Christian Polygamy? - Page 7

Hezzer · 05-06-2008, 09:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ajani

Re: The Trinity not being mentioned. Neither are computers, but they exist. Father, Son, Holy Spirit make up what people over the centuries have come to call the Trinity. It's just giving a name to the triune existance of God.

My reasons for not believing in the Trinity have less to do with it not being mentioned in the Bible and more to do with too many scriptures in the Bible not harmonizing with such a belief.

I believe in God. I believe in Jesus as the first born heavenly son of God. And I believe in the holy spirit which God uses to accomplish his purposes. But I do not believe they they are combined into a Trinity.

Jashobeam · 05-06-2008, 10:44 AM

Hezzer- So you don't believe Christ is God?

Hezzer · 05-06-2008, 10:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jashobeam

Hezzer- So you don't believe Christ is God?

No, I believe that he is the first-born son of God.

sarahgmac · 05-06-2008, 10:55 AM

I have read the bible cover to cover many times.

Although it is not called the Holy Trinity, God is mentioned in 3 forms:

1. God the Omnipresent
2. God in human form (Jesus)
3. God in your heart and soul (Holy Spirit)

I am curious what part of the scripture doesn't harmonize with this (I would like to look it up)

PBLayzod · 05-06-2008, 11:10 AM

This is way I'm no longer a Theist, much less a x-ian. The more I studied, the less any of it made sense. I studied with people of different denominations and they could always point out the scriptures to support their view. I could see how they understood it to mean something I didn't believe. There was just no way to have a definitive answer on anything. There was always at least 2 (or 100) interpretations for everything. I'm current a Deist and may eventually return to x-ianity, but I will have to suspend reason to do so. (BTW I studied Biblical Greek and actually did my own translations or the Greek texts. I studied Theology and Religion in college and have the shelves of text books to prove it. There's nothing wrong with suspending reason to believe something, but I just can't believe any more that there is proof of any of it.)

X is the Greek letter chi that was used as short hand for Christ in the the early church, so I'm not saying x-ian to be disrespectful.

lachicarubia · 05-06-2008, 11:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hezzer

Look back through all the the other posts. It would be way to redundant to keep posting them when they're already there.

Numerous verses have been cited from the Christian Greek scriptures that specifically mention only having *one* wife - one of which quotes Jesus himself. You can't get a much more Christian veiw than that.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hezzer

Since you couched your question in terms of "Christian polygamy" then the answer is no - regardless of my personal feelings (though for the record, I am opposed).

To be Christian, you must be living in harmony with the teachings of Jesus Christ. Jesus restated his father’s words back in the garden of Eden when he said in Matthew 19: 4-6: 4 In reply he said: “Did YOU not read that he who created them from [the] beginning made them male and female 5 and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and his mother and will stick to his wife, and the two will be one flesh’? 6 So that they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore, what God has yoked together let no man put apart.”

The apostle Paul reiterated that teaching in Ephesians 5:28-31: 28 In this way husbands ought to be loving their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself, 29 for no man ever hated his own flesh; but he feeds and cherishes it, as the Christ also does the congregation, 30 because we are members of his body. 31 “For this reason a man will leave [his] father and [his] mother and he will stick to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.”

To even hold privileges in the congregation the requirement was that you must have only one wife as shown in 1 Timothy 3:2: 2 The overseer should therefore be irreprehensible, a husband of one wife . . .

Those who practice polygamy often justify it by referring to what is recorded in the Hebrew scriptures (Old Testament). But it was clearly not God’s original purpose when he created Adam and gave him just one wife, Eve, as said in Genesis 2 That is why a man will leave his father and his mother and he must stick to his wife and they must become one flesh.”

The practice of polygamy did not originate with God. The first mention of it was when Lamech, a descendant of Cain, took two wives. But when the flood of Noah’s day came, Noah and his three sons only had one wife each. The polygamists were all killed in the flood.

Centuries later, when God chose the Israelites as his people, the practice already existed among them – though the more common practice was only one wife. He did not break up families at that time, but instead regulated it. Clearly it was only temporary because the formation of the Christian congregation ended it. At that time, the standard of marriage returned to what he had instituted in the beginning.

I am assuming that this post (above) with these scriptures are the ones you are refering to?

NONE of these scriptures declare polygamy to be a sin. Just because it was not common, doesn't mean that it was a SIN. Just because the modern Jews don't practice polygamy, even though their forefathers did, doesn't mean that it is a SIN. Just because God created 1 man and 1 woman, and has encouraged man to leave his father and mother and cleave unto his wife, doesn't mean that polygamy is a SIN.

Just because Paul taught the Ephesians to love their wives, doesn't mean that polygamy is a sin.

