OrthodoxChristianity.net
September 01, 2014, 02:53:23 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: 1   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Humans & Monogamy?  (Read 683 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
JamesR
Virginal Chicano Blood
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: On-n-Off
Jurisdiction: OCA (the only truly Canonical American Orthodox Church)
Posts: 5,556


St. Augustine of Hippo pray for me!


« on: August 03, 2012, 08:55:40 PM »

Something that does not make sense to me about Orthodox ethics. If Orthodoxy teaches that the purpose of sex is to produce children to be raised under the faith and that we are only allowed to have one wife, then how do we explain basic human biology? The human male was not built for monogamy. If we are only supposed to have sex with our one wife so that we produce children, then how come it takes 9 months for a woman to have one child whereas a male can ejaculate and thus impregnate several women almost whenever he wants? In theory, if we were truly designed to have children with only one woman (our wife), then wouldn't it follow that males should only be able to impregnate one woman every per 9 months?--in accordance with how long it takes for his wife to have a child?

This leaves only two possibilities--both of which contradict the Orthodox positions. Either a) man was not meant to be monogomous or b) producing children is NOT the only purpose of sex. If we go with the former then we have to admit that the Church is wrong by promoting monogomy and outlawing polygamy. But if we go with the latter, we have to then accept that the Church is wrong in stating that the only purpose of sex is children. I am starting to think that the Church's morals are mere products of what society at a particular time believes is right or wrong. And I think that monogomy may just be a sham by feminists to cover up the true male nature to spread his seed wherever and try and force him into committing to only one partner. Just like premature ejaculation; another feminist sham. There is no such thing as 'premature' ejaculation. When you ejaculate you ejaculate. When it comes you are ready. 'Premature' is just an arbitrary human label with no real basis in biology. It ignores the true male nature. Women invented it just so that they could try and fool their man into feeling guilty for not engaging in enough foreplay, when in reality foreplay is what is biologically unnatural; not 'premature' ejaculation. Lousy feminists.

Discuss
Logged

Quote
You're really on to something here. Tattoo to keep you from masturbating, chew to keep you from fornicating... it's a whole new world where you outsource your crosses. You're like a Christian entrepreneur or something.
Quote
James, you have problemz.
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Online Online

Faith: Agnostic
Posts: 29,575



« Reply #1 on: August 03, 2012, 08:58:17 PM »

Who told you that the only reason for sex was procreation?  police
Logged
JamesR
Virginal Chicano Blood
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: On-n-Off
Jurisdiction: OCA (the only truly Canonical American Orthodox Church)
Posts: 5,556


St. Augustine of Hippo pray for me!


« Reply #2 on: August 03, 2012, 09:00:39 PM »

Who told you that the only reason for sex was procreation?  police

Some Orthodox Saint or something
Logged

Quote
You're really on to something here. Tattoo to keep you from masturbating, chew to keep you from fornicating... it's a whole new world where you outsource your crosses. You're like a Christian entrepreneur or something.
Quote
James, you have problemz.
orthonorm
Warned
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,488



« Reply #3 on: August 03, 2012, 09:06:57 PM »

Didn't we already cover this topic.

You can have sex with your pregnant wife till the water breaks and again to repeat my joke about Germans, this is when it finally gets interesting for them.

Monogamy definitely seems the most likely type of coupling for a species which takes so long to provide for their offspring.

Lifelong monogamy, not so much. Hence the proverbial seven year itch.

But serial monogamy, certainly seems a *relatively* consistent pattern of sexual practice in the contemporary Western world. 
Logged

Ignorance is not a lack, but a passion.
HabteSelassie
Ises and I-ity
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church
Posts: 3,332



!
« Reply #4 on: August 03, 2012, 09:12:00 PM »

Greetings in that Divine and Most Precious Name of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ!

Something that does not make sense to me about Orthodox ethics. If Orthodoxy teaches that the purpose of sex is to produce children to be raised under the faith and that we are only allowed to have one wife, then how do we explain basic human biology? The human male was not built for monogamy.



