Polygamy for economic survival

[Wesley]

Wesley, that documentary I linked to is long, but it will give you behind the scenes history, revealing the cause of ww2.

I probably understand more about the causes and history of WWII than anyone else in this conversation and it is quite possible that I know more about the subject than the researchers who put together the documentary you linked to. I really wasn't impressed with their reasoning. I'm just not impressed with the current crop of Illuminati theories.

Babylon the great is a mystery to most people because they have been told by the schools, the media and the politicians what to believe about most any subject. Like the preachers of today who are ignorant of much of what the bible teaches, because they let the seminary tell them what mattered, and how to interpret scripture.

I may sound more knowledgeable about economics if I babbled about bubbles and business cycles, but the truth is those are deliberate manipulations of the market DESIGNED to let a few very rich people get more money. The truth is found in scripture, not institutions that profess to teach.

The truth, and the inherent flaw, of your argument is contained right here...

The truth is found in scripture...

This leaves two possibilities.

1. The economic decline we are seeing is part of the end times prophecy and therefore we should not worry about it because we can't stop it anyway since no one can stop a prophecy of God from coming to pass.
   - or -
2. The economic decline we are seeing is one of the "wars" that Christ spoke of which will come and go before the end times (Matthew 24:6) and thus there is no involvement by a one-world government and thus we should follow Christ's command by not becoming alarmed.

Either way the best thing to do is to follow Christ's command not to worry ourselves about it.

God has everything under control so why should I bother becoming alarmed?

 

[Wesley]

Honestly, the closest thing to a "one world government" theory linked into the end times prophecy that I've seen so far is the Single Point of Failure theory that was discussed in one of my information security classes.

The theory goes like this...
Small isolated economies such as what we saw before the advent of air travel and extensive sea commerce prevent any one point of failure from collapsing the world economy because each isolated economy functions as a backup system for the others. People can just travel from a region that is economically failing to one that is prosperous as we see done by Abraham and Joseph taking their families to Egypt in time of famine in the book of Genesis.

The one world economy that we see developing due to the existence of rapid travel between continents lacks that buffer capability. In essence it becomes a single-point-of-failure so that any misstep (intentional or otherwise) can become disastrous on a global scale.

There is a difference between a one world government and a one world economy however. In this theory we have several governments who are more interested in the bottom line than they are in maintaining independence thus they become co-dependent and thus when one fails they all fail.

 

[ylop]

My son, 14 years old, has expressed an interest in economics. We homeschool and are therefore not constrained to any curriculum, but I could not begin to say I understand anything but the most rudimentary concepts of economics. Given that, what articles and books would each of you recommend a young teenager read on the subject?

I have studied economics at university and also run a business with employees.

I agree with what Samuel said, Economics in One Lesson; also pretty much anything from mises.org.

For a more entertaining view, the various youtube clips from Econstories are great - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d0nERTFo-Sk

 

[ylop]

I probably understand more about the causes and history of WWII than anyone else in this conversation and it is quite possible that I know more about the subject than the researchers who put together the documentary you linked to. I really wasn't impressed with their reasoning

Classic post Wesley.

There are plenty of other people around with knowledge on the subject.

WW2 is the logical consequence of how WW1 was concluded. As time goes by, its possible that the two conflicts will be viewed as one with a twenty-year ceasefire.

For another alternative perspective on WW2 and how the USA manoeuvred itself into that conflict, you might like to consider Freedom Betrayed by former USA President Herbert Hoover. http://www.amazon.com/Freedom-Betrayed-Herbert-Hoovers-Aftermath/dp/0817912347

 

[Shadowjak's Dancer]

So... are we then discussing WWII for economic survival? Apart from people who claim to know more than anyone else, seemingly on any give subject, I don't think I started this discussion with a view to it becoming an "I'm right, and everyone else is wrong" slam fest.

Back to the original thread; I was also thinking of the unforeseen circumstances where a man would want his family to be able to cope financially should he be no longer able, for whatever reason, to actively participate in the job market. Say, for instance, he ends up in a terrible car accident, or some other disaster, it makes sense to me that he would want his house to be able to cope with an adult or two who have lost the ability to make a financial contribution. Not that this is the ideal for that family, but that they would be able to weather it.

Such difficulties happen in life, and it only makes sense to me that a man should ensure his family has the resilience to flourish in whatever rough circumstances they may find themselves in.

 

[ylop]

I agree, a cohesive polygamous family should be much more economically resilient than a monogamous one.

Particularly if they have their own business, or multiple income streams.

I think someone mentioned this before, that one of the reasons polygamy is opposed by government is its relative economic independence.

 

[GloryGirl]

Economics in One Lesson by Henry Hazlitt. I would recommend this to anybody as the single best introductory text on economics. It has been the inspiration for many economists in the past, it's stood the test of time, is highly readable, size of a small novel, and inexpensive. You can even get the electronic version free here, but it's well worth investing in a paper copy:

Thank you! He really prefers to read on the Kindle anyway.

