Actually they broke the law. Christians are not ABOVE the Law. When children under age are forced into marriage, when young boys are thrown away because they are a threat to these older molesters, it's just sick in every way possible.
If a school teacher approached a minor that teacher would be jailed....
Would it be ok for that teacher to say...It's my religious belief that I can approach a minor and get away with it?
We do know from one other case, that they do abduct minors as well. |
|
---kathr4453 on 6/18/08 |
I believe it was totally right to take those children out of there. alot of those children were the mothers. I'm not nessecarily saying take the children from their mothers, but they need to be protected before another of those young girls in a few years is given to some old pervert old enough to be her great grandfather. |
|
---stephanie on 6/17/08 |
The State thinks it is trying to protect children, but I think the State is trying to take the place of the family. If these families had not fallen into sinful ways, the problem would never have arisen. I know who is behind all cults and false religions. |
|
---frances008 on 6/13/08 |
In Texas, the only abusers are the state. This is a fact. What God gives let no man take away. |
|
---duane on 6/13/08 |
Either this is the third recent thread on polygamy, that Righteouswarriors defends, or my Bible verses submitted to this blog were deliberately dumped by the moderators. The Bible is very clear on the issue that it is one wife per marriage. One husband too. This is a wild goose chase so that Christians will be rushing around wasting their time. You find the evidence and it gets ignored by those who love the error of their ways. |
|
---frances008 on 6/12/08 |
I encourage you to properly read the Bible and pay particular attention to every word. Think of other ways that the same text could have been written, but was not. In no way does it condone polygamy. Quite the reverse. Those who are wilfully blind just won't see it. They interpret the Bible to suit their lifestyles. Use the original KJV. |
|
---frances008 on 6/12/08 |
Candice how many pregnantgirls do U need to see before U believe they are harmed?In their own records,teenagers married men in their 40's-70's.Women do not have keys to the front gate. They are trapped.Only men have keys. As a Nun,the lock to our convent was to keep others out,not us inside. Nuns have all doors and car's keys. Sisters have to know how to drive. Some ladies still enter and can't drive. Superiors makes sure she learns.True worship is FREEDOM. When U can't make a choice,you are being abused. |
|
---Nicole on 6/12/08 |
Bill_bila5659,
In our relationship with Messiah, we are ALL "female", in as much as we are all submissive to His governing authority as husband over us. Marriage is a physical analogy of a spiritual reality. In the spiritual sense, He is our husband and we are His bride. The issue is relational authority. The wife is joined to the husband, not the other way around. If the branch is cut off (or cuts itself off) from the tree, it's not the tree that tips over and falls to the ground. |
|
---righteouswarriors on 6/12/08 |
Bill_bila5659 said, "righteouswarriors, there are men as well as women in the Bride of Jesus, so I suppose you could argue this means bisexual polygamy is scriptural. I won't assume how far you are or are not willing to to with your argument"
I'm sorry it took me a while to respond. I just stumbled onto your response. No, "bisexual polygyny" (whatever that might mean) is not Scriptural. The distinction is the difference between a husband (man) and a wife (woman). |
|
---righteouswarriors on 6/12/08 |
the CPS should have investigated further into the case before removing. Then they would have seen that the children were not harmed. Unless children are abused they should not take them away due to religious disagreement. |
|
---candice on 6/4/08 |
ROFL! :D Oh Bill, you just made my day! :D |
|
---Mary on 5/25/08 |
ighteouswarriors, I answered you in another blog, but it perhaps got lost or dumped. So . . . you said something like this > Jesus has more than one person in His Bride, and therefore it is OK to be married to more than one person. Of course, righteouswarriors, there are men as well as women in the Bride of Jesus, so I suppose you could argue this means bisexual polygamy is scriptural. I won't assume how far you are or are not willing to to with your argument (o: |
|
---Bill_bila5659 on 5/24/08 |
i feel it was write to take them out do to its ok to be a big family like that, but the children have a rite to know who is their true parents and I feel they were having babies way to young. I also feel that they should be educated on what happens outside of the colony incase they are ever in the situation where they have to be mixed with the rest of society. Not just the bad things that happen but the opportunities and the great things that happen all the time. |
|
---Jenni_McGlaughlin on 5/13/08 |
I studied Koran at one time in my life. Even though Plurl marriages exist in the Middle East they do not work very well. In the Koran or Quran it states that "God created men and women in almost perfect numbers, that one Man to one Woman is Gods Ideal." |
|
---linda on 4/26/08 |
joseph said, "To think a wife is not harmed by the infidelity of the husband is to seal ones mind in a vacuum of biblical legalities."