Who in the world ever told you that nonsense?  I would only agree with this point.  True, it is hard for human beings to resist their temptations, but I would not hardly suggest this is a matter of biological fault with God.  That would only be a cop-out or excuse, and you are young enough for me to understand how your hormones might influence your interpretation.  The Divine Mystery of Holy Matrimony is perfect by God's Grace, human beings who get married are not.  We are sinners like anyone else, married or not.  God sanctifies our marriages through the Divine Mystery by His active and dynamic Grace.  We are not perfect, but our marriages in the Church are perfected.  When we submit to them in prayer and humble Christian service to the other, we are blessed by God. When we are skeptical or resist our marriages, we only find ourselves in the mix-up mix-up of passions, lusts, and the most dreaded sin of all.. the little "what if" questions.



stay blessed,
habte selassie
Logged

"Yet stand aloof from stupid questionings and geneologies and strifes and fightings about law, for they are without benefit and vain." Titus 3:10
Sleeper
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,256

On hiatus for the foreseeable future.


« Reply #5 on: August 03, 2012, 09:35:42 PM »

A third option could be that our sexual cycle is a byproduct of our evolutionary development, something left over from our non-monogamous primate ancestors that were part of creation's self-making, as it were, in accordance with God granting it a certain amount of autonomy. When the creatures that we would call mankind arrived and God breathed life into them to be His image-bearers, the beauty of monogamous marriage as a picture of God and the Church was established and our "former ways" were to be left behind. At this stage mankind thrived on God's grace and thus had no problems overcoming the animalistic instincts, but post-Fall, these "passions" flare up as our flesh wars against the spirit.
Logged
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Online Online

Faith: Agnostic
Posts: 29,575



« Reply #6 on: August 03, 2012, 09:39:34 PM »

Who told you that the only reason for sex was procreation?  police

Some Orthodox Saint or something

Some saints may have been of that opinion, but it is not the official (or even unofficial) Orthodox position. There are other reasons for having sex beside procreation. In fact, I've read in the early Church Fathers (e.g. St. Gregory) the idea that the earth was already "filled," as God had commanded, and that was back in the 4th century. No, natural attraction is not a bad thing, and there are many positive reasons for having sexual relations.
Logged
ZealousZeal
Gainsaying Helpmeet
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: ✔
Posts: 2,678


Never cease to intercede for us, your children.


« Reply #7 on: August 03, 2012, 09:59:24 PM »

Didn't we already cover this topic.

+ Eleventy billion.

I was not aware that the Church taught any such thing. Not even the RCC teaches that, and their teachings on sex are often considered strict 'round these parts.
Logged

"For this God is our God forever and ever; He will be our guide, even to the end." Psalm 48:14
yeshuaisiam
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox, Anabaptist, Other Early Christianity kind of jumbled together
Posts: 4,200


A pulling horse cannot kick.


« Reply #8 on: August 04, 2012, 06:55:12 PM »

God never called polygamy a sin.   In fact so many in the OT were polygamists.

It was just written that a bishop should only have one wife.

The church however outlawed it from canon (I do not know of which one if anybody has info on it).

My personal beliefs is that polygamy is not sinful.   It is okay for a Christian layman to engage in it if he wants to and his wives say its okay.   Just as the prophets and many persons of highlight in the OT did.

Now, one thing that is not explained EVER though is the HONEY-DO list.

Can you imagine 2 no... 4 wives writing you a honey-do list every weekend?  I am not joking.  That would be murder.

Logged

I learned how to be more frugal and save money at http://www.livingpress.com
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Online Online

Faith: Agnostic
Posts: 29,575



« Reply #9 on: August 04, 2012, 07:06:41 PM »

The church however outlawed it from canon (I do not know of which one if anybody has info on it).

I'm not sure. I believe that there is talk of "polygamy" and such in the canons, but what is meant by that was 2nd and 3rd marriages after a divorce or death of a spouse, and not being married to multiple people at the same time. I could be wrong though, I've never looked into it in depth.
Logged
Kerdy
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,732


« Reply #10 on: August 04, 2012, 09:17:50 PM »

God never called polygamy a sin.   In fact so many in the OT were polygamists.

It was just written that a bishop should only have one wife.

The church however outlawed it from canon (I do not know of which one if anybody has info on it).

My personal beliefs is that polygamy is not sinful.   It is okay for a Christian layman to engage in it if he wants to and his wives say its okay.   Just as the prophets and many persons of highlight in the OT did.

