, even if the Jews did not know the Law at any point, but God did, so His moral judgements of polygamists would come from full knowledge - nothing needs to be revealed to Him! God judged polygamists as being righteous.
• And last, God did dump ALL of the Law on the Jews and people were being punished for violating it. Polygamy would’ve be a violation of adultery yet no polygamists were ever called out for adultery while others were. God called out king David for adultery when it came to Bathsheeba and since she was already married to another man. Yet God did not call him out for all of his other wives.

To the contrary, polygamist families were the heroes of the Old Testament. They always seem to prosper and have plenty wealth, posterity, inheritance, attain high positions, and much of this is showered down on them from God Himself. Hek, God portrays himself as a polygamist in Jeremiah 31:31-32 when he says he was a “husband to them”.

very difficult to take you seriously when you maliciously misquote people trying to discuss with you.

 

[Trident_H]

Yes, it would reduce the amount of men left single just as polygyny can reduce the amount of women left single if there was a surplus of women. It’s simple math.

Polygyny can increase the population and polyandry can decrease a population. The latter is just one of the things that China can use.

Did you used to ride in the spin cycle a lot as a kid? Why are we going in these kind of circles? We already together, hand in hand, figured out that a many guy to girl set-up doesn’t usually work. Like it’s a far minority. Like almost never actually happens. So making a push for polygamy in China would just have rich guys picking up more of the eligible girls while even more guys started hanging out frustrated at the bars.

Polyandry isn’t a net win for most guys and girls. So the likelihood is that polygyny would gain more traction with the rich and famous.

Even fewer girls = even fewer girls. Not more. Fewer is less than more. So fail. x 2

First, your original claim was about GOD and not parents.

My claim was about WHY God would do that. As in for our benefit. I wasn’t sticking God into a tin can and saying he can’t get out.

Secondly, there’s a difference between IMMORALITY and ‘mistakes’ done out of error. If an employee kept doing immoral things like trying to murder, steal, commit adultery, then his butt is out. In fact, according to the OT he’s supposed to be DEAD - stoned to death as a punishment! Remember, God should not be showing favoritism.

It would also be stupid for someone to reward, help out, and state that such an employee is not doing anything wrong IF the act is indeed wrong. God did this for polygamists. This point of mine you keep skipping over.

From God’s POV that employee pocketing extra erasers is still in the wrong. He’s stealing. So yeah, there was a time when we’d cut his hands off. Now we just give him a warning. Do you see a movement towards a more civil society with time? If so, why would you want to reach all the way back to the beginning of ignorance to scrape up a ‘progressive’ morality that magically suits you?

And ah. You’re still forgetting to answer the unanswerable. Like how you’d manage your harem fairly.

Remember this?
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=13898929#post13898929

 

[AgnosticBoy]

Did you used to ride in the spin cycle a lot as a kid? Why are we going in these kind of circles?

Some of your questions are getting a bit insulting. I request that you please stop. Back to the topic of the thread…

We already together, hand in hand, figured out that a many guy to girl set-up doesn’t usually work. Like it’s a far minority. Like almost never actually happens. So making a push for polygamy in China would just have rich guys picking up more of the eligible girls while even more guys started hanging out frustrated at the bars.

Yes, we’ve already went over this issue but please consider I bring it up again because my last point about it was never answered and/or I disagreed with some of your points. First off, what you’re saying is pure speculation unless you have actual survey or polls showing who would engage in what in Asia. Secondly, it’s hard to ‘fairly’ assess this matter when people are threatened with imprisonment by Law and aren’t presented with a fair picture of how it can be. If you paint them a picture of FLDS then they’re likely not to be tolerant, but if you paint them a picture based on previous relationships that are based on consent, and that can potentially be a better option than staying single.

My claim was about WHY God would do that. As in for our benefit. I wasn’t sticking God into a tin can and saying he can’t get out.

Good, because based on the facts of my last post to you, God is omnipresent and omnipotent so by His very nature he would know about all sins even if He doesn’t act on all of them. But like I told you before, when God calls polygamous RIGHTEOUS then logically-speaking He will not be calling polygamy a sin.

From God’s POV that employee pocketing extra erasers is still in the wrong. He’s stealing. So yeah, there was a time when we’d cut his hands off.

