5/18: Polygamy

[warthog]

OK for the record...

- My faith is Christian. I most closely align myself with the southern baptists.

- My political affiliation is Libertarian (with a capital L). I'm not only registered as such, but I pay my dues every year.

If that unusual combination by itself wasn't enough to make your heart skip a beat, let's go another step.

Why do I align myself with the southern baptists? Because I think they are the denomination who most strictly adheres to Biblical law despite what the US of A thinks about it. They have done some really politically incorrect things, and upon closer examination I think that biblically it is the right thing.

There are a couple of key areas where I disagree with most southern baptists. I'll save one of them for another discussion if it ever comes up. The one that is relevant to this thread though is polygamy.

There is a lot of biblical support for polygamy. King David, the only man in the Bible described as "a man after God's own heart", was given a plethora of wives as a gift from God. Moses, too, had many wives. Throughout the old testament this is quite common and fine with God.

This isn't very common in the new testament but I think that is because of a natural change in customs in that time period and not because of any commandment in scripture. Remember, most of the people of that time period were not followers of Christ so there is no reason for one of Christ's commandments to have such a profound effect on culture during His own time.

I believe the only sort of plural marriage that the Bible expressly forbids is a union including multiple males.

As both a Christian and as a Libertarian, I wish our government would just lay off and let plural marriages happen as they have for thousands of years (or more). In a time where we're starting to accept homosexual unions (something decidedly un-Christian) what is the harm in accepting what really is a more traditional model in polygyny?

Back to Mr. Green. Why was he the first man prosecuted for polygamy in over 50 years in Utah? Surely he's not the first to have done this in all that time. It is estimated that there are 30,000 plural marriages in Utah today. There are other circumstances that set this man apart:

1) One of his wives was 13 when he consumated the relationship. I don't care what anyone says, this is sick.

2) He is a "deadbeat dad", approximately $50,000 behind on his child support. It is estimated he has at least 29 children, and not all of them live with him.

3) He is not able to keep the children in good means with his income. Four of his five wives were pregnant at the time of the trial. If he can't afford the kids he has, why have more? He's just breeding a good future for the Jerry Springer show at this point.


Ignoring Mr. Green's specific case at the moment, who is the victim in a plural marriage? Why is this a crime?

[elSicomoro]

Originally posted by warthog
Ignoring Mr. Green's specific case at the moment, who is the victim in a plural marriage? Why is this a crime?

Inherently, there is nothing necessarily wrong with a plural marriage, other than the fact that it is against tradition. Who really cares about that? So long as you are able to support your family and children, it really doesn't matter. Although, it does smack against the tenets of modern Christianity.

I wasn't as disgusted about the polygamy part, as much as the other factors behind them, like--

--Not being able to support all 29 of his kids with his income...and I don't recall if ANY of his wives work.

--He divorced some of them so that they could collect welfare. That is downright fraud, and they deserve a public humiliation type of punishment.

--The 13-year old wife. Statutory rape. Period.

I get scared when people use the Bible to back up their message (as some Churches like to do). It's practically manipulation. But then someone like Warthog points out the other ends of the Bible, which I appreciate. Let's not forget that Abraham had a concubine as well...

[serge]

Slight problem when you measure rightness (in law) against an a book that can't evolve*. If you strictly follow any book with supposed set of rules of law.. you CAN'T have a democratic (as in non-McCarthyist) society.

I love people like Green.. oh they are such lovers/followers of a "god".. please.. I don't see him performing any blood sacrifices. (just one of MANY examples.. you understand)


* ex: Twins born sharing one heart.. what to do.

[warthog]

serge your argument is weak and easily broken through. Reading the Bible front to back even once would have prevented you from having this misunderstanding.

The Old Testament was, to oversimplify it, a series of prophecies leading up to the New Testament. Along the way, God had made several covenants with His chosen people. The blood sacrafices were necessary as sin has the high price of blood. But animal sacrafices were not enough. The death of Jesus Christ on the cross was the beginning of the new covenant. The blood of a man who died without sin was good enough to pay the wages of sin for every man.

God does not change. God does not evolve. Evolution, in theory, is a process of refining an imperfect species towards something more perfect (for a specific environment, or a prey animal, or evading predators, etc.) What use does a perfect being have with evolution? You look at the Bible and see a book of laws that does not evolve. I look at it and see something that is perfect in its timelessness. In the last 50-60 years we humans have gone out of our way to cut our ties to God, and for what? Single parent families, latchkey kids, school shootings.... shall I go on?

It was the Romans who brought about a change towards monogamy. Not Christianity. There was no law or commandment in the Bible against polygyny. The "Christian family value" of monogamy was something of man, not of God. Monogamy is not in and of itself immoral. It is but one of several options in family structure.

My wife and I are both of the belief that patriarchal Christianity is of God. But we also both believe that it is not for us. I practice monogamy, but I fully support the right of a patriarch to marry plurally within the confines of Biblical law.

[jaguar]

*sighs*
warthog, where do i start (please relaise you've caught me in a bad mood, I will regret this) For a start polygyny is open to abuse by people like green (If it was legal) becuase of the way these women were taken advantage, many polygynous relationships start like this, few from adult women. It is a continuation of the chauvanistic practise from the past called harem keeping, and is to one hell of alot of people dispiciable for very good reasons.

You are basing everything on the bible, the bible said this, the bible said that, well hate to break it to you but that bible is not what law is based on(phew), and not what everyone beleives (phew again). Law is based on the rational thinking and long debated thoughts of ellected officals in the best interest of the poeple who elected them (or so it SHOULD be).

Not on a many-times translated fictional novel with no factual basis.