Now, one thing that is not explained EVER though is the HONEY-DO list.

Can you imagine 2 no... 4 wives writing you a honey-do list every weekend?  I am not joking.  That would be murder.



Aren't we taught a man will leave his parents for his wife (singular)?

And when divorce was brought into the picture, the allowance was infidelity.  You can't have multiple wives and not commit infidelity.
« Last Edit: August 04, 2012, 09:19:40 PM by Kerdy » Logged
yeshuaisiam
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox, Anabaptist, Other Early Christianity kind of jumbled together
Posts: 4,200


A pulling horse cannot kick.


« Reply #11 on: August 04, 2012, 11:52:12 PM »

God never called polygamy a sin.   In fact so many in the OT were polygamists.

It was just written that a bishop should only have one wife.

The church however outlawed it from canon (I do not know of which one if anybody has info on it).

My personal beliefs is that polygamy is not sinful.   It is okay for a Christian layman to engage in it if he wants to and his wives say its okay.   Just as the prophets and many persons of highlight in the OT did.

Now, one thing that is not explained EVER though is the HONEY-DO list.

Can you imagine 2 no... 4 wives writing you a honey-do list every weekend?  I am not joking.  That would be murder.



Aren't we taught a man will leave his parents for his wife (singular)?

And when divorce was brought into the picture, the allowance was infidelity.  You can't have multiple wives and not commit infidelity.

Not exactly the logic of polygamy....

True a man will leave his parents for his wife.
Then a man will marry another wife, never leaving his wife.
Then a man will marry wife #3, without leaving his other two wives.

Infidelity would exist outside of matrimony.
So if you were married once, and then divorced for reasons of infidelity, then there's a problem.

The practice of polygamy was very common throughout the biblical years, and is still common in many countries.

It just sound bizarre today frankly because we don't see it.
I don't think I view it as a sin.
Logged

I learned how to be more frugal and save money at http://www.livingpress.com
Agabus
The user formerly known as Agabus.
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Pan-American Colloquial Convert Hybrid Orthodoxy.
Jurisdiction: We are all uncanonical now.
Posts: 2,216



« Reply #12 on: August 05, 2012, 08:31:55 AM »

God never called polygamy a sin.   In fact so many in the OT were polygamists.

It was just written that a bishop should only have one wife.

The church however outlawed it from canon (I do not know of which one if anybody has info on it).

My personal beliefs is that polygamy is not sinful.   It is okay for a Christian layman to engage in it if he wants to and his wives say its okay.   Just as the prophets and many persons of highlight in the OT did.

Now, one thing that is not explained EVER though is the HONEY-DO list.

Can you imagine 2 no... 4 wives writing you a honey-do list every weekend?  I am not joking.  That would be murder.



Aren't we taught a man will leave his parents for his wife (singular)?

And when divorce was brought into the picture, the allowance was infidelity.  You can't have multiple wives and not commit infidelity.

Not exactly the logic of polygamy....

True a man will leave his parents for his wife.
Then a man will marry another wife, never leaving his wife.
Then a man will marry wife #3, without leaving his other two wives.

Infidelity would exist outside of matrimony.
So if you were married once, and then divorced for reasons of infidelity, then there's a problem.

The practice of polygamy was very common throughout the biblical years, and is still common in many countries.

It just sound bizarre today frankly because we don't see it.
I don't think I view it as a sin.
How do you feel about female polygamists?
Logged

Blessed Nazarius practiced the ascetic life. His clothes were tattered. He wore his shoes without removing them for six years.

THE OPINIONS HERE MAY NOT REFLECT THE ACTUAL OR PERCEIVED ORTHODOX CHURCH
Kerdy
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,732


« Reply #13 on: August 05, 2012, 09:13:39 AM »

God never called polygamy a sin.   In fact so many in the OT were polygamists.

It was just written that a bishop should only have one wife.

The church however outlawed it from canon (I do not know of which one if anybody has info on it).

My personal beliefs is that polygamy is not sinful.   It is okay for a Christian layman to engage in it if he wants to and his wives say its okay.   Just as the prophets and many persons of highlight in the OT did.

Now, one thing that is not explained EVER though is the HONEY-DO list.

Can you imagine 2 no... 4 wives writing you a honey-do list every weekend?  I am not joking.  That would be murder.



