• 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.

Segregation

brYce

brYce

Member
In another group I belong to the leader told me that I would not be able to speak about polygyny there unless it was in one specific group that he created for the topic. On that site there are many other groups for discussing theology and other topics. The leader of that group believes that polygyny is not a sin and that it is acceptable in some circumstances. I thought that his idea to segregate the discussion was wrong and I wrote him the following letter where I compared his segregation to the segregation our Black American brothers experienced in society up until it ended a generation ago.
Rabbi ??????????,

I am glad that you will allow me to express myself, but I am saddened that you only wish me to do so in this one polygyny group. It would be much nicer if I had freedom to express myself in any of the groups fully. Honestly, this segregation makes me feel like an African American may have felt before the laws in the USA changed. They used to be able to be in public, but they were segregated into areas so they wouldn't mix with others. You don't mind people talking about polygyny, but only if it's done at the back of the bus where the rest of the people don't have to hear about that aspect of the Holy Torah?

The Torah is holy, just, and good. His commandments pertaining to marriage are also holy, just, and good. However, they appear to be offensive to some, so they must be kept separate? Perhaps those who are offended by the Torah should separate themselves?

I will not respect your wishes to only talk about polygyny in that one particular group. I might speak of it in other groups as well and, if you punish me for it, I will accept that punishment. I will not censor His Torah at all and I hope that you will not censor it in any way either.


Shalom,

brYce
Click to expand...
What do you think about my comparison? Does it make sense?
 
brYce,

I will offer my 2 cents worth. If this man is the leader of the group, should you not obey the Word and submit to his authority, even if you disagree with it? Would it not be better to pray for the man to have enlightenment and keep the discussion where he allows until God opens his spiritual eyes? Why be overcome with evil. Would it not be better to overcome evil with good? Why not give room for wrath and let God handle it?

When you wrote Rabbi?... is this a way to show respect and love for your fellow man, made in the image of God? Sarcasm is something that God will not tolerate. The origin of the word really means to tear at someone's flesh. Beware lest you devour one another.

I beg to disagree with your approach. We must be willing to submit to any authority, no matter if we disagree or not, unless it goes directly against the Word of God, which this situation in my opinion does not.

I think this was a test for you and you did not fair well. The good news is that in the school of the Holy Ghost, there is always a similar test to be taken again and again until you pass. Even then you may have to take it over and over again, until God is sure you have learned to obey His written Word.

Be blessed,

Ray
 
I agree with Ray that when it comes to forums and websites, there is some type of structure or bias or atmosphere that the leaders want to establish and maintain. Freedom of expression is not promised if it means that this structure needs to be disregarded or not respected. If it is a structure that is at odds with oneself then a person should post within that structure and when it is not possible then one should create their own website to find a release for the other things one feels that should be said. Some of the individuals that post on this forum have their own websites. On Biblical Families all people posting are not required to be Christians, but are required to defer to the Christian atmosphere. On the internet there are many places to argue various theological positions. This forum was not designed or desired to resolve any theological positions to the final winning argument and that motive for discussion is not considered a Christian attitude. Christians are not expected to lay aside Christ, but are expected to lay aside personal divisive Christian arguments (even correct ones, and of course we all have correct ones). Taking offense at being asked to do this is not viewed here as a Christian attitude.
Most Christians who are argumentative may have a friend, spouse, or family members that are very easy going and refuse to argue about much of anything. The argumentative Christian may even notice this and often say that God has brought this person into their life to balance out their own argumentative nature. Therefore they feel they must maintain being argumentative to help the non-conflict desiring person maintain their role from God as a peace keeper and thus the argumentative person logically feels they should maintain being argumentative because it is God-ordained. This is false. The non-argumentative person was put there as a role model and someone to emulate and to be allowed to lead the way. God is apt to take these good people out of ones sphere if no lesson is learned. Some individuals would bring a lesson to everyone but refuse a lesson from anyone including God. And how does one know they are apt to refuse a lesson from God? By realizing that one really doesn't relish being wrong on anything, and probably has a short list of usually convenient occasions when they were wrong. There are many commandments in the Law. If we really want to fulfil the Law we would honor Christ's words as follows:

Romans 13:8

Owe no man any thing, but to love one another: for he that loveth another hath fulfilled the law.
 
you are correct, I answered something that was not asked.

I do see the comparison, although i would not agree fully. I have to work now, so I will respond fully later tonight. It is an interesting analogy though, considering the situation.
 
I deleted my posts, so if you delete the last one of yours, nobody will see what I wrote. I understand what you are asking, it is just hard to see past what I (and others) consider to be a much bigger and more important aspect of your post.
 
ok Bryce,

That was a good question about the comparison. I agree with Welltan's evaluation mostly although I also think that it is courageous and right to bring forward truth and stand up for it. The time and place should be a consideration also. Anyway about your question. The segregation of the american south was predicated upon WHO these people were. In other words it was based on their Genes. In the case of the other website, if you would tell me "Well, I have 2 wives and these people do not let me speak of it in a biblical way I have to hide it, as I would have to hide I were black if this were 1959" See? I know your beliefs are part of you but the comparison is just a little off. Blacks were not kept seperate because of their beliefs or even for speaking out on anything (most didn't) but just for being born in a particular family. Poly is just one side issue in christianity, it is not even a central tent! Chillax! Myself, I would have written a letter saying that if I ever get a second wife will I have to keep her a secret outside of my topic ghetto? See? That would put the ball back in the other guy's court.
 
brYce said:
Imagine that you joined a website that allowed you to speak about our Master Jesus, but only in one specific group to people who wanted to join the conversation. This group was a private group, so the only people who could even read the discussions were those who joined it.
Click to expand...

If the web site belonged to another person and I wanted to remain welcome there, then I would submit to the authority of the web site and preach Jesus to whom ever would listen. I still cannot agree with you as it goes against my understanding of the Word and way of Christ. Sorry.

Blessings,

Ray
 
I understand the relation that you made with segregation, and I see the direct connection points. Toleration with a muzzle, correct? Allowance with terms?

With any analogy there are things that don't match up, so I don't think this has to fit perfectly in order for you to make your point. The main difference would be that they were segregated due to skin color and not religious beliefs. If they had the same beliefs they would still be at the back of the bus. Of course, I do think that you could argue that since the Rabbi is in agreement with you, that you could say he was like a white person that thought the treatment was wrong, but did not want to receive any backlash regarding any support that he gave. The problem with that is that he has to be the same as you, either one color or the other. Maybe you are both the non segregated in this picture.
 
Since both of you are not plural in marriage, you might be both at the front of the bus. You are telling him that the people at the back of the bus (polygamists) should be treated fairly. He is saying that he agrees, but just don't say it outloud right now, because he does not know how some of the other riders are going to deal with it. If you were plural, and he said that you could read the posts on the forum, but not participate, then it would be more like you were a back of the bus person. As it is, you are an activist, like me. ;)

(non practicing polygamist is what Cecil would say, not an activist. Of course, that would make the Rabbi an non practicing activist!)
 
Itsoktobesingle ;) said:
ok Bryce,

The segregation of the american south was predicated upon WHO these people were.


I would like to point out the last state to have segregation of black and whites was the state of New Jersey. Why do people always thinks that segregation was only a southern issue. LOL. This southerner just couldn't let that go unchallenged.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top