• 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.

Yahoo Answers: Polygamy in Christianity

I posted in it. Didnt realize it was under my wifes yahoo name. lol. Good thing I let her read it before I added it! lol. My couch isnt that comfortable to sleep on! hehehe. Its the one thats by Tammy. Im sure you can pick it out pretty easily. hahaha.
 
Some of you really need to get over there and respond! I am not nearly as eloquent as many on this board...I would love to see some well-rounded answers speaking the truth!!! Aside from "Tammy" of course. :)
 
This may be best suited for another thread but it follows with whats mentioned here so I will just add to this.

Im not understanding something when it comes to legalizing polygamy. Why are people trying to legalize it through the laws that are trying to be changed with same sex marriage?

Polygamy is a complete and seperate issue and should not be involved with same sex marriage as an approach to legalize it. Instead in my opinion it should be approached by other ways. We know that based on religion that it wont happen. It has been tried. Instead, it should be viewed and legalized just like bi-racial marriages are legalized. Tie it in with that and there might be a chance. View it under a minority rights issue and its possible.

When being approached with legalizing it there should be several steps in the attempt. Combine everything. All the reasons it SHOULD be legalized and current laws that apply to groups of people that are in place right now but still not allowing polygamy. Such as mentioned above. Create a good base platform for it and build on it. Also include laws that should be applied to it when it passes. Such as how many wives. Age of a woman to be able to marry into a polygamy relationship. Say age 20. Even set a standard to age difference if it might help. Put in a law of restrictions to maybe require a sanity test! lol. (sometimes I think Im crazy for doing this and Im the husband! hahaha)

I mean all you need to do is create a firm argument, show current laws and standards from here and other areas that have it in place that it works, Set the laws for them so they dont have to think. And end with a bang so they have no other option. Maybe Im wrong but I have heard of many many many laws being passed in this manor.
 
NCbeleivercouple said:
. Also include laws that should be applied to it when it passes. Such as how many wives. Age of a woman to be able to marry into a polygamy relationship. Say age 20. Even set a standard to age difference if it might help.
Click to expand...

Some of those suggestions are scary to liberty. All that is needful is the elimination of current bad laws.
 
Cant be worse than what it is now. Its one of those deals about getting a foot in the door. Once your in, then slowly work around to get the rest of what is needed to change. Age restrictions or any thing else can be changed in time. Dont expect it to go exactly how you want it right off the bat. Like I said, get it started, then give it some time and make the changes needed where they are needed.
 
jay c said:
I put my two cents in over at Yahoo! Answers.

As for the legalization question...Get government out of the business of regulating marriage altogether, and the problem will be solved.
Click to expand...

Hello,

I do not know if I totally agree here. Who would decide where the children would go if there were not laws, regulations, etc... in a divorce. Or where would the property go, or... and there are a host of other issues, for example, what about insurance companies... they are governed by laws - should they have a total free fall too on the issue of who they cover or do not... I think that there is a lot to think about and simply eliminating regulations would not answer all the issues for believers and non-believers alike. I am not saying that I have a clear answer either, however, I think that another alternative may be to "transfer authority" of marriage to various churches, secular organizations, etc... would help. However, this transfer of authority needs to have the teeth of the law. So, say that you are a believer. You get married under the umbrella of this church organization. That particular organization now has authority to administer justice if the marriage goes south, which agrees with Scriptural principle about judging our own. Hopefully, one would only get married in a group he/she/they agree with... This view gives the freedom of unbelievers to do what they want, and gives the freedom of believers to get married in accordance with their belief systems. Having no laws whatsoever would actually send people back to the courts to settle marriages arbitrarily.

Anyway, I haven't thought it totally out yet, but in time I believe I will have a solution that fits with Biblical truth, has teeth to it, yet, keeps the government from controlling it.
 
I'm not concerned about insurance companies. I think they should be able to decide for themselves who they will cover and who they won't and how.

As for handling divorce, I'd like to get the government out of that as well, or at least to reduce their role to one of contract enforcement. A woman's father (or brother or herself) should make sure that the what-ifs are addressed before marriage. Of course, nobody can foresee every eventuality, but I think it would be better if those things would be handled by local elders (church, civil, or whatever) rather than by federal or state governments. Most people got along for thousands of years without all the regulation of marriage that we have today. There will always be abuses in every system, but giving government power over something over which they have no legitimate authority is a bad idea.

I haven't thought out all the many details, but I am certain that they can be worked out.
 
jay c said:
I'm not concerned about insurance companies. I think they should be able to decide for themselves who they will cover and who they won't and how.
Click to expand...

I agree, but this still involves govt regulation, right?

As for handling divorce, I'd like to get the government out of that as well, or at least to reduce their role to one of contract enforcement. A woman's father (or brother or herself) should make sure that the what-ifs are addressed before marriage.
Click to expand...