Just because having more than one wife is difficult, and can lead to contention, and can lead a man's heart away from the true God (like Solomon), doesn't mean that polygamy is a SIN.

Just because it would be better for a king or leader or a bishop (and my own DH hehe) to only have one wife so he can concentrate on his duties better, it doesn't mean that those who choose (legal) polygamy are committing a SIN.

And just because polygamy is not considered a SIN, it doesn't mean that everybody HAS to have more than one wife. Just because it was allowed, doesn't mean that everybody HAD to have more than 1 wife.

Just the fact that Timothy had to clarify that a bishop should be the husband of 1 wife shows that there MUST have been some men who had more than one wife at that time, or he would not have even mentioned it. In the following verse he continues to describe the attributes of a bishop, 1 Timothy 3:3 "Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous."

Should we declare that drinking wine was/is a sin, now? According to your own reasoning, it looks like all you wine drinkers are sinners, too. Looks like you can't be a Christian if you drink wine.

Hezzer · 05-06-2008, 12:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lachicarubia

Just the fact that Timothy had to clarify that a bishop should be the husband of 1 wife shows that there MUST have been some men who had more than one wife at that time, or he would not have even mentioned it.

True. What it is showing is that polygamists were not acceptable in the congregation as overseers. And since overseers were to be an example to the flock, the flock should follow that lead.

Secondly, all personal opiniin aside, the Bible tells us to be in subjection to the superior authorities (Romans 13:1), and in this case polygamy is illegal in most countries. The only time I would disobey secular authority is when it conflicts with God's commandments (Acts 5:29). For instance, many men in my religion went to prision during the Vietnam War because they refused to go to war.

Quote:

Originally Posted by lachicarubia

Should we declare that drinking wine was/is a sin, now? According to your own reasoning, it looks like all you wine drinkers are sinners, too. Looks like you can't be a Christian if you drink wine.

To "be given to" wine denotes drunkeness or drinking in excess. Yes that is a sin. Merely drinking wine or alcohol in general is not.

If it were, Jesus wouldn't have turned water into wine at a wedding feast (John 2:7-10). Nor would Paul have suggested that Timothy drink a little wine for the sake of his bad stomach (1 Timothy 5:23).

lj2blessed · 05-06-2008, 12:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lachicarubia

Should we declare that drinking wine was/is a sin, now? According to your own reasoning, it looks like all you wine drinkers are sinners, too. Looks like you can't be a Christian if you drink wine.

No, the bible never says that drinking wine in itself is a sin, but drinking in excess (same as doing anything in excess = gluttony), is not holy. Why would Jesus turn water in to wine if it was a sin to drink it? It has never been one, so please don't poke fun that way...

lachicarubia · 05-06-2008, 01:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hezzer

To "be given to" wine denotes drunkeness or drinking in excess. Yes that is a sin. Merely drinking wine or alcohol in general is not.

If it were, Jesus wouldn't have turned water into wine at a wedding feast (John 2:7-10). Nor would Paul have suggested that Timothy drink a little wine for the sake of his bad stomach (1 Timothy 5:23).

Quote:

Originally Posted by lj2blessed

No, the bible never says that drinking wine in itself is a sin, but drinking in excess (same as doing anything in excess = gluttony), is not holy. Why would Jesus turn water in to wine if it was a sin to drink it? It has never been one, so please don't poke fun that way...

My point exactly.

I was NOT poking fun, only showing how the reasoning the Hezzer had used, by quoting these scripture to try to declare that polygamy is a sin, was just as false as using the next scripture in 1 Timothy to declare that those who drink wine are sinners, and not Christians.

It is FALSE reasoning.

The scriptures that she quoted don't prove that polygamy is a SIN, just as the verse that I quoted doesn't prove that drinking wine is a SIN.

Unfortunately, many churches use a ton of FALSE/TWISTED reasoning from the scriptures to TRY to prove that what they believe is correct and that what everyone else believes if wrong......
Don't you just wish the Jesus Himself would come down here to let us know what really is the TRUTH, and straighten this whole mess out? That would certainly settle all of these religious arguements between the members of all the different churches.

lachicarubia · 05-06-2008, 01:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hezzer

Secondly, all personal opiniin aside, the Bible tells us to be in subjection to the superior authorities (Romans 13:1), and in this case polygamy is illegal in most countries.

To this I TOTALLY agree, and had already mentioned that, you must have missed it in my first post:

Quote:

Originally Posted by lachicarubia

Since polygamy is not a sin, than, yes, it is possible for Christians to practice polygamy, if it is legal in their country.

In the USA, it is not legal to have more than one wife, so those who wish to practice polygamy must first legally divorce the first wife, so he can marry the second. Since he is no longer legally married to the first wife, the gov't can't charge him with a crime, but then he is also committing adultery, which IS a sin.