Aren't we taught a man will leave his parents for his wife (singular)?

And when divorce was brought into the picture, the allowance was infidelity.  You can't have multiple wives and not commit infidelity.

Not exactly the logic of polygamy....

True a man will leave his parents for his wife.
Then a man will marry another wife, never leaving his wife.
Then a man will marry wife #3, without leaving his other two wives.

Infidelity would exist outside of matrimony.
So if you were married once, and then divorced for reasons of infidelity, then there's a problem.

The practice of polygamy was very common throughout the biblical years, and is still common in many countries.

It just sound bizarre today frankly because we don't see it.
I don't think I view it as a sin.

I don't think the instances of multiple wives in scripture is in support of polygamy, rather I see them as cautionary.
Logged
Azul
Moderated
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Român Ortodox
Jurisdiction: Eastern Orthodox
Posts: 988



« Reply #14 on: August 05, 2012, 10:57:24 AM »

According to Orthodox moral adultery is a sin.. God made Adam and he made only one woman for him, not many.. The first to have taken two wifes was Lamech.. The Orthodox interpretation is that since the fall humanity drawed farther and farther away from God... That is what is shown into Scripture... Cain the first murderer making a refuge and being the first to build a town as a refuge from God and Lamech the first polygam.
Logged

Every formula of every religion has in this age of reason, to submit to the acid test of reason and universal assent.
Mahatma Gandhi
age234
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antioch
Posts: 555


« Reply #15 on: August 05, 2012, 01:33:12 PM »

It is okay for a Christian layman to engage in it if he wants to and his wives say its okay.

Lawl. Go to an Orthodox priest and see if he'll marry you to your second spouse. You have your answer.

Regardless of how things looked through the dim glass of Old Testament times, in its Church-era sacramental fullness, marriage is an icon of Christ and the Church. There is one Christ and one Church, so there is one groom and one bride.
« Last Edit: August 05, 2012, 01:33:29 PM by age234 » Logged
HabteSelassie
Ises and I-ity
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church
Posts: 3,332



« Reply #16 on: August 05, 2012, 09:35:01 PM »

Greetings in that Divine and Most Precious Name of Lord and Savior Jesus Christ!

God never called polygamy a sin.   In fact so many in the OT were polygamists.

It was just written that a bishop should only have one wife.

The church however outlawed it from canon (I do not know of which one if anybody has info on it).

My personal beliefs is that polygamy is not sinful.   It is okay for a Christian layman to engage in it if he wants to and his wives say its okay.   Just as the prophets and many persons of highlight in the OT did.

Now, one thing that is not explained EVER though is the HONEY-DO list.

Can you imagine 2 no... 4 wives writing you a honey-do list every weekend?  I am not joking.  That would be murder.



Aren't we taught a man will leave his parents for his wife (singular)?

And when divorce was brought into the picture, the allowance was infidelity.  You can't have multiple wives and not commit infidelity.

Not exactly the logic of polygamy....

True a man will leave his parents for his wife.
Then a man will marry another wife, never leaving his wife.
Then a man will marry wife #3, without leaving his other two wives.

Infidelity would exist outside of matrimony.
So if you were married once, and then divorced for reasons of infidelity, then there's a problem.

The practice of polygamy was very common throughout the biblical years, and is still common in many countries.

It just sound bizarre today frankly because we don't see it.
I don't think I view it as a sin.

I don't think the instances of multiple wives in scripture is in support of polygamy, rather I see them as cautionary.

Amen!  I agree, almost every instance of multiple wives in the Old Testament is filled with drama, even murder!  Whereas the ideal is the Patriarch Isaac, who was content and adored his one wife Rebecca, who comforted his soul when he was grieving over the death of his mother.  It seems that much like with divorce under Moses' Law, that God only gave polygamy out of the hardness of men's hearts, but clearly, from the beginning of creation He created them man and woman, and a man shall leave his father and mother and cleave to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.   Not three, not four, not five not six Wink



stay blessed,
habte selassie
« Last Edit: August 05, 2012, 09:35:58 PM by HabteSelassie » Logged

"Yet stand aloof from stupid questionings and geneologies and strifes and fightings about law, for they are without benefit and vain." Titus 3:10
NicholasMyra