I agree, but what does that really mean? Who would regulate that!? The brother? The woman's father? Boy, could I see the sparks fly here...lol You see, no matter which way you slice it, there needs to be some sort of "regulation" governing marriage. Even if all the "what-ifs" were answered by the family, who enforces it? I do truly understand what you are saying, but even in this "familial" view, it has no teeth which makes it moot, which ultimately brings it back to the courts for ultimate decision making. How? Because someone will be unhappy how relatives decided the outcome!

Of course, nobody can foresee every eventuality, but I think it would be better if those things would be handled by local elders (church, civil, or whatever) rather than by federal or state governments.
Click to expand...

Well, to be quite frank, we will unlikely be alive to see this kind of change, but it is fun to talk about. I think I would agree with the scenario you just shared as being more just, for sure. I do know from ancient Hebrew documents that the elders of the city were involved with divorces in OT, and the concept of elders (rulers) was carried over into the synogogues, which was carried over by apostle Paul into the concept of the Church. Perhaps this was one reason that Apostle Paul provided this principle for us:

Dare any of you, having a matter against another, go to law before the unjust, and not before the saints? Do ye not know that the saints shall judge the world? and if the world shall be judged by you, are ye unworthy to judge the smallest matters? Know ye not that we shall judge angels? how much more things that pertain to this life? If then ye have judgments of things pertaining to this life, set them to judge who are least esteemed in the church. I speak to your shame. Is it so, that there is not a wise man among you? no, not one that shall be able to judge between his brethren? But brother goeth to law with brother, and that before the unbelievers. Now therefore there is utterly a fault among you, because ye go to law one with another. Why do ye not rather take wrong? why do ye not rather suffer yourselves to be defrauded? Nay, ye do wrong, and defraud, and that your brethren.
(1 Corinthians 6:1-8)
Click to expand...
 
jay c said:
Well, to be quite frank, we will unlikely be alive to see this kind of change, but it is fun to talk about.
Click to expand...

Isn't that the truth!? I can't even tell you how many 100s or 1000s of hours I spent debating topics exactly like this on libertarian forums in the 90s.
Click to expand...

lol
 
Who would decide where the children would go if there were not laws, regulations, etc... in a divorce. Or where would the property go, or...
Click to expand...

The answer is, and has always been, those with the guns (or the swords, or the bigger muscle). Phrased properly, it's about power, nothing more.

At the risk of sounding too sarcastic, ;) I could add that a coin toss is arguably as capable of making a better decision (and one no less consistent with what is called "law" today, anyway) than what we see in most courts.

...I am not saying that I have a clear answer either, however, I think that another alternative may be to "transfer authority" of marriage to various churches, secular organizations, etc... would help. However, this transfer of authority needs to have the teeth of the law.
Click to expand...

It already does, for those who believe God holds us to our agreements -- even (or perhaps especially) if He has said "make no treaty with the inhabitants of the land". And, of course, He does so anyway - whether "fools" believe it or not.

So I agree, and disagree, Pastor Randy. There really, without question, HAS been a "transfer of authority". Sadly, most people don't understand how it happened, or to WHOM that authority has been transferred -- but the answer has been in the Bible, from (literally) the Beginning.

As for the second part: I contend that God's Word really HAS the "teeth of law", whether anyone on this land believes it or not. Guns, tax collectors, and fear of black robes and badges may seem to matter in the short term here as well, but the Power REALLY is His. He just holds us responsible for our actions - and our agreements.


PS> I don't expect either the prince of this world, or his governments, to give up their attempt to control marriage, or anything else that slave masters always want to control, voluntarily, Jay.

And while I agree it would be "nice", do not forget that they like to claim that those slaves "volunteered" in servitude. And they are right.

I just saw this comment, penned by a former lawyer (licensed Officer of the Court, now gone straight):

Commercial problems have commercial solutions. [The] key is coming to terms with the reality that we're dealing with commercial problems, not political problems. Our solutions to the present national-policy insanity start in our own backyards. We have no control over the pre-programmed candidate selection or the pre-programmed electronic voting machines. But, we do have 100% control over what we sign.
Click to expand...
 
jay c said:
Well, to be quite frank, we will unlikely be alive to see this kind of change, but it is fun to talk about.
Click to expand...

Isn't that the truth!? I can't even tell you how many 100s or 1000s of hours I spent debating topics exactly like this on libertarian forums in the 90s.
Click to expand...


Agreed!

And it may sometimes seem that we still do...

But little things mean a lot, and sometimes being obedient to what we see Him teaching results in bigger changes INSIDE of us than OUTSIDE.

I no longer try to "change the world", in other words. He has always known where it was headed -- it just took me a while longer to figure out.

For those with "eyes to see", it seems increasingly obvious where "the world" is headed. The good news is that we don't have to go there with it.

That is, I contend, why we are to "come out of her" -- and why it is important to 'sound the trumpet' and issue the warning, as we may be called to do.

The rest is up to Him, and those with "ears to hear".
 
I tried clicking the link above but it is dead. All it says is...
This question has been deleted
Questions on Yahoo! Answers are sometimes deleted according to our Community Guidelines.
Click to expand...
......I wonder who got offended and why. I wish I could have read it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top