Why is polygamy wrong?

[PRmerger]

Polygamy is not against the natural law and was allowed in the OT.

Do you mean that it was* recorded *in the OT?

After all, fratricide was recorded in the OT, but it would be erroneous to say, “fratricide was allowed in the OT”, yes?

 

[Tomdstone]

Do you mean that it was* recorded *in the OT?

After all, fratricide was recorded in the OT, but it would be erroneous to say, “fratricide was allowed in the OT”, yes?

God said he would have given David more wives even though David already had several wives. God cannot do something immoral.

 

[PRmerger]

God said he would have given David more wives even though David already had several wives. God cannot do something immoral.

Can you cite the passage, please?

 

[Tomdstone]

Can you cite the passage, please?

After moving from Hebron to Jerusalem, David married more concubines and wives, and he had more sons and daughters. 2 Samuel 5:13
I gave you your master’s house and his wives and the kingdoms of Israel and Judah. And if that had not been enough, I would have given you much, much more. 2 Samuel 12:8

 

[PRmerger]

After moving from Hebron to Jerusalem, David married more concubines and wives, and he had more sons and daughters. 2 Samuel 5:13
I gave you your master’s house and his wives and the kingdoms of Israel and Judah. And if that had not been enough, I would have given you much, much more. 2 Samuel 12:8

LOL!

I knew that I hadn’t ever read that God would have offered David more wives, as you asserted.

No, Tom. Just, no.

We could use that passage, using your paradigm, to say, “God even ‘would have offered’ David an entire tribe of pygmies as his slaves, therefore God sanctions racial enslavement”.

 

[Tomdstone]

LOL!

I knew that I hadn’t ever read that God would have offered David more wives, as you asserted.

No, Tom. Just, no.

We could use that passage, using your paradigm, to say, “God even ‘would have offered’ David an entire tribe of pygmies as his slaves, therefore God sanctions racial enslavement”.

The passage mentions nothing about pygmies or slaves.

 

[PRmerger]

The passage mentions nothing about pygmies or slaves.

Nor does it mention God offering more wives.

It simply says “much, much more.”

 

[Trident_H]

How about my points about Genesis 29:30-33 where God was concerned about a man not loving TWO women and then God direct intervention to help out that unique polygamous situation?

How about my point about 2 Chronicles 24:2-3?

I don’t know man. I’m not a big Chronicles reader. Can’t we just let me win on that so I don’t have to go dusting off my bible and stuff? I’m not like you. I don’t memorize bible passages. So I’m gonna just go with “God didn’t think it was fantastic that the guy was in a polygamous relationship. But He also didn’t think it was terrible. It was the way things were back then. Back when women were 2nd class. So adding an extra helping didn’t hurt anyone’s feelings.”

No body is advocating for a all-polygyny or all-polyandry society. Polygamy is not for everyone. Secondly, seeing how many failed or unsatisfactory monogamous marriages are out there, I’d be worried more about the quality of spouses rather than the quantity of one gender over another.

I know you’re not advocating for that. I’m just pointing a stick in your eye and commenting out loud that letting one guy do it will make a lot of guys want to. When you’ve got a 50/50 guy-girl ratio to start with the math is pointing out that 1 polygamy camp is too many already.

Polygamy could serve as a safety net but that is not the biblical basis for what’s moral and what’s not. God’s moral law is not progressive nor do the rules bend to necessity. If you want to set that precedent then we can approve all sort of things that doesn’t align to your Church.

How do you know that God’s moral law is not progressive? I don’t remember us being all that worried about eating shellfish these days. Yet at one time it was a no. So it progressed, didn’t it?

Being a gift does not take away from the moral issue. Is it moral to offer someone two wives and for the person to accept that “gift” and have kids with the two wives? The immediate context indicates that the acts were moral on multiple levels.