I think this is a separate matter, one of "infidelity" or "cheating". Yet many wives (outside of our western mindset) would love having sister-wives around the house to help with raising the children, female companionship, sharing in responsibilities, and they are not hung up on a purely "sexual" perspective as our culture is. |
|
---righteouswarriors on 4/26/08 |
joseph said, "I meant no offense or disrespect, it was simply a statement of fact from a human's perspective."
No offense taken at all. I appreciate the opportunity to have a Christ-like dialogue with a fellow Believer. It's hard for Biblical marriage to get a fair shake in the western world because we've been taught to believe something is wrong when God's Word says something else. If you'd like to study further, I have a web site (my name) which you can check out as well. Peace! |
|
---righteouswarriors on 4/26/08 |
1). Righteouswarriors ask "Aren't they both "one flesh" with her, or are we not to believe the Scriptures?"
Yes, The Father's word is truth. And both these men are unfaithful, both to the Father and their wives. Righteouswarriors our exchange has been a pleasure. You are a gentleman and your perspective concerning marriage is obviously biblically based and I have no argument against it. To attempt to clarify my position and perspective I will leave our exchange with this...... |
|
---joseph on 4/26/08 |
2)... "The LORD has been witness between you (The man) and 'the wife of your covenant' (The first). Therefore take heed to your 'spirit' (attitude) and let none 'deal treacherously against' (be unfaithful to) the wife of his youth. Have you not read that in the beginning [God] made them male and female and said, For this cause shall a man leave his parents and 'cleave' (adhere to like glue) his wife, and they 'two' shall be one flesh. Wherefore they are no more two, but one." |
|
---joseph on 4/26/08 |
3). Let both the husband and the wife render due benevolence one to the other. Neither the husband or the wife has power (authority) over their own body, the authority is in each for the other. In Christ there is neither male nor female, we are to love one another as we love ourselves and as Christ loves His church. His church are His called and love does no harm, emotional or physical. To think a wife is not harmed by the infidelity of the husband is to seal ones mind in a vacuum of biblical legalities. |
|
---joseph on 4/26/08 |
P.S. "To think a wife is not harmed by the infidelity of the husband is to seal ones mind in a vacuum of biblical legalities." RWs this was not a criticism. I realized after sending, that it could be taken in that way, I meant no offense or disrespect, it was simply a statement of fact from a human's perspective. Although we are spiritual beings, we are living a human experience.
References for prior post. 1Cor.6:18>Mal.2:14-16>Mat.19:4-6>1Cor.7:3,4>Rom.13:10 |
|
---joseph on 4/26/08 |
joseph asked, "Can you provide any biblical reference to the one flesh being divided yet remaining 'cleaved' or faithful one to the other in our Father's sight?"
One verse that comes to mind is 1 Cor. 6:15-17. Paul warns against becoming "one flesh" with a whore. One could certainly do this while being married to another. And what if two different men lay with the whore? Aren't they both "one flesh" with her, or are we not to believe the Scriptures? |
|
---righteouswarriors on 4/25/08 |
1 Cor. 6:15-17: "Do you not know that your bodies are members of Messiah? Shall I then take the members of Messiah and make them members of a whore? Let it not be! Or do you not know that he who is joined to a whore is one body? For He says, "The two shall become one flesh". And he who is joined to the Master is one spirit."