That was the OT, where we would also stone to death adulterers. Can you find me where one polygamist was called out for adultery and subsequently stoned? Can you explain this in light of my point about God intervening in these relationships to help them prosper and even calling them righteous?

Now we just give him a warning. Do you see a movement towards a more civil society with time? If so, why would you want to reach all the way back to the beginning of ignorance to scrape up a ‘progressive’ morality that magically suits you?

God’s moral law is not progressive. Giving out a warning involves telling someone that they are wrong and expecting them not to do it again. God never told anyone that polygamy was wrong, in fact, he calls it righteous.

And ah. You’re still forgetting to answer the unanswerable. Like how you’d manage your harem fairly.

Consent.

 

[Trident_H]

Some of your questions are getting a bit insulting. I request that you please stop. Back to the topic of the thread…

Sorry. I sometimes get a bit carried away. It was just funny to picture. I mean I had a mental image of a little you in a–oh never mind.

I guess we know who’s the adult in the room here.

Yes, we’ve already went over this issue but please consider I bring it up again because my last point about it was never answered and/or I disagreed with some of your points. First off, what you’re saying is pure speculation unless you have actual survey or polls showing who would engage in what in Asia. Secondly, it’s hard to ‘fairly’ assess this matter when people are threatened with imprisonment by Law and aren’t presented with a fair picture of how it can be. If you paint them a picture of FLDS then they’re likely not to be tolerant, but if you paint them a picture based on previous relationships that are based on consent, and that can potentially be a better option than staying single.

I just don’t see how complicated this is to un-imagine. I mean just take a stab at what the likely outcome would be. Knowing guys and girls already. I can’t see Asia being that incredibly different. If they were they would’ve done this by now. In spades.

But that could be the idea for a new ironic sit-com, hey? “5 Guys and a Pregnant Gal.” Great show concept. Ready to order.

Good, because based on the facts of my last post to you, God is omnipresent and omnipotent so by His very nature he would know about all sins even if He doesn’t act on all of them. But like I told you before, when God calls polygamous RIGHTEOUS then logically-speaking He will not be calling polygamy a sin.

If God called David Righteous, you have no clear idea why. I mean by your logic, every single thing David did was therefore righteous. I mean maybe David chewed with his mouth open and made slurping sounds when he drank. I don’t think we’d all line up and automate that into the righteous department. More likely it just applied to the best thing David ever did. And that was about as complicated as it needed to be. So that on the average, he was righteous. But only on the average of his life’s deeds.

Or maybe God’s more of a skater type. And was using the term ironically?

That was the OT, where we would also stone to death adulterers. Can you find me where one polygamist was called out for adultery and subsequently stoned? Can you explain this in light of my point about God intervening in these relationships to help them prosper and even calling them righteous?

I was pointing the stick at them being formed and thought of during the same time. God didn’t have to condemn it for it to still be sub-par. Remember slavery? That little issue didn’t seem to bother God a whole lot back then either. So polygamy and slavery are sort of contemporary companions. They both existed in a time and place when people were not really thought deeply about as individuals as often as they maybe should’ve been. But then subsistence living usually has that effect.

God’s moral law is not progressive. Giving out a warning involves telling someone that they are wrong and expecting them not to do it again. God never told anyone that polygamy was wrong, in fact, he calls it righteous.

See above. And ah. See above.

Consent.

So you’ve got 3 wives. And they want to bring in the neighbor across the street who just doesn’t turn your crank in any way. But you want to add a new 25 year-old hot girl (or maybe for you -]14/-] 17 is old enough. I have no idea.) And you’re like, “Let’s vote!” and the vote goes against you. So you just smile and give everyone a big hug and throw a party?

Or do you get to veto it? Or do you marry both in a spirit of compromise?

And when they have their eyes on a couple of really rough and tumble guys (like, idk, for example, your’s truly), then you’re cool with them each picking one and inviting him to marry the group of you? At what point does the group get too large? Like can the guys who just came in bring in 4 or 5 girls each of their own? And can those girls add to the pile? Until each Saturday’s something of a routine? Until maybe you don’t even know for sure who you’re married to and who is just visiting from out of town?