The gift was a reward. It’s pretty plain to see the cause and effect going on. The guy was righteous AND SO the priest grabbed him a couple of hotties off the shelf. Would it be moral now? No. Was it Ok then? Sure. People were dropping like flies back then. Especially men in war. So a multiplier marriage arrangement made sense. These days that’s not the case. So that type of deal does not make sense.

There are no ceremonies for marriages in the Bible. Men took women and just had kids with them and all of the sudden the two were married. If you look at 2 Chronicles 24:2-3 this is exactly how it happens. In the same passage we hear about a Joash being given two wives and then all the sudden the author says Joash had sons and daughters.

Yeah. But you’re forgetting who GAVE him the wives. Didn’t some kind of priest guy do that?

My 2 Chronicles passage also mentions that he did what was right in the eyes of the Lord and then it immediately mention that he was given two wives. Does it make sense to you that a guy is doing so good that a priest who is also supposed to be righteous turns around and offers him a sinful gift? I’m baffled that the author of 2 Chronicles would’ve shot himself in the foot by trying to paint of a picture of a righteous man and then in the same thought bring up a blatant act of sin.

I’m making the point that polygamy itself wasn’t righteous, but just acceptable. You’re making the point that if it wasn’t outright sinful it must have been righteous? But then don’t you fall off that horse once we remind each other about slavery also being acceptable at the same time? But not considered righteous?

Wait. Haven’t we talked about this already?

Thank you for specifying mainstream polygamy… …This is progress in the right direction.

Um. You’re welcome? I guess?

Well as long as the threat of criminalization is taken out for just simply having multiple spouses (some spouses being unlicensed), then I’m in agreement with you. If it’s too difficult to figure out tax benefits or too much of a burden to rewrite tax laws to suit polygamists then you can have your tax benefits. Just don’t call polygamy an abuse unless you have a dang good reason other than not being able to figure out taxes.

Ok. Have fun doing those taxes BTW.

If I wanted polygamy, then there should be an agreement beforehand on the type of polygamy, because as I said it can be practiced not just with any combination of genders but also any combination of sexual orientations. I’m real interested on what you’d say if 3 men wanted to marry or a bisexual.

I’d say they’re probably not needing to marry. They can have the time of their lives as it is right now. Without a big wedding with extra spaces needed on the marriage certificate.

Are you asking if my having multiple women trumps the woman wanting to have a balance (as in multiple husbands)? I would say yes, if it was agreed to beforehand that an extra wife can be added and also agreed beforehand that there’d be no additional husbands. It’s all a matter of WHEN the wife brought up the idea of multiple husbands.

Why would you have an issue with that though? I mean just spell it out for me if you don’t mind.

I would not add a wife #3. Keep in mind, that I would not be adding a wife just for the hek of it. I also have to care about the potential new wife and I also want her to be a benefit and support for wife #1 and all of the family overall.

So just 2 wives? That’s it? Why bother going to the effort of legalizing polygamy just for that? Why not just have an open marriage deal?

 

[AgnosticBoy]

That opinion is predicated on the indissolubility of marriage, notwithstanding that Moses allowed divorce (dissolution). Thus, while that viewpoint is only opinion, it is favourable to my assertions about divorce, which in turn demonstrate the error in drawing conclusions about what is moral from what was done or allowed in OT times.

Polygamy was not simply allowed in the OT, God approved it Himself by blessing and helping polygamist. God even calls some of them righteous.

Do you have a response for why Matthew 19:9 and 1 Corinthians 7:10-11 talk about valid divorces?

Can you also show me where polygamy is a sin? Romans 7:7 says thst i would not have known what sin was except by the Law. Going by that passage, there’s no mention of needing to wait for more revelation from the NT to comprehend what moral laws were. So using Paul’s rationale from Romans, i can use the OT and with that i can reasonably conclude polygamy is moral.

 

[PRmerger]

Polygamy was not simply allowed in the OT, God approved it Himself by blessing and helping polygamist. God even calls some of them righteous.

You’ll have to show where God calls them righteous because of their polygamy.