 

[Wesley]

Apart from people who claim to know more than anyone else, seemingly on any give subject, I don't think I started this discussion with a view to it becoming an "I'm right, and everyone else is wrong" slam fest.

So it is somehow wrong for a person with several college degrees to express confidence in his knowledge in areas that he is well versed in?

When did that become a rule?

 

[ylop]

It certainly wasn't a rule for Dr Allen, the last person to hold similar qualification on this forum

 

[Wesley]

It certainly wasn't a rule for Dr Allen, the last person to hold similar qualification on this forum

I'm familiar with Dr. Allen. I rented a trailer from him for a while after my last marriage broke up. He seemed disappointed when I moved to Colorado to be with my new wife.

I know how to respect an intellectual with a differing opinion. I do expect that respect to be returned however. Only one person on this group has made me feel like that respect is not returned so far but it is a bit annoying. I just wish I could find the "Block" button so that I could stop him from sending me PM's.

 

[FollowingHim]

There are no rules against stating your qualifications. But once people feel they have to mention their level of education in an attempt to make people think they know what they're talking about many readers will tend to switch off. A group of deep thinkers like this one tends to be on average more highly educated and/or experienced than the average person anyway, so few will find such statements impressive. A true expert will be seen through how they write. But maybe I just think this way due to the egalitarian nature of New Zealand society, we're a funny breed of colonial oddballs down under.

If you have a problem with an individual tell them directly, don't make vague accusations that just leave people wondering.

Let's get back on topic. Again...

 

[FollowingHim]

I agree, a cohesive polygamous family should be much more economically resilient than a monogamous one.

Resilience is the fundamental benefit of a team of three.

Two are better than one; because they have a good reward for their labour. For if they fall, the one will lift up his fellow: but woe to him that is alone when he falleth; for he hath not another to help him up. Again, if two lie together, then they have heat: but how can one be warm alone? And if one prevail against him, two shall withstand him; and a threefold cord is not quickly broken.

This passage says how great a team of 2 are. Then it mentions a team of 3. What is the one extra feature when you add a third? The team is not easily broken.

I am doing a small work project at the moment with three people involved. It's best with three, but any two of us could complete it if necessary in the event of one being unable to. One of us alone would struggle.

A polygamous family is resilient. Even if one is incapacitated or even dies, you still are left with a team of at least two, which is able to achieve a lot for all the reasons in this passage.

That resilience is excellent insurance against disasters, particularly for children. If their mother dies, they've already got a stepmother who can pick up the job as seamlessly as could possibly be expected. Even if their father dies, at least their mother is not left completely alone with nobody else on their team.

Incidentally, I can't stand how most Christians are taught that this verse is talking about marriage being a partnership between husband, wife and the Holy Spirit. It says nothing about that. It's simply talking about teams, in all aspects of life, and to force such a narrow meaning on it removes the many things we can learn from it.

 

[Wesley]

Incidentally, I can't stand how most Christians are taught that this verse is talking about marriage being a partnership between husband, wife and the Holy Spirit. It says nothing about that. It's simply talking about teams, in all aspects of life, and to force such a narrow meaning on it removes the many things we can learn from it.

I want to state up front that I agree with you in your interpretation of the passage.

I want to take the opposite position for a moment to illustrate that this is not the best passage for showing the fallacy of legalistic monogamy however. For what it's worth the best passages for that are 1 Timothy 4:1-3, Matthew 15:7-9 and Mark 7:6-7 which speak strongly against legalism. In the case of 1 Timothy 4:1-3 it speaks especially strongly against legalism as regards the issue of marriage.

With that said, I want to change hats for just a moment.

<TWIST> (This type of thinking is pretty twisted so it's a big twist.)

While your interpretation of Ecclesiastes 4:9-12 might be considered one possible interpretation I think we can rule it out simply by pointing out the nature of the Trinity. The Father, Son and Holy Spirit are three in one but each one is slightly different. The marriage trinity must be the same. If we had two women then we would have one that is different and two that are the same. No, each must be unique as each member of the Holy Trinity is unique. Since there is no third gender that means that the third cord in the "threefold cord" must be the Holy Spirit. Since there is no third gender that is the only way we could have a unique third entity in the marriage.

<UNTWIST>

Ah, that's better.

The point is that while the interpretation that you and I share is certainly one possible interpretation and, since the three cords represent physical cords (i.e. physical beings rather than spiritual) it certainly seems to me to be the most rational interpretation, it is not the only possible interpretation.

 

[FollowingHim]

While your interpretation of Ecclesiastes 4:9-12 might be considered one possible interpretation I think we can rule it out simply by pointing out the nature of the Trinity. The Father, Son and Holy Spirit are three in one but each one is slightly different. The marriage trinity must be the same. If we had two women then we would have one that is different and two that are the same. No, each must be unique as each member of the Holy Trinity is unique. Since there is no third gender that means that the third cord in the "threefold cord" must be the Holy Spirit. Since there is no third gender that is the only way we could have a unique third entity in the marriage.

Yes, certainly twisted thinking there, but I can imagine someone coming out with it so thanks for raising it for consideration!