I mean who’s in charge of the whole scene anyway when marrying is an open door run by committee?

Better hang on to your wedding clothes in any case. They’re gonna get a lot of use.

 

[AgnosticBoy]

I just don’t see how complicated this is to un-imagine. I mean just take a stab at what the likely outcome would be. Knowing guys and girls already. I can’t see Asia being that incredibly different. If they were they would’ve done this by now. In spades.

Behaviors can be drastically different across cultures. In some countries, they don’t marry out of love but instead do so out of arrangements. Over 300 years ago, the Western world was also not too high on marrying out of love. Anyways these are just one of many examples.

More specifically towards woman with multiple men relationships, they are out there, especially among the ‘polyamory’ crowd. I’ve experienced people coming to accept polygamy after they see good examples of how it can work. There are a lot of dull and lifeless monogamous marriages out there so really, I can’t imagine people not becoming curious about polygamy once they know about, and are given the option to FREELY practice it (as opposed to be forced, brainwashed, or suppressed and imprisoned by laws).

If God called David Righteous, you have no clear idea why. I mean by your logic, every single thing David did was therefore righteous. I mean maybe David chewed with his mouth open and made slurping sounds when he drank. I don’t think we’d all line up and automate that into the righteous department. More likely it just applied to the best thing David ever did. And that was about as complicated as it needed to be. So that on the average, he was righteous. But only on the average of his life’s deeds.

The part of your post that I changed to bold font is clear speculation on your part, and a false one at that. You can determine what God is calling righteous if he specifies or by looking at the immediate context like you can in the following passages:

2 Chronicles 24:2-3 (timeline of story is after the Law was given)
2 Joash did what was right in the eyes of the Lord all the years of Jehoiada the priest. 3 Jehoiada chose two wives for him, and he had sons and daughters.

Here you have Jehoiada, who was entrusted with leading Israel, entrusted with God’s covenant, and entrusted with God’s law, giving ONE man TWO wives. Then the man who accepted the two wives is called righteous “in the eyes of the LORD” and all this takes place in one thought, immediately following each other.

I was pointing the stick at them being formed and thought of during the same time. God didn’t have to condemn it for it to still be sub-par. Remember slavery? That little issue didn’t seem to bother God a whole lot back then either. So polygamy and slavery are sort of contemporary companions. They both existed in a time and place when people were not really thought deeply about as individuals as often as they maybe should’ve been. But then subsistence living usually has that effect.

The need or lack of need for something does not determine if it’s moral or not. God’s law sets the standards for what’s moral and slavery along with polygamy are not among the sins listed.

So you’ve got 3 wives. And they want to bring in the neighbor across the street who just doesn’t turn your crank in any way. But you want to add a new 25 year-old hot girl (or maybe for you -]14/-] 17 is old enough. I have no idea.) And you’re like, “Let’s vote!” and the vote goes against you. So you just smile and give everyone a big hug and throw a party?

Or do you get to veto it? Or do you marry both in a spirit of compromise?

In my view, no one should be adding an additional partner or spouse unless all adults agree to it. Before a polygamous relationship even starts, it should be discussed the type of polygamy a married couple is looking for because they should be well aware that polygamy can be practiced with any combination of genders and any combination of sexual orientations. With that said, wife #1 should be well aware that if she accepts or okays a wife#2 that that doesn’t mean that the husband is going to be okay with a husband #2. Nor does he have to - meanwhile wife #1 is okay with wife #2 at least. This is not a tit-for-tat game. ALL adults should be okay with a situation before entering into it. If wife #1 doesn’t like it, then she should be free to leave.

 

[Tomdstone]

2 Samuel 12:8,
God said that if David’s wives and concubines were not enough, He would have given David even more. So if God would have given a man several wives, even after he already has several, how can it be wrong?

 

[Trident_H]

Behaviors can be drastically different across cultures. In some countries, they don’t marry out of love but instead do so out of arrangements. Over 300 years ago, the Western world was also not too high on marrying out of love. Anyways these are just one of many examples.