However, since God blesses and helps a whole lot of us, who, every single one of us is a sinner (save for 1), it seems a stretch to say that when God blesses, say, Donald Trump that this equates to: “therefore God approves of mocking and ridiculing those with disabilities”.

(Please google the video of Donald Trump mocking a disabled journalist. I have not been given permission to post it).

 

[AgnosticBoy]

I don’t know man. I’m not a big Chronicles reader. Can’t we just let me win on that so I don’t have to go dusting off my bible and stuff? I’m not like you. I don’t memorize bible passages. So I’m gonna just go with “God didn’t think it was fantastic that the guy was in a polygamous relationship. But He also didn’t think it was terrible. It was the way things were back then. Back when women were 2nd class. So adding an extra helping didn’t hurt anyone’s feelings.”

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.

I know you’re not advocating for that. I’m just pointing a stick in your eye and commenting out loud that letting one guy do it will make a lot of guys want to. When you’ve got a 50/50 guy-girl ratio to start with the math is pointing out that 1 polygamy camp is too many already.

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.

How do you know that God’s moral law is not progressive? I don’t remember us being all that worried about eating shellfish these days. Yet at one time it was a no. So it progressed, didn’t it?

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.

The gift was a reward. It’s pretty plain to see the cause and effect going on. The guy was righteous AND SO the priest grabbed him a couple of hotties off the shelf. Would it be moral now? No. Was it Ok then? Sure. People were dropping like flies back then. Especially men in war. So a multiplier marriage arrangement made sense. These days that’s not the case. So that type of deal does not make sense.

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. Saying that reward=immorality is illogical because A) you have not proven such a claim and B) it’s possible for a reward to be a moral thing.

Again, the immediate context shows that a righteous leader is offering a righteous man two wives, and all this is within a portrait of a man being righteous which is what the author is trying to paint.

Yeah. But you’re forgetting who GAVE him the wives. Didn’t some kind of priest guy do that?

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).

I’m making the point that polygamy itself wasn’t righteous, but just acceptable. You’re making the point that if it wasn’t outright sinful it must have been righteous? But then don’t you fall off that horse once we remind each other about slavery also being acceptable at the same time? But not considered righteous?

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?

Please realize that what you’re saying does not make any sense whatsoever.

Why would you have an issue with that though? I mean just spell it out for me if you don’t mind.

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.

So just 2 wives? That’s it? Why bother going to the effort of legalizing polygamy just for that? Why not just have an open marriage deal?

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.

 

[AgnosticBoy]

You’ll have to show where God calls them righteous because of their polygamy.

However, since God blesses and helps a whole lot of us, who, every single one of us is a sinner (save for 1), it seems a stretch to say that when God blesses, say, Donald Trump that this equates to: “therefore God approves of mocking and ridiculing those with disabilities”.

(Please google the video of Donald Trump mocking a disabled journalist. I have not been given permission to post it).

There are two ways that I’ve used to show that polygamy is not a sin or is moral on biblical terms.

1. One way is to show God intervening in a polygamous relationship by helping it function, providing troubleshooting, making protective laws. God is all-good, therefore it follows that his actions are all-good. God helping polygamy function shows that polygamy is good. Please refer to Genesis 29:30-33 and Deuteronomy 21:15-16 where it shows God helping a polygamous relationship function better.
2. Another way is to look at God’s judgement(s) towards those who practice polygamy and so far it has been favorable. King David was said to have a heart for God but yet he was a known polygamist (1 Kings 15:3-4 and 1 Kings 11;4). I saved my favorite for last but 2 Chronicles 24:2-3 talks about a man being righteous and in the very next passage it mentions the man living a polygamous lifestyle.

 

[Tomdstone]

There are two ways that I’ve used to show that polygamy is not a sin or is moral on biblical terms.

