• 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.

Isiah 4:1 and the antichrist

I would posit that we already have the problem wherein women feel that being single (even as single mothers) is a normal lifestyle and that husbands are optional. That the antichrist would expand on this idea would be expected.

War not withstanding, in Is. 4:1 women finally realize that being true to their nature (who they were created to be) is in a family led by a husband. And as I have said many times, they probably choose a man who is showing himself to be a good husband to multiple wives, thus the promise to provide for themselves.
I expect to see many men who will not be perceived as good prospective husbands remain single in this time of family expansion.
 
Welcome, sirs.

Points I see there: 1. Persecution (?) and poly is for women (?).

There's was a article regarding the poly law in Canada where a state witness (sorry, i can't find the post now), an anthropologist, if I remember right, contended that poly is bad for society since it will leave many males as singles who will later on turn to a life of crime or terrorism since they don't have the responsibilities of a family. Basically, he was saying poly is for men.

Well, I've seen many married men in mono who doesn't take their responsibilities seriously. Although they don't live a life of crime or terror, they sure do not contribute to the improvement of society. Although, they may produce chlildren who will later on live a life of crime or terror.
 
Very interesting take on this. Thanks for sharing.
 
".......contended that poly is bad for society since it will leave many males as singles who will later on turn to a life of crime or terrorism since they don't have the responsibilities of a family."

And that would differ from our present society how?

The way that I see it is that it would make men aware that women do not have to settle for what is available in the "single male" pool. That women can reach right past that group and select a guy who has proven himself to be a good husband/father. Competition raises the bar.

How can giving women more options be in any way negative?
 
Found it! ==> http://www.vancouversun.com/pdf/affidavit.pdf‎

That's the affidavit of one Joseph Henrich submitted to the Canadian Court.

Makes a nice read, a secular anti-poly view backed by "science." Mr. Joseph is afraid of competition. It forces the jerk-os to clean up their acts and become better men.

Here's a post on it...http://huntergatherer.com/good-reasons- ... -bad-idea/


We can always counter that if forced mono is so good, there why are we in such deep sh*t?


I have a theory on this, which I am obligated to state, is based on pure, unadulterated speculation. :D

Alphas = Real men who turns into or are already good husbands and fathers.
Betas = Males who are only classified as such because they got those things hanging between their legs.

In mainstream mono, 100 ladies has to be spread out over 50 alphas and 50 betas. After a year or so, there'll be 100 juniors, 50% of which are alphas and the other 50%, betas.

In a laissez faire marriage/family environment, the ladies will naturally gravitate towards the alphas (ladies, this is only a theory, okay?). I'm imagining the Axe effect. After a year or so, there'll be 100 juniors, 100% alphas.

Which is better for society?

As for the betas resorting to violence to get even with the alphas. What? the alphas can't defend themselves?

David was an alpha and not everyone of his soldiers was one. A lot probably are betas, yet they don't turn to a life of crime under David.

Why? Because the alphas can cream the betas with ease IF and WHEN they want to.

Okay, that was unscriptural. Pure theoretical, like I said.

Anyway, that's where meekness comes in. :)
 
steve said:
".......contended that poly is bad for society since it will leave many males as singles who will later on turn to a life of crime or terrorism since they don't have the responsibilities of a family."

And that would differ from our present society how?

The way that I see it is that it would make men aware that women do not have to settle for what is available in the "single male" pool. That women can reach right past that group and select a guy who has proven himself to be a good husband/father. Competition raises the bar.

How can giving women more options be in any way negative?
Click to expand...

Agreed, and would like to add that the generational result would be even more notable. As women hold fast to the men who raise children in righteous ways, their progeny may be vastly more capable of living free from the violent lifestyle otherwise encouraged by other potential mates.
 
i absolutely agree about Single moms today think that it is normal. That is so true. and if someone of faith points out kids are supposed to be conceived in marriage, it's like the person saying this should be stoned or some such.

our society is so far from anything scriptural - i mean biblical here - that, as a widow, i feel kind of scared sometimes.

it's not safe to be widowed and celibate where i live - despite the final verses of 1 Cor. chapter 7 i believe it is where Paul says he encourages widows who feel called to do so, to remain unmarried.

i find myself going to great lengths to let men know i am NOT available, in any way! And i mean as soon as i encounter them online or meet them f-2-f!
j/L "Granny" Matrika / Rolling Buffalo Woman
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top