Paul's usage of the phrase "the two shall become one flesh" demonstrates that it was and is a purely sexual statement. |
|
---righteouswarriors on 4/25/08 |
joseph said, "fidelity to me is not a matter of faith, sin or conscience, but rather of one on one love and devotion under the love of the Father"
I understand. But the man was never meant to be devoted to only the one wife, should he desire another. Look at the analogy of Messiah and the Body. We are all married to him, all his bride, yet we are not jealous that our neighbor also marries Him. So long as He loves and takes care of me, what business is it of mine who else He takes care of? |
|
---righteouswarriors on 4/25/08 |
It's hard to understand Biblical marriage without first understanding the Biblical principle of patriarchy. Feminism denies Godly authority of the head over his family, attempting to be "equal", or in extreme cases "superior", in authority to the head. In all authority, there is a one-to-many principle: master-slaves, husband-wives, father-children, boss-employees, head-members, king-subjects. The "many" isn't required to be plural, but the "one" must be singular. |
|
---righteouswarriors on 4/25/08 |
Righteouswarriors you have answered well. I have one more question for you. "Therefore shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave unto his wife: and they shall become one flesh" Question, Can you provide any biblical reference to the one flesh being divided yet remaining 'cleaved' or faithful one to the other in our Father's sight? By the way fidelity to me is not a matter of faith, sin or conscience, but rather of one on one love and devotion under the love of the Father. |
|
---joseph on 4/25/08 |
joseph said, "If I were married, I would require respect and fidelity...and would...offer her the same."
I certainly understand. I used to think the same way and it took many years of unlearning what I thought was "fair". Patriarchy is the opposite of feminism, so because of our culture, our views are naturally tainted against a proper Biblical understanding of marriage. Under this mindset, for you to take another wife would be sin, because you would be acting outside of faith. |
|
---righteouswarriors on 4/24/08 |
I think I need to make something clear here.
Polygyny will not work in a western mindset. I am not suggesting polygynous marriage to anyone living in or raised in a western-thinking culture.
At Bible school, I remember one guy who gave out these little yellow badges we would wear that said, "Think Hebrew". As long as our thinking is Roman/Greek, patriarchy (and by definition, polygyny) will always seem to be an abomination. Unfortunately, we also miss a lot in God's Word. |
|
---righteouswarriors on 4/24/08 |
Rhonda,
God went out of His way to identify all manner of prohibited sexual sin, yet rather than prohibit polygyny, He instead gives specific laws preventing specific acts of polygyny. Why? You are being blinded by the culture to the truth of God's Word. Look at what Scripture says! Mandatory monogyny is unscriptural (of course, so is mandatory polygyny or mandatory celibacy). The man was always free to choose how many wives he would take for himself, if any. |
|
---righteouswarriors on 4/24/08 |
1 Kings 15:5: "for Dawid did what was right in the eyes of Yahweh, and did not turn aside from all that He commanded him all the days of his life, except in the matter of Uriyah the Hittite."
David had at least 8 wives and 10 concubines (2 Samuel 3:14, 15:16, 1 Chronicles 3:1-9) and yet he was not disobedient to God in these things (other than when he took ANOTHER man's wife, which is adultery). He had no business going near Bathsheba because she was already married. |
|
---righteouswarriors on 4/24/08 |
2 Sam. 12:8: "And I gave you your master's house and your master's wives into your bosom, and gave you the house of Yisra'el and Yehudah. And if that were not enough, I also would have given you much more!'"
God even takes credit for giving David all of his wives. Are to implicate God now in committing sin? If having more than one wife is sin, then certainly facilitating a sin would also be sin. Does God sin? Of course not! A man may have as many wives as he desires, or none at all. |
|
---righteouswarriors on 4/24/08 |
Rhonda,
Please understand my heart. I'm only trying to help you see that polygyny was never a sin in God's eyes. I'm not saying the particular form of polygyny practiced by these cults is okay, but let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater. Monogynous cults do all kinds of wacky things too...should we now attack monogynous marriage? Abuse can occur no matter how many wives a man has. God's Word speaks for itself on these matters. Can we agree as brother and sister in Messiah? |
|
---righteouswarriors on 4/24/08 |
Andrew asked, "I feel chaos in my mind. I seek for the rapture to happen now, not a second later, that is what I seek. Why must humanity wait so long..."