1. One way is to show God intervening in a polygamous relationship by helping it function, providing troubleshooting, making protective laws. God is all-good, therefore it follows that his actions are all-good. God helping polygamy function shows that polygamy is good. Please refer to Genesis 29:30-33 and Deuteronomy 21:15-16 where it shows God helping a polygamous relationship function better.
2. Another way is to look at God’s judgement(s) towards those who practice polygamy and so far it has been favorable. King David was said to have a heart for God but yet he was a known polygamist (1 Kings 15:3-4 and 1 Kings 11;4). I saved my favorite for last but 2 Chronicles 24:2-3 talks about a man being righteous and in the very next passage it mentions the man living a polygamous lifestyle.

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.

 

[PRmerger]

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.

But you can’t show where it was commanded.

 

[PRmerger]

There are two ways that I’ve used to show that polygamy is not a sin or is moral on biblical terms.

You are on a Catholic forum.

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

1. One way is to show God intervening in a polygamous relationship by helping it function, providing troubleshooting, making protective laws. God is all-good, therefore it follows that his actions are all-good. God helping polygamy function shows that polygamy is good. Please refer to Genesis 29:30-33 and Deuteronomy 21:15-16 where it shows God helping a polygamous relationship function better.

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

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

Do you see the faulty logic you’re proposing when I offer that as analogy?

1. Another way is to look at God’s judgement(s) towards those who practice polygamy and so far it has been favorable. King David was said to have a heart for God but yet he was a known polygamist (1 Kings 15:3-4 and 1 Kings 11;4). I saved my favorite for last but 2 Chronicles 24:2-3 talks about a man being righteous and in the very next passage it mentions the man living a polygamous lifestyle.

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.

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

You should know that this is NOT the Catholic view.

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.

 

[Thorolfr]

But you can’t show where it was commanded.

But neither can it be shown where it was ever forbidden, even though many other things were forbidden like wearing clothes made from two different kinds of material mixed together, planting two different kinds of crops in the same field, etc.

 

[PRmerger]

But neither can it be shown where it was ever forbidden, even though many other things were forbidden like wearing clothes made from two different kinds of material mixed together, planting two different kinds of crops in the same field, etc.

Right.

That’s why we don’t get our morality or doctrines from the Bible.

 

[AgnosticBoy]

Right.

That’s why we don’t get our morality or doctrines from the Bible.

Who is we? Your claim is false if you’re referring to the Church because the whole idea of monogamous marriage comes from Jesus’ teachings (according to Catholic teaching).

It’s not a coincidence that virtually all moral laws of the OT happen to be the same moral laws that the Church holds onto.

 

[PRmerger]

Who is we? Your claim is false if you’re referring to the Church because the whole idea of monogamous marriage comes from Jesus’ teachings (according to Catholic teaching).

You are mistaken in assuming that we limit Jesus’ teachings to a book.

We do not get our doctrines or morality from a book, no matter how holy.

Perhaps you thought you were on a Fundamentalist Bible forum?

It’s not a coincidence that virtually all moral laws of the OT happen to be the same moral laws that the Church holds onto.

Right. Because the Church chose which books belong in the Bible, right?

 

[PRmerger]

Who is we? Your claim is false if you’re referring to the Church because the whole idea of monogamous marriage comes from Jesus’ teachings (according to Catholic teaching)

You will have to forgive me if I have you on the default position of “A Poster Who Comes To A Catholic Forum Who Knows Catholicism Only Peripherally”.

That’s just the majority of folks who come here.

I do not blame you for not knowing what Catholicism professes, but if you are going to come to a Catholic forum, and try to dialogue with knowledgeable Catholics, you should know some basic things about Catholicism.

(And let me pre-empt any objection that may be forthcoming: “I was an altar boy for 5 years!” “I was taught by nuns for 2 years!” “My real name is Aloysius Ignatius, so believe me when I say I was brought up Catholic!”…with: even so, you were poorly catechized).

So one basic thing you should know is that we do not glean our doctrines from a book.

As our Catechism says: Still, the Christian faith is not a “religion of the book.”
vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p1s1c2a3.htm

Our faith comes from a Person, delivered, once for all, to the Saints.

And our faith was whole and entire before a single word of the NT was put to writ.