In the days of the Mormon pioneers, (which are 100% Christians, hence the name "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Yes, I am a Latter-day Saint), not only was polygamy legal, and NOT forbidden by the Lord (not a sin), but it also served a purpose at that time.

Polygamy is not practiced by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints today, NOT because it is a sin, but because not only is it illegal, there is no longer a need for it, either.

Well, this is just my

, you are free to throw tomatoes my way if you want

Ajani · 05-06-2008, 02:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sarahgmac

I have read the bible cover to cover many times.

Although it is not called the Holy Trinity, God is mentioned in 3 forms:

1. God the Omnipresent
2. God in human form (Jesus)
3. God in your heart and soul (Holy Spirit)

I am curious what part of the scripture doesn't harmonize with this (I would like to look it up)

If I'm not mistaken, the Jehovah's Witnesses use their own version of the bible rather than the one (including the various translations) commonly accepted by other churches. So what lines up in your bible may not in Hezzer's, and what she has in hers may not be in yours. It's difficult to compare scripture to study a specific topic that way. Heck, I have a hard enough time when people start quoting the KJV, and it's theologically quite similar to the NIV that I read.

sarahgmac · 05-06-2008, 02:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ajani

If I'm not mistaken, the Jehovah's Witnesses use their own version of the bible rather than the one (including the various translations) commonly accepted by other churches. So what lines up in your bible may not in Hezzer's, and what she has in hers may not be in yours. It's difficult to compare scripture to study a specific topic that way. Heck, I have a hard enough time when people start quoting the KJV, and it's theologically quite similar to the NIV that I read.

Thanks!

Hezzer · 05-06-2008, 02:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ajani

If I'm not mistaken, the Jehovah's Witnesses use their own version of the bible rather than the one (including the various translations) commonly accepted by other churches.

I have many different versions of the Bible, including the KJ and NIV and many others. The Bible I use most and at my meetings and in my ministry is the The New World Translation, but it is in no way, "our version". Anyone religion could use it if they chose to.

I often compare Bibles verse for verse and you'll see that they're remarkably similar except for the different phrasiology that makes each Bible translation different. Thus far, have any of the many scriptures I've quoted varied that much from other Bible translations?

A little background on the New World Translation:

Quote:

The 1981 edition of the New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures is the culmination of 35 years of studious translation and careful revision. The translating project was initiated back in 1946, and by 1960 both the Hebrew and the Greek portions of God’s Word had been rendered into English directly from the original languages. During those years of translation a great deal of careful research was done by the New World Bible Translation Committee to assure that the translation was internally consistent in word choice and that the best possible readings of various manuscripts were used in the text.

Jason BeDuhn, associate professor of religious studies at Northern Arizona University, in Flagstaff, Arizona, U.S.A., examined and compared for accuracy eight major translations, including the New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures, published by Jehovah’s Witnesses.

While critical of some of its translation choices, BeDuhn called the New World Translation a ''remarkably good" translation, "better by far" and "consistently better" than some of the others considered. Overall, concluded BeDuhn, the New World Translation "is one of the most accurate English translations of the New Testament currently available" and "the most accurate of the translations compared." (From Truth in Translation: Accuracy and Bias in English Translations of the New Testament.)

BeDuhn noted, too, that many translators were subject to pressure "to paraphrase or expand on what the Bible does say in the direction of what modern readers want and need it to say." On the other hand, the New World Translation is different, observed BeDuhn, because of "the greater accuracy of the NW as a literal, conservative translation of the original expressions of the New Testament writers."

One thing I love about this version is that it is not omitted God's name Jehovah like most, if not all, translations do. The name Jehovah appears over 6,000 times in the original writings, yet has been taken out of Bibles nowadays. It used to be that his name was at least preserved in Psalm 83:18, but new printings of most Bibles have taken it out there as well.

If something as important as God's name has been removed from a Bible, I'm afraid of what else is missing or has been added.

Hezzer · 05-06-2008, 02:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lachicarubia

To this I TOTALLY agree, and had already mentioned that, you must have missed it in my first post:

Nope, didn't miss it. But you directly linked it to why LDS don't advocate polygamy anymore. There are other "Christian" religions who do continue to practice it despite the scripture in Romans 13:1.

lindsaycox@marykay.com · 05-07-2008, 12:29 AM

i disagree with polygamy... most of my reasons have been stated. i do believe the bible discourages more than one spouse though that may not be specifically called a sin, like many other things i am sure. definately wrong since it is illegal. sin is sin - none is worse in god's eye than another. this is my insight coming from a non traditional church, not growing up christian but only from what i have learned in the bible since becoming a believer.... one thing i do know is that god calls us to love one another in word and deed, lets be respectful for others beliefs though we may disagree.. god bless