Wow...I'm sure if we sat and talked that we could clear a lot of that confusion. I'd elaborate here, but I've already got so many mad at me for defending God's Word on marriage that I don't think it would be wise. Plus we're off-topic as it is. Try reading what Scripture says without preconceived ideas and ask God to reveal truth to you. |
|
---righteouswarriors on 4/24/08 |
Rebecca_D said, "I believe the men need to leave and just leave the women and children there"
Matt. 19:6: "So that they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore, what Elohim has joined together, let man not separate"
Think about what you are saying. You are siding against marriage (polygynous marriage, but marriage nonetheless) and instead encouraging divorce. God permits marriage (both polygyny or monogyny) in His Word, yet He hates divorce. Who's side are you on? |
|
---righteouswarriors on 4/24/08 |
Rhonda said, "you contradicted yourself in several posts clearly unable to support polygamy from Gods Truth"
Yet you fail to mention one Scripture which I've "contradicted", nor any response to all the verses I've already given, other than, essentially, "I don't care what it says, you're just wrong." That's not an argument, that's just closing your eyes to the truth. Since you seem unwilling to check God's Word for yourself, I'll help break it down for you. |
|
---righteouswarriors on 4/24/08 |
Let's look at the evidence for polygyny in Scripture. Lamech had two wives (Adah and Zillah). Abraham had three wives (Sarah, Hagar and Keturah). Esau had five wives (Judith, Basemath, Mahalath, Adah and Aholibamah). Jacob had four wives (Leah, Rachel, Bilhah and Zilpah). Moses, through whom God gave the Torah, had two wives (Zipporah and the Ethiopian woman). David had several wives (including Micah, Ahinoam, Abigail, Maacah, Haggith, Abital and Eglah). Of course, Bathsheba was not rightfully his. |
|
---righteouswarriors on 4/24/08 |
Ex. 21:10: "If he takes another wife, her food, her covering, and her marriage rights are not to be diminished."
This is God's Law. He specifically made a provision protecting the rights of the first wife in the event the husband chooses to take another. Had God intended to disallow polygyny outright, why give a condition allowing it in the first place? Why not just say he's not allowed to take a second wife? Because God is the author of marriage, and polygyny is a valid form of marriage. |
|
---righteouswarriors on 4/24/08 |
Dt. 25:5: "When brothers dwell together, and one of them has died, and has no son, the widow of the dead man shall not become a stranger's outside. Her husband's brother does go in to her, and shall take her as his wife, and perform the duty of a husband's brother to her."
Here we have the law of the Kinsman Redeemer. The man is required to marry his dead brother's wife if she hasn't had a son, and it doesn't matter whether he is already married or not. He is still required to marry her. |
|
---righteouswarriors on 4/24/08 |
In a society where polygyny was common place, why would God require a man to take a wife, forcing him into a polygynous marriage if he is already married? Would God command sin? Wouldn't He make an exemption in the event the man was married?
Gen. 30:18: "And Le'ah said, "Elohim has given me my hire, because I have given my female servant to my husband." So she called his name Yissaskar"
God blessed Leah for giving another wife to Jacob. Does God bless sin? |
|
---righteouswarriors on 4/24/08 |
Lev. 18:18: "And do not take a woman as a rival to her sister, to uncover her nakedness while the other is alive."
God said not to take two sisters as rival wives, yet no such prohibition about other women.
Lev. 20:14: "And a man who marries a woman and her mother: it is wickedness, they are burned with fire, both he and they, that there be no wickedness in your midst."
A mother and daughter is likewise prohibited, but again, nothing against multiple wives. |
|
---righteouswarriors on 4/24/08 |
Righteouswarriors I can not biblically argue any of the points you have shared. I suppose I am simply speaking from my own point of view and "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" defines it. If I were married, I would require respect and fidelity, as in conjugal faithfulness from my wife and would, by the grace of the Father in my life, offer her the same. Anything other than this, concerning marriage, would be unloving and disrespectful. Again, speaking from personal perspective. |
|
---joseph on 4/24/08 |
Righteouswarriors do you think that it is possible to have faith in god but not have complete trust in god? Besides that, I want to give my "opinion" that I believe that regardless of whether you are right or wrong with reference to what is stated below, the way you have articulated yourself is admirable. I feel chaos in my mind. I seek for the rapture to happen now, not a second later, that is what I seek. Why must humanity wait so long...... |
|
---Andrew on 4/24/08 |
This whole mess seems to be of a social conflict,that which lies between these segregated social societies and the social society which has the government control .I suppose this is a"broad" perception if at all which may or may not be accurate. An obivous social distortion is being created here between 2 or more seperate social orders.?. One is dependant on the other though, it's weaker from a selection stand point.?? One is parasitic in a way.? Evolving possibly as well.? .de-evolving..? |
|
---Andrew on 4/24/08 |
1
Are you so afraid of what Scripture might say, that you refuse to check it yourself?