Hate to bring religion into this but if you want to live your life round a book, good for you, i'm glad you have the blind faith to be able to do that(there are other words i could use but I will refrain). The bible is not a very easy book to defend, it makes its 'god' look so hypocritical that after a bit of analysis its like trying to keep water in a sieve. (read Mark Twains letters from earth?)

As both a Christian and as a Libertarian, I wish our government would just lay off and let plural marriages happen as they have for thousands of years (or more). In a time where we're starting to accept homosexual unions (something decidedly un-Christian) what is the harm in accepting what really is a more traditional model in polygyny?

Sorry but our mostly civilised and rational society is accepting homosexual unions because we finally realsie that that are as valid as loving caring couples as hetrosexual couples. And the fact the church frowns on the joining of two loving people, no matter their sex should have *zero* impact on that (unless curch followers make up the majority of the voters, after all a government must reflect its voters)

Secondly becuase somthing has happened for thousands of years dosen't make it somhow more vaild (torture, public executions, amny thousands of afflicitons, slavery etc)

For the record the reason Green was prosocuted is becuase he became so mdan high profice, he was in papers all over the world (including in all the major aussie ones) , they couldn't turn a blind eye to that the same way they turn a blind eye to all the other 50000, it is obviously part of the culture (moron home state i seem to recall).

The Old Testament is not exactly somthing i think any sane person would base thier life apon, mass murder, selling into slavery, and the worst of slaveries, protitution amoungst many other helinious crimes.

In the last 50-60 years we humans have gone out of our way to cut our ties to God, and for what? Single parent families, latchkey kids, school shootings.... shall I go on?

Where do i start.......

1: I find the diea that though such saying religious people are impying that peopel cannot do good without some diety standing over them with a big stick say no, now, do the right thing, kiss my butt for life and ill give you a good afterlife bloody insulting, i am capable of doing the right thing without that.

2: Gee, living under the rule of those who used god as a tool to remain in control was so wonderful wasen't it, women had no rights, there was half a million taboos, we lived in a world where thought was limited and thsoe who went outside that narrow relm were crucified (somtimes literally) (galiellio, darwin). But hey, those that believe in polygyny usually aren't too worried about womens rights either.

3: I am the child of a single aprent *gasp* hes obviously disfunctional, suicidal, homocidal, anti-social etc...What a pile of SHIT. *newsflash* plenty of fucked up kids come from happy, loving nuclear families, because its not the strucure, its the people that counts.

4: School shootings are the result of problems with SOCIETY, which have nothing to do with religion. I can list these problems and their causes if you really want.

who is the victim in a plural marriage

The women, and the children.

Think outside your square

[serge]

warthog please understand.. I tried to make the post as concise as possible while making a specific point pertaining to the issue.. basically did not want to start a 'religion' flame war.

Understand also that the "arguments" in your post can be easily disproven... but again I DO NOT wish to lower the quality of the board. If you want we can both edit (delete) our posts in this thread.

[jaguar]

Pardon my post for getting a tad...personal?
but when somthing strikes close to home like this.....

It seems serge, i took up where you left off, but hey, i wasent' going to let this lie as justifying this kind of thing....and there is no tiptoeing round such firey subjects.

Religion is an arguement/debate that can never won, personally i find it impossible to have 'faith' in somthing wihtout reasonable proof. Religion can do alot of good, but it cna do alot of bad, as Marx said, religion is the opiate of the masses, he had a point.

[elSicomoro]

Originally posted by warthog
serge your argument is weak and easily broken through. Reading the Bible front to back even once would have prevented you from having this misunderstanding.

It depends on how you look at the Bible though. I don't believe that the Bible was meant to be read cover-to-cover.

Warthog, it would seem that your argument is based on the premise that the Bible is the ultimate word of God, which may or may not be the case. We will never know, as the subjectivity of a higher power can never be tested for support.

The Bible can be contorted in many ways--lots of groups use it for backing in terms of an argument against homosexuality. And while I took humor in your interpretation of polygamy (b/c as I said, the Bible is a great contortionist...and people forget about the "immoral" things in there), I do not take the Bible literally. For one, there are too many "inaccuracies" and lots of repetitive numbers (e.g. 40). Secondly, the Bible has been interpreted, translated, re-translated, re-interpreted, etc. Unless we can find the original Bible texts, we will never completely understand what the Bible REALLY said. Whose to say whether your interpretations or mine are true or not, for there is no way that support can be provided in a case like this.

In the last 50-60 years we humans have gone out of our way to cut our ties to God, and for what? Single parent families, latchkey kids, school shootings.... shall I go on?

I don't believe that it is a result of a lack of God in our lives. All this went on behind closed doors for centuries. As our population grew, these incidents multiplied. With the nature of American society, it fell under the microscope. If anything, these situations could be a result of having TOO much God.

[warthog]

Sycamore said:
> Warthog, it would seem that your argument
> is based on the premise that the Bible is the
> ultimate word of God [snip]

Yes, that would be a safe assumption to make. This is why I put it above our deeply rooted traditions and "morals" of the 21st century. I contend that some of the morals which our western society holds dear are merely vestigial remains of the Roman empire's influence on us. Kind of like the reason that train tracks are the exact width that they are (I can post that if anyone cares). Nobody ever just thought "Why do we do things this way?"

[jaguar]

Since u don't seem to want to try and repond to most of eihter mine or sycamores post i'm curious, what are these morals or values that are so out dated...

And your kinda of missing the point of morlas, unlike the universal (amoung chrisitans) bible, morals are a personal thing, everyone can have different morals, different people care about different things more than others, with me its womens rights and drug issues, i've beaten the crap out of a guy that date-raped(stupid term) a friend of mine at a party, i consider that morally correct. Morals need to change with the times, to suit today, not yesterday, otherwise they are simply a burden, which is partly what serge said.
Beleive it or not i'm not ona crusade to get you, just pointing somthing out.