21% More Americans Believe Polygamy is Socially Acceptable

[andrew]

@Mojo, I've been tied up with an annual music teachers convention and now the upcoming BibFam retreat.

FWIW, I think you and I are on the same page. I serve a Master who said "love your enemies" and spent a fair amount of his time on earth showing me what that looks like. I would have baked the cake.

If Andrew or any other big dog polygynists in the BF community was given the opportunity to make it easier to function in society with legal rights granted, would they not take opportunity and use it? I dont know the answer.

In a heartbeat, but my personal project is getting the government out of the marriage business. The secular government should enforce private agreements, but not be in the business of defining what 'marriage' is. More to that story, but that's the short version.

 

[aineo]

A new development from a federal appeals court that allows merchants and government employees to cite religious objections when refusing service. It will, once again, be appealed. This is far from over.

 

[MissJ]

A new development from a federal appeals court that allows merchants and government employees to cite religious objections when refusing service. It will, once again, be appealed. This is far from over.

This makes me think of homosexual issues and religious groups. This article is a little old.
http://www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/gay-rights-religious-liberty/
How can more religious groups be accepting of serving same sex couples?Polygny, individuals are ready to stone you. (I am sure this doesn't apply in all cases but many, despite an increase in acceptance among Americans.)

 

[Aussies]

I might be wrong but how I see it is; if you make a list of all the things that go directly against the moral code of the scriptures, make the list as long as you like. Now go down that list and place a tick beside all the things that are accepted in society. I bet you will find that most of those things will be generally accepted (the one solid objection, hopefully, will be in relation to the abuse of children, and rightly so). So why is so much scripturally immoral conduct accepted and yet polygny rejected? Is it not so that anything that works against the acceptable worship of our creator is embraced by the world. Yet if it is firmly established due to the standards of the scriptures and is thus acceptable before him it is rejected. We shouldn't be surprised for if polygamy in the form of polygny was unacceptable before our God then it too would be embraced just as is polygamy in the form of serial monogamy. One stands with God the other is against his will (Malachi 2:16).
I don't for a moment believe that this is a moral debate for the world has shown itself devoid of morals, rather this is about worship and thus by means of this one teaching separates people into two groups those who stand with and those who stand against the God of the bible. I believe that this issue has long been addressed from a moral perspective and if that continues the fight is lost for the morality of this world is so twisted that anything unclean is acceptable. I truly believe that the issue must be addressed from the perspective of worship rather than morals so that honest hearted people can clearly see the issue at hand. (John 15:19 John 17:16). Morals in the world in which we reside are set by the popular consensus of the population, but worship is only defined by the God (Exodus 6:3) or god (2 Corinthians 4:4) it is given to.

 

[Mark C]

I might be wrong but how I see it is; if you make a list of all the things that go directly against the moral code of the scriptures, make the list as long as you like. Now go down that list and place a tick beside all the things that are accepted in society. I bet you will find that most of those things will be generally accepted

...thus replacing bitter for sweet, and "calling evil 'good', and good, 'evil'."

What is mandated by Scripture is being prohibited (and there are at least three specific Scriptural cases for which polygyny is mandated) while what Scripture not only prohibits, but calls "abomination" is first licensed, then subsidized, then mandated. (Obvious case, a "man lying with a man as with a woman," but murder, too, is already there, when it's done by 'licensees'.)

I have contended for a long time, that if the "Law of God" can be done away with, why would we expect a Constitution written by mere men to fare any better? What we see in the world today is the logical, and inevitable result, of when "lawlessness abounds."

I go one step further (probably no surprise to most here... ) and suggest that all of this springs directly from idolatry. Not that 'the world' will admit that, either.

 

[Aussies]

In a heartbeat, but my personal project is getting the government out of the marriage business. The secular government should enforce private agreements, but not be in the business of defining what 'marriage' is. More to that story, but that's the short version.

Thought you might find this interesting; quote from "Christian Marriage" by G H Joyce, S J; introduction page v1 "With them women were little more than a chattel. Marriage was the subject of bargain between the suitor and the guardian; and her wishes in the matter seem to have been hardly taken into account................. From the eleventh century onward the Church enjoyed full control over marriage both in its religious and its civil aspect.................The state might regulate such matters as the right to dower and the law of inheritance; but only the courts Christian could decide whether a marriage was valid or invalid. To discharge her office in this regard it became necessary for the Church to develop her canon-law on marriage. This drew its fundamental principles from revealed doctrine, but in other respects conformed for the most part to the Roman civil code." published in 1948.

To my mind this raises two key points,
Firstly, if the claim is that marriage had to be enforced by an out side body (Church or State) to protect women and thus ensure both fair treatment and a woman's rights (at least to some degree) back at that time, as women were powerless and thus needed protection. Is that still the case today? Could it be that the very laws that were put in place to protect women now actually infringe on "her right to choose" which man she will take as her husband. This is not an argument that any man can ever win as our motives would be questioned.
Secondly; As the set standards came from Rome, and as the Romans had gods for all things including marriage (Jupiter and Juno) then the standards were set by the gods of Roman rather than the God of the Bible. Now it gets interesting for Juno was worshiped as the "Queen of Heaven" (Jeremiah 44; 15-19) and Jupiter was a Baal or god of the sky and claimed to be the god of gods or the supreme god. Thus the matter becomes one of worship and which God or god will we obey.