Afraid of Gods Word? ...you contradicted yourself in several posts clearly unable to support polygamy from Gods Truth
...you have perverted scripture (Gal 1:6-9) USING Gods Word to support what He forbids ...by doing so claim others are ignorant to YOUR interpretation of scripture |
|
---Rhonda on 4/23/08 |
2
practicing polygamy is antichrist Christ did not teach polygamy neither did OT Intellectual reasoning by traditions of men (Mark 7:7) ...deception by religious organizations supporting polygamy distorting Gods Word to FIT their own agenda gathering followers who can essentially live life as they please claiming its all from God their followers never wanted to obey they believe they're under another set of laws ...they are ...led by a spirit of disobedience, god of this world (Eph 2:2, 2Corin 4:4) |
|
---Rhonda on 4/23/08 |
Anna Mary stated it best ...even though the initial shock of being taken away from their mothers will be traumatic ...it will be necessary for their healing ...children are precious needing love and guidance ...to be given up as sexual prey is disturbing
this cult lived a vile lifestyle ...when a group of people are sheltered away from the rest of society living in a virtual prison ..they were hiding many more attrocities then most will ever hear about |
|
---Rhonda on 4/23/08 |
Cruel? Noway. I believe the men need to leave and just leave the women and children there, and the young boys who are not old enough yet to stay there. These Mormons say this is God's law, Polygamist is in the bible. Yes it says that God forbids it and it should be one man for one woman. The children/wives were brainwashed into thinking it was only God's way. These people are falling into the hands of a dangerous Living God. |
|
---Rebecca_D on 4/23/08 |
Amen! Thank you, Anna Mary, for bringing us back to the original topic--and the point of it all. Soooo true. Sad but true. |
|
---Mary on 4/23/08 |
these children were being sexualy abused by their own parents by making them marry at young ages and to their own family members. they are brain washed and mentally abused. by taking them away from the mothers, they have a chanse to finally live a normal life and to marry who ever they want. |
|
---Anna_Mary_Lira on 4/23/08 |
Ted said, "keep telling yourself that God permits polygamy"
I don't need to. God's Word speaks for itself. Was there any verse that I didn't made clear?
"Maybe you are in a multiple marriage now"
Actually no, I'm quite satisfied with my one wonderful wife.
"there is no marriage in heaven, or virgins waiting for any one."
Agreed on both points. I'm not sure if that's Muslim or FLDS that thinks that way, but it sure isn't Scriptural. |
|
---righteouswarriors on 4/21/08 |
I quoted Gen. 30:18 and 2 Sam. 12:8.
Ted said, "keep telling yourself that God permits polygamy."
So do you agree or disagree with God's Word in these passages? You didn't acknowledge them at all. Did God bless Leah for giving her maidservant to her husband as a wife, or is Scripture lying? Did God give all those wives to David, or is Scripture lying? You owe it to yourself to study this material before you make a judgment against something that God blessed and participated in. |
|
---righteouswarriors on 4/21/08 |
Darlene_1 said, "the abuse was the mind/brain washing which twisted those children into a life of fear of the outside world...and to accept the perverted life style they were born to. It taught boys to continue the abuse of young girls in so called marriage."
So any teaching that society doesn't approve of is then to be considered abuse? By who's standard do we determine what is right teaching vs. wrong teaching? (I happen to agree their teachings are messed up, but that's not the point). |
|
---righteouswarriors on 4/21/08 |
I teach my children that a man lying with another man is sinful. I teach them to live holy lives and not to do as the world does. I teach them that God created the cosmos in six days. I teach them to love God with their whole hearts and to love others as they love themselves. I teach them to look to Jesus as an example of how to live.
I wonder how long it will be before CPS decides to come take my abused children away so they can re-educate them, to conform with the ways of the world. |
|
---righteouswarriors on 4/21/08 |
RW, keep telling yourself that God permits polygamy. Maybe you are in a multiple marriage now, regardless, there is no marriage in heaven, or virgins waiting for any one. |
|
---Ted on 4/21/08 |
In case you missed it,the news here also reported the abuse was the mind/brain washing which twisted those children into a life of fear of the outside world and to accept the perverted life style they were born to. It taught boys to continue the abuse of young girls in so called marriage. Any kind of verbal manipulation is abuse and often does as much lasting harm as physical abuse. |
|
---Darlene_1 on 4/21/08 |
dan said, "I still have to hear what the alleged abuse is. What if the "underage" women were married in another state? Is it still "abuse". Get the government out of religion and the bedroom."
