-
Biblical Families is not a dating website. It is a forum to discuss issues relating to marriage and the Bible, and to offer guidance and support, not to find a wife. Click here for more information.
Abraham not a polygamist?
- Thread starter Paul not the apostle
- Start date
Well, SURE, Mark.
Slight differences in words carry vary different flavors. I, personally, appear to be monogamous, though I am a polygamist. I have one wife living with me. (I still claim the relationship with the wife who divorced me, as I took no part in that action, but for all practical purposes ...)
So, effectively, I am monogamous, but am not a monogamist.
I am a polygamist, though I do not live polygamously.
Attitudes/beliefs vs action.
A similar distinction exists when talking about wives and headship. I would personally have no use for a wife who was submissive. I don't want the responsibility of someone who would rather not make decisions herself.
However, I do want a wife who is submitted. One who, though perhaps perfectly well qualified to or maybe even does lead OTHER organizations, accepts that in THIS organization, the Cecil Wiedemann branch of God's family, she is a wife, not the husband, and is not competing or contending for the authority or responsibility of my job.
You'd be surprised the number of women I've seen heave a sigh of relief once they catch this distinction. They're Prov 31 women, and can't turn themselves into submissives no matter HOW they try. God didn't MAKE them that way!
PTL!
Slight differences in words carry vary different flavors. I, personally, appear to be monogamous, though I am a polygamist. I have one wife living with me. (I still claim the relationship with the wife who divorced me, as I took no part in that action, but for all practical purposes ...)
So, effectively, I am monogamous, but am not a monogamist.
I am a polygamist, though I do not live polygamously.
Attitudes/beliefs vs action.
A similar distinction exists when talking about wives and headship. I would personally have no use for a wife who was submissive. I don't want the responsibility of someone who would rather not make decisions herself.
However, I do want a wife who is submitted. One who, though perhaps perfectly well qualified to or maybe even does lead OTHER organizations, accepts that in THIS organization, the Cecil Wiedemann branch of God's family, she is a wife, not the husband, and is not competing or contending for the authority or responsibility of my job.
You'd be surprised the number of women I've seen heave a sigh of relief once they catch this distinction. They're Prov 31 women, and can't turn themselves into submissives no matter HOW they try. God didn't MAKE them that way!
PTL!
I absolutely LOVE that explanation, Cecil! (and may be tempted to steal it.
...with proper attribution, of course.) It may be one of the best definitions that I've seen of the ATTITUDE difference between patriarchy in the sense of Biblical headship as opposed to the brutish domination that 'the world' (and its ruling feminism) tries to convince people is what that dreaded p-word means.
*grin* Use it to your heart's content, Mark. No attribution needed. I'm just glad if it helps.
I'm about to add another thread on Authority vs Rulership which makes another distinction that the world needs to understand between how we, as men and women seeking to exemplify God's heart in the world through family and plural family, conduct ourselves.
I'm about to add another thread on Authority vs Rulership which makes another distinction that the world needs to understand between how we, as men and women seeking to exemplify God's heart in the world through family and plural family, conduct ourselves.
Sorry, guys. I was looking for mischief and came back to this thread. Now I gotta talk ...
Let's poke at this one! Ayn Rand used to say that the best way to spotlight the absurdities of arguments is to take them out to their logical conclusion. So where does this one go?
Well, Abraham had no way of KNOWing that his union with Hagar would result in a son. Possible, yes. Certain, No. But doing things this way, in this pastor's argument, made it ok, and her NOT his wife, and him NOT a polygamist.
ALL RIGHT !!! That means it is just fine for him, as a married Christian member of his church, to go around practicing his impregnating skills on sweet young things, so long as:
a) They are female,
b) They are young enough to conceive, and
c) He or his wife offers to adopt any children that result, at least temporarily.
... and he bears no further responsibility to them because, HEY! He didn't marry them 'cause polygamy is WRONG!!! WHEEEEEEeeeeeeee!
I wonder if this argument might just possibly disturb the female population of his congregation a wee teensie smidgeon? Personally, I'm willing to let him retract it if he likes. If not, my daughters are staying away!
Ok, had my fun. Will shut up for the night.
Paul not the apostle said:
Let's poke at this one! Ayn Rand used to say that the best way to spotlight the absurdities of arguments is to take them out to their logical conclusion. So where does this one go?
Well, Abraham had no way of KNOWing that his union with Hagar would result in a son. Possible, yes. Certain, No. But doing things this way, in this pastor's argument, made it ok, and her NOT his wife, and him NOT a polygamist.
ALL RIGHT !!! That means it is just fine for him, as a married Christian member of his church, to go around practicing his impregnating skills on sweet young things, so long as:
a) They are female,
b) They are young enough to conceive, and
c) He or his wife offers to adopt any children that result, at least temporarily.
... and he bears no further responsibility to them because, HEY! He didn't marry them 'cause polygamy is WRONG!!! WHEEEEEEeeeeeeee!
I wonder if this argument might just possibly disturb the female population of his congregation a wee teensie smidgeon? Personally, I'm willing to let him retract it if he likes. If not, my daughters are staying away!
Ok, had my fun. Will shut up for the night.
Okay, just to poke a few holes in that theory here is a question...
If Hagar's children were considered Sarah's children why did Hagar take Ismael with her when she left. Wouldn't Sarah's children have stayed with Sarah?
Or was CPS there then too?
SweetLissa
If Hagar's children were considered Sarah's children why did Hagar take Ismael with her when she left. Wouldn't Sarah's children have stayed with Sarah?
Or was CPS there then too?
SweetLissa
Wow, you guys have some great points on this forum. I have heard the 'Abe Argument' before, but nearly all modern texts list Hagar as a wife, so it is easily brushed off.
And Mark, you are right, it is a form of idolatry, and idolatry equals rebellion. Rebellion against God leads to judgement.
Let us RIGHTLY divide the Word of Truth!
Blessings,
And Mark, you are right, it is a form of idolatry, and idolatry equals rebellion. Rebellion against God leads to judgement.
Let us RIGHTLY divide the Word of Truth!
Blessings,
sweetlissa said:
Good one, SweetLissa! But I think that, according to this particular, a-HEM, theologian's argument, it was ok to practice his reproductive skills as long as Sarah OFFERED to adopt the off-spring, at least TEMPORARILY! *shaking head wearily*
'Tis a unique, though not particularly attractive, theory!