-
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.
Why Not Polygamy? A Question to Progressive Churches
- Thread starter cnystrom
- Start date
Irony indeed, but the glaring question both the author and commentors fail at is the homosexuality is absolutely forbidden in Scripture, yet they make cases for it as 'progressive Christianity.' That was sickening, but such an odd twist that the same peeps can.t figure that there is no argument against poly in Scripture, rather, their 'progressive' sensibilities lean toward mono ('the trajectory of Scripture is plural to mono blah, blah, blah...).... talk about Alice in Wonderland. .... truly warped brainiacs.
Wow!
Wow!
I think that the author is slyly attempting to point out their hypocrisy. He is consciously avoiding the fact that they are already wrong.
I may have missed any statement of his agreeing with the so-called progressive churches.
Ick!
No foundation means any argument for or against ANYTHING can and will change with the politics of the day and human whim.
No foundation means any argument for or against ANYTHING can and will change with the politics of the day and human whim.
Yeah... Well, gay marriage wasn't discussed in the bible so it must be... OK? We know the law does not allow for same sex relationships, that's clear. Should this be compared to Poly? Absolutely not! There is no comparison to our right to sin and a God created union, clearly God didn't recognise gay marriage. The church is (in my opinion) hoaring them selves and drinking the blood of the saints.
Legally the government should not have any hand in what marriage is or isn't.
Legally the government should not have any hand in what marriage is or isn't.
The Torah forbids male same sex relationships but it never forbids it for females...
Are you lesbians are okay? I think there is a verse about women dressing as men and men like women. Not 100%
Lol cross dressing aside that’s actually an entirely different subject. no I think lesbians are not ok because they are rejecting male headship. Not because they are sexually intimate with one another...
Not to derail the thread, but the issue (pun intended) is that males plant seed. Seed is not to be wasted or mixed. Females on the other hand are 'fields' wherein seed is planted. A woman cannot have two men because seed is mixed. Men cannot be homosexual because seed is wasted (deeper Torah has to do with life being expended with death (of seed) resulting explaining why a man us unclean after a nocturnal emission.) Two women, two fields, cannot impregnate each other... @Pacman does deal with the lack of or rejection of headship for lesbianism... that is the problem therein.
Understanding those points, there does not appear to be a problem in Scripture if two ladies, under headship and (IMO) the approval of the husband, want to go that route. Seems okay... ends up being a private matter in each family.
Understanding those points, there does not appear to be a problem in Scripture if two ladies, under headship and (IMO) the approval of the husband, want to go that route. Seems okay... ends up being a private matter in each family.
Last edited:
Careful there carnivore....some people still need to do their body more good before they deal with that.
It all comes back to The Metaphor, sex is the symbol of God's relationship with His people. Men are the very poor stand ins for God. Two men having sex twists The Metaphor to represent two gods, violating the foundational truth of creation; Behold O Israel, the Lord your God is one God. Two women don't represent anything but a good time. No penis, no sex. No sex, not an issue.
I would like to apologize Carnivore. Right after I advised caution on this topic I stripped down naked, painted myself in gold fleck paint, lit my hair on fire and ran through the room singing, "Preacher's on Fire!" with a sparkler in each hand a red smoke grenade taped to my lower back where it barely covered up my tramp stamp which was done in prison and represents my beard surround by the Latin phrase "Ignoramus Terrrificus" over a picture of Daffy Duck dive bombing in his dubya-dubya 2 fighter plane with a little cartoon bubble over his head that reads, "Caution? We don't need no stinking caution! Die!!! I saw what you did to my friend!"
I’m glad I can always count on you for a laugh!
"A" laugh!?!? I could barely type that I was laughing so hard.
Ok a barrel of laughs!!!
This is a very good point to bear in mind. Knowledge is dangerous. Some people are better off without particular pieces of knowledge.
For example, we support a man working with young girls in sex trafficing situations in the Philippines, getting them out of that mess and into school. For him, a firm belief in monogamy is a defense against daily temptation. I personally think that would be a dangerous area for any one of us to work in, because we'd be far more readily tempted by Satan to rescue them by taking them ourselves because we would convert the general love we have for them into a husbandly love far more readily. From that point Satan would have the means to destroy our ministry financially (by alienating all donors because of our "immorality"). Also, given the age of the girls in these situations and the loose age of consent laws in the Philippines, it would be easy for Satan to tempt someone to take very young women as wives - and open a whole new can of worms. For someone in that situation, a firm belief in monogamy is a solid hedge against temptation.
At the same time though, it could be a barrier to see a genuine solution for someone's life. But on balance I feel it is more positive than negative.
On the same note, most men really shouldn't think too deeply into the female-female sex thing. Particularly anyone who is or has struggled with pornography. It's really not relevant to any man's life other than as a distracting fantasy - it's irrelevant by definition, because even if he were married to both of them the moment he tried to step in and make it relevant to him, it would be no longer happening so would remain irrelevant... So there are few positives to be seen in pondering this issue too deeply, past the level of choosing to ignore it on the basis of "I won't judge it if God doesn't".
And if discussing this is going to result in seeing Zec running by stark naked covered in gold flecked paint, well that's enough to put us all off the issue anyway!
But the advantage of that is that if male-female porn is unattractive due to the naked man in the video, and female-female porn is unattractive due to naked Zec running by, then all pornography addiction could be solved. Maybe there's actually a ministry opportunity - a service whereby every time you try to turn on a pornographic movie a naked painted man jumps out of the cupboard and sits on the TV. I can imagine that would stop addiction dead in its tracks.
I can’t breathe!!!!
I bet someone would want to see me naked in gold fleck paint....