More specifically towards woman with multiple men relationships, they are out there, especially among the ‘polyamory’ crowd. I’ve experienced people coming to accept polygamy after they see good examples of how it can work. There are a lot of dull and lifeless monogamous marriages out there so really, I can’t imagine people not becoming curious about polygamy once they know about, and are given the option to FREELY practice it (as opposed to be forced, brainwashed, or suppressed and imprisoned by laws).

Yeah. Especially the pedophile crowd. They seem to get really excited when these laws start leaving normal at the door.

Tell me why you won’t be accepting their claim that them and a houseful of children is just way too ideal to pass up?

With the proper laws why couldn’t these communes work too?

You complain about laws that were put in place AFTER abuses of the kind I’ve mentioned before actually happened. Again and again. And you just blithely ignore them as if somehow this time around will be different. Why will it be different? Because a ‘reality’ TV show showed how sparkly the forbidden was and made it seem normal? Was that all it took?

If you were truly as objective and fair as you pretend shouldn’t it be you pointing out both pros and cons and being honest about the balance of probabilities? But no. Instead you slide all the way flat and pretend it’s all good and no bad. I keep asking you how the ‘good’ in it outweighs the potential bad and you never seem to have a straight answer.

The part of your post that I changed to bold font is **clear speculation on your part, **

Just trying to keep up with you.

and a false one at that. You can determine what God is calling righteous if he specifies or by looking at the immediate context like you can in the following passages:

2 Chronicles 24:2-3 (timeline of story is after the Law was given)
2 Joash did what was right in the eyes of the Lord all the years of Jehoiada the priest. 3 Jehoiada chose two wives for him, and he had sons and daughters.

Here you have Jehoiada, who was entrusted with leading Israel, entrusted with God’s covenant, and entrusted with God’s law, giving ONE man TWO wives. Then the man who accepted the two wives is called righteous “in the eyes of the LORD” and all this takes place in one thought, immediately following each other.

Notice something funny about your example? The wives were given as GIFTS. For being right in the eyes of the Lord. Like property. Just typical of polygamy. So is your argument that we should go back to giving women away as gifts? Why is ‘polygamy is righteous’ the only take-away from that? Shouldn’t the full message be: if you are good you deserve to be given women? The better you are, the more you get?

The need or lack of need for something does not determine if it’s moral or not. God’s law sets the standards for what’s moral and slavery along with polygamy are not among the sins listed.

That was my point: God did not list every single sin for all time. He just focused on the ones that needed fixing first.

** In my view**,

Once Polygamy is made a complete free-for-all why do you think anyone will be paying any attention to your view?

no one should be adding an additional partner or spouse unless all adults agree to it.
Before a polygamous relationship even starts, it should be discussed the type of polygamy a married couple is looking for because they should be well aware that polygamy can be practiced with any combination of genders and any combination of sexual orientations. With that said, wife #1 should be well aware that if she accepts or okays a wife#2 that that doesn’t mean that the husband is going to be okay with a husband #2. Nor does he have to

Why not? Doesn’t that mean Husband #1 is basically the dominant figure in the house? If it’s supposed to be an open-honest-to-goodness-free-love-fest-of-equals why would the women automatically not be able to have opposite-sex partners brought in if the male can do that? This doesn’t seem at all balanced. Nor fair. Nor equal. Nor honestly a real tribunal of equals.

I mean after all, what is a real tribunal of equals if the rules say at the beginning that only -]some members/-] one member on the team can have their ultimate fantasies rewarded while other members just have to put-up or shut-up? Sounds a lot like 2 classes of people in your imaginary household.

• meanwhile wife #1 is okay with wife #2 at least. This is not a tit-for-tat game. ALL adults should be okay with a situation before entering into it. If wife #1 doesn’t like it, then she should be free to leave.

What if wife #1 and #2 decide they don’t like the original rules and so vote to change them? Would you have to leave if you disagreed?

 

[clem456]

2 Samuel 12:8,
God said that if David’s wives and concubines were not enough, He would have given David even more. So if God would have given a man several wives, even after he already has several, how can it be wrong?

Why do you read the Bible so rigidly?

 

[Tomdstone]

Why do you read the Bible so rigidly?

Because God can not do something which is morally wrong and God Himself said that He would give David more wives. David already had several wives at that time. So any argument which says that polygamy is morally wrong cannot be valid.