I have contended for a long time, that if the "Law of God" can be done away with, why would we expect a Constitution written by mere men to fare any better? What we see in the world today is the logical, and inevitable result, of when "lawlessness abounds."

The issue is who was it that actually did away with the Law of God.

I go one step further (probably no surprise to most here... ) and suggest that all of this springs directly from idolatry.

EXACTLY RIGHT!

 

[Joleneakamama]

"We the people" is a modern form of humanism, Baal worship was an ancient one.
Ted Weiland has an audio titled "could you be a disciple of baal, and not know it?" Or something close to that.
It is very eye opening when these biblical concepts get brought forward and put into modern terms.

 

[Mojo]

"We the people" is a modern form of humanism, Baal worship was an ancient one.
Ted Weiland has an audio titled "could you be a disciple of baal, and not know it?" Or something close to that.
It is very eye opening when these biblical concepts get brought forward and put into modern terms.

"We the people" sounds a whole lot better than "I the Pontiff", or "I the Monarch in order to form a more perfect union between church and state to dictate all religion by force".

 

[Joleneakamama]

"We the people" sounds a whole lot better than "I the Pontiff", or "I the Monarch in order to form a more perfect union between church and state to dictate all religion by force".

Agreed, but after reading
Bible Law vs. The United States Constitution:
The Christian Perspective
available to read online here, I see the constitution in a very different light.
Before the constitution, The Bible was the supreme law of the land. It's really hard to see the constitution as any kind of positive compared to that!

I highly recommend the book linked above, but to be clear, there is no one I am aware of that has perfect understanding of everything. Ted Weiland is someone with a lot of study behind him, and a serious ministry. The main point that comes to my mind that we see differently from him (not that this is for sure the only one) is that he believes in racial segregation, and we believe that God must have intended integration with the nations when He sowed Israel through all the earth. I think white supremacy is ugly indeed, and I'm not accusing Mr Weiland of that either. Just want to clearly state that even though I believe Israel was Caucasian, the only thing that ever set them apart was the righteousness of God's law.....when they actually kept it. He alone deserves the praise for what any of us, His creations, are.

 

[Mojo]

Before the constitution, The Bible was the supreme law of the land. It's really hard to see the constitution as any kind of positive compared to that!
It was, but the problem was that "the people" were subject to the interpretation of that scripture by those in power. As we can see here on this forum, it's hard to get people to agree fully even on what constitutes marriage (see threads on Covenant, Sex, etc.). The famous saying about absolute power corrupting absolutely applies to even those charged with governing by scripture. Why do you think many on this forum have chosen home churches, or family only fellowships? The churches they left behind had the Bible as the supreme law of their congregations, didn't they? You would hope, right? Even Israels life span as a theocracy was pretty rocky. I'll take a secular government that promises to let me interpret scripture as The Holy Spirit leads over a theocracy that claims to be able to interpret scripture perfectly for me any day of the week and twice on Sunday. Remember who persecuted the Protestants...the theocratic Catholics. Then, who persecuted the Anabaptists, Seperatists, Moravians, etc....the theocratic Protestants. The separation of church and state was promoted by the Baptists in Virginia who wanted the government out of their churches. I agree with them.

Just want to clearly state that even though I believe Israel was Caucasian...
If by Caucasian you mean derived from the northern Middle East (Armenia and surrounding) then we agree. If you mean Caucasian derived from Europe, we will disagree. The Israelites were a Semitic people deriving from the Middle East region and then spreading to all parts of the globe. If I follow your interpretation that the Gentiles are the northern kingdom spread across into Europe, who have maintained their Israelite identity through the Messiah, then the segregation that you say is despicable seems to be consistent with your doctrine. If they should follow Torah and not mix with the non Israelites, that means segregation doesn't it? Or is it only religious segregation? Help me.

I think you and I are at peace with each other, and have agreed a lot lately, so I'm not trying to stir up strife, just healthy dialogue

 

[Mojo]

Agreed, but after reading
Bible Law vs. The United States Constitution:
The Christian Perspective
available to read online here, I see the constitution in a very different light.
Before the constitution, The Bible was the supreme law of the land. It's really hard to see the constitution as any kind of positive compared to that!

I highly recommend the book linked above, but to be clear, there is no one I am aware of that has perfect understanding of everything. Ted Weiland is someone with a lot of study behind him, and a serious ministry. The main point that comes to my mind that we see differently from him (not that this is for sure the only one) is that he believes in racial segregation, and we believe that God must have intended integration with the nations when He sowed Israel through all the earth. I think white supremacy is ugly indeed, and I'm not accusing Mr Weiland of that either. Just want to clearly state that even though I believe Israel was Caucasian, the only thing that ever set them apart was the righteousness of God's law.....when they actually kept it. He alone deserves the praise for what any of us, His creations, are.

Ted Weiland. Have done some internet exploration of some of his writing (not specifically his book, but just his writing) and...Hmmm...lets just say, " I will agree to disagree with you politely".