The contrary perspective to that is:
When you plait a rope you actually need three cords that are similar, not different. Try plaiting a rope with two small threads and a massive piece of twine (e.g. two humans and God) and it will be an abject disaster, and no stronger than the massive piece of twine alone. The Trinity works because three similar entities (all divine) are united. A human team of three works because three similar entities (all human) are united.

So you can take this logic in lots of directions. Which just serves to illustrate my point that this is a vaguely worded passage that is applicable to many different situations, there is a lot we can apply it to and learn from it. It is certainly not exclusively about marriage (even the "two lying down together and keeping warm" bit is arguably even more applicable to two men caught in a blizzard on a hunting trip than it is to marriage).

 

[Shadowjak's Dancer]

I like this line of thinking. Twisted as it may be, Wesley, your example counter-argument raises an interesting point. Namely, the assumption that two individual wives are inherently the same. I would suggest that each spouse has something special and unique that they can bring to the marriage cord.

A man who is obsessed with marrying clones probably has other problems.

 

[mystic]

Wait a minute, you mean I can't — darn.

 

[Shadowjak's Dancer]

Well... as a science-fiction fan, I can certainly see it, though the science and ethics may have some unresolved issues, but I meant more along the lines of trying to force different individual wives into being clones of one another, like "My first wife looks good in blue, so... you're not too attached to that green sweater, right?

I mean, different people have different strengths... My dad was a great cook, but his meatballs were legendary bad. My mom is great with the how-to for getting things done, though we often disagree about which things need being done. My wife is great with things like paperwork and forms. She has a real skill for administration. She has many other incredible attributes. I like to work in the garden; I find it peaceful. I'm like a duck to water when it comes to hand-to-hand combat skills. I am also very strong academically. My brother is a whiz with every kind of rubick cube-like puzzle. My sister is an engineer. We're all different, and we're all gifted in unique areas. When those strengths are allowed to flourish and are used for a common purpose, there is a lot more strength in that than just what I alone excel at.

 

[Wesley]

I like this line of thinking. Twisted as it may be, Wesley, your example counter-argument raises an interesting point. Namely, the assumption that two individual wives are inherently the same. I would suggest that each spouse has something special and unique that they can bring to the marriage cord.

A man who is obsessed with marrying clones probably has other problems.

We agree here. In my opinion the Trinity does provide a guideline for plural marriage but it is based on the differing strengths of the individuals.

The key point in my mind is the fact that the three cords are made of the same material. (Leviticus 19:19) To me this means that the three participants must be made of the same material. (i.e. flesh rather than spirit or all part of the God-head) Yes, there are differences but they are, as you pointed out, differences in skills, temperament, etc. rather than differences of the material that they are made of.

As for the idea of "clones" the closest thing we currently have to clones are twins and even identical twins frequently have radically different temperaments.

 

[Wesley]

Yes, certainly twisted thinking there, but I can imagine someone coming out with it so thanks for raising it for consideration!

That's not something that I came up with. My first wife outed me to my family as a polygamist during the time that she was trying to convert me. Since then I've put up with numerous conversion attempts from my family. That's the primary reason that I've lived in so many different states even though my family has stayed put in Kentucky. (I can relate to that country song about all exes living in Texas.)

What I presented is a paraphrase of an actual argument from a legalistic-monogamist who was trying to convert/coerce me to seeing things his way.

 

[Shadowjak's Dancer]

Being outed to one's family by another party sounds dreadful. I'm the kind of stubborn that I told everyone my views except the in-laws for my wife's sake.
Speaking of families and anti-pm arguments, my mom just came over to visit and bring my daughter some ice cream... I knew about that much from our phone call planning the day. What I didn't know was that she was also bringing a stack of papers from "Let Us Reason" ministries... yep, you probably guessed it: loaded with all the classic anti-pm arguments. I've glanced through a few of them. Some of them are just sad. Here's a lovely example:

The fact is that God never commanded polygamy or divorce. Scripture says (Bible) He only permitted it because of the hardness of their hearts (Deut. 24:1; Matt. 19:8). Divorce was tolerated but never with God's approval. Jesus told the Jews, "Because of your hardness of heart, Moses permitted you to divorce your wives; but from the beginning it has not been this way" (Matthew 19:3-8).
Matt 5:31-32 “Furthermore it has been said, “Whoever divorces his wife, let him give her a certificate of divorce. But I say to you that whoever divorces his wife for any reason except sexual immorality causes her to commit adultery; and whoever marries a woman who is divorced commits adultery.” God hates divorce as well as polygamy, since it destroys marriage and the family (Mal. 2:16). Whatever the patriarchs or any Christian did wrong does not change the fact the Bible condemns it.

Now, I don't know about you guys, but my first impression is how easily they've paired polygamy and divorce, then shown a bunch of anti-divorce verses, and said, "So you see, polygamy is bad!"

Oh well. I guess I'll have to shred the arguments for my mom...

on the note of moms... imagine some young man dating your daughter only to find he'll have 7 mother-in-laws who are keeping an eye on him!