So far, the only "abuse" they have to go on is young women being pregnant or having children. Since they can't fathom the idea of a woman having sex, let along being married, prior to her 18th birthday...there's your "abuse". It may be stupid, but that's it. |
|
---righteouswarriors on 4/21/08 |
It is perceived that in this country we don't legislate morality. We are allowed life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. As I've listened to all the hot air on this issue (media) I still have to hear what the alleged abuse is. What if the "underage" women were married in another state? Is it still "abuse". Get the government out of religion and the bedroom. |
|
---dan on 4/21/08 |
Ted said, "it was never blessed or ordained of God to be in polygamy."
Gen. 30:18: "And Le'ah said, "Elohim has given me my hire, because I have given my female servant to my husband." So she called his name Yissaskar."
2 Sam. 12:8: "And I gave you your master's house and your master's wives into your bosom, and gave you the house of Yisra'el and Yehudah. And if that were not enough, I also would have given you much more!" |
|
---righteouswarriors on 4/20/08 |
Darlene_1 asked, "wouldn't that still be shacking up...because the Bible didn't tell us we could do that?"
Well, keep in mind that marriage licenses didn't exist until fairly recently. Marriages have been happening since Adam and Eve, way before governments came about. As we see in Genesis 24:67, Isaac simply took Rebekah into a tent and became one with her, and they were married. Marriages are between the husband, the wife and God, NOT the husband, the wife, God and the government. |
|
---righteouswarriors on 4/20/08 |
A person does not need a state's license to marry. Why should we need the state's permission to participate in something that God instituted? A license by definition "confers a right" to do something. The state cannot grant the right to marry, because that right comes from God alone. Consider the fact that states are beginning to legalize same-sex marriages. If a man and a man marry with a state marriage license, and a man and woman marry without a state marriage license, who is really married? |
|
---righteouswarriors on 4/20/08 |
Darlene_1 asked, "Laws of the Land,if we don't do that doesn't it violate God's will for us?"
The idea that we are bound to every civil law is flawed. Preaching the Gospel is illegal in some countries. It is illegal for believers to assemble to worship in them, or build churches, or hold baptismal services. It is illegal in some countries to convert a Muslim. There are many laws in many countries that would make preaching, let alone living the Gospel, impossible without breaking the law. |
|
---righteouswarriors on 4/20/08 |
We are to be subject to our higher powers, but only to a point. We should not obey man's law when it conflicts with God's law. The Roman Empire tried to force the first Believers to worship the Roman gods in addition to their own and they rightly refused and paid with their lives. We are not commanded to unconditionally obey every statute of government, because we should obey God before men. Governments do not have the right to legislate marriage in the first place. Marriage belongs to God, not to Caesar. |
|
---righteouswarriors on 4/20/08 |
Ted said, "There were plenty of men in biblical times to have one man for one woman in one marriage."
That's true, monogyny was just as valid a form of marriage as polygyny was. Abraham was polygynous, Isaac was monogynous, Jacob was polygynous. It was the individual's choice. Polygyny is NOT somehow "better" than monygyny. Many cults believe in mandatory polygyny for salvation, but that thinking is unscriptural nonsense. However, mandatory monogyny is unscriptural nonsense too. |
|
---righteouswarriors on 4/20/08 |
There were plenty of men in biblical times to have one man for one woman in one marriage.
Polygamists use that same argument today as propaganda to prop up sin.
It caused the ruin of Solomon, it was never blessed or ordained of God to be in polygamy.
That's man's opinion about God's will. |
|
---Ted on 4/20/08 |
Righteouswarriors,ok thanks,now I get what you meant,I think. You're saying,person is legally married and going through the legal process a second time so as to deceive and give the appearence of a 2nd legal marriage. You say,no one needs the legal papers and secular way to be married in God's eyes,wouldn't that still be shacking up,as commonly called,because the Bible didn't tell us we could do that? Also Bible says to uphold Laws of the Land,if we don't do that doesn't it violate God's will for us? |
|
---Darlene_1 on 4/20/08 |
(3) Women in Scripture weren't possessive of men, they weren't obsessed or jealous about "sex", bur rather, they wanted to bear children. They knew it was the function they alone were made for. If a woman was childless, it was considered a reproach.
Gen. 30:23: "And she conceived, and bore a son, and said, "Elohim has taken away my reproach."
Read all of chapter 30. Rachel envied Leah not for having sex, but having children when she could not. |
|
---righteouswarriors on 4/20/08 |
(4) Now consider some women today. They desire a Godly husband and want to have children. But there are no strong Godly Christian heads available. All the good ones are married. So today's woman either settles for no husband, or she resorts to looking to the world for a husband and gets whatever she can. A few lucky women get a good Christian man before someone else does. Competitiveness among women increases, because only ONE "can have him". This concept is anti-Scripture. |
|
---righteouswarriors on 4/20/08 |
(5) Mandatory monogyny breeds jealousy and possessiveness among women. But according to Scripture, a woman can marry ANY man she desires so long as he is a Believer. She is not limited to only the unmarried. She can see which men have a track record of being a good husband, a good father, a good provider. She doesn't have to choose from the leftovers: immature, ungodly, unappreciative or abusive...she has the whole world to choose from, and she wants to make a good choice because she only gets one. |
|
---righteouswarriors on 4/20/08 |
(6) Look in many of our churches today. What is the average ratio of young men to young women? Who are these young women suppose to marry, if all the young men have been "taken"? I visit dozens of churches and the youth ratio is almost always more women then men. What answer does the Church have for these young women? Remain celibate? God will provide? God HAS provided! We need to look to His Word and see what answers God gives, even when they conflict with our cultural ideas. |
|
---righteouswarriors on 4/20/08 |
(7) joseph,
Polygyny isn't a "lust" issue any more than monogyny is a "lust" issue. We don't complain about people who desire sexual relations in monogynous marriage, so why should we in the Church see polygynous marriage any differently? More needs are being met. Families are stronger in numbers. Finances, childcare, homeschooling, housework, free time...these do not come at the expense of women, they are a direct result of having more women share responsibilities as a family. |
|
---righteouswarriors on 4/20/08 |
(1) joseph asked, "However I can not help but wonder 'what would be Father's purpose for it today?'"
That's a very good question. Let me explain where I think polygyny would have a valid use today.
Isaiah 4:1: "And in that day seven women shall take hold of one man, saying, "We shall eat our own food and wear our own clothes, only let us be called by your name, to take away our reproach." |
|
---righteouswarriors on 4/20/08 |
(2) Isaiah speaks of a day where seven women are all desiring to marry the same man to take away "reproach".
In our culture, many people feel having children is a curse, rather than a blessing. Look at our obsession with abstinence, birth control, abortion, etc. Many prefer few or no children rather than a large family, which is the opposite of what we see in Scripture. Having children was considered a blessing, but not having children was considered a reproach. |
|
---righteouswarriors on 4/20/08 |
Hi, just my opinion, I don't think polygomy is a beautiful or godly thing, but in Bible times, it was a way of taking care of women that had no other way of surviving, unfortunately. Nowadays, we have education and choices, thank God! But yeah, I think taking care of women was a big part of polygomy back in Bible times. |
|
---Mary on 4/20/08 |
Righteouswarriors, you have presented your views well and has shown them to be biblically based. I understand the Fathers' allowing polygyny for the original purpose of replenishing the earth and later for the posterity of His chosen nation. However I can not help but wonder 'what would be Father's purpose for it today?' Surely, logically such an act, would serve only one 'ungodly' purpose in todays society, satisfying the lust of the male at the emotional expense of the female. |
|
---joseph on 4/20/08 |
Andrew said, "there is a living jesus christ "in spirit"(holy ghost) that provides us with grace, do you agree with that statement?"
I might not have phrased it exactly that way, but yes, I am in complete agreement that Jesus provides us with grace and much more. Also, we're not required to possess a complete understanding of Biblical marriage to be redeemed. All of us will stand before Him one day, regarding some verse or other and say, "Oh, THAT'S what it meant!" |
|
---righteouswarriors on 4/19/08 |
Darlene_1 said, "No one can be "legally" married to more than one spouse at a time. There is no such thing as government recognized marriages with more than one spouse"
Sorry, I will rephrase. Bigamy is being "legally" married to more than one spouse (having legal documents of marriage with two women at once, even though the state certainly would not have issued a second had they known of the first). My point was nobody has to get a license to be married in God's eyes. |
|
---righteouswarriors on 4/19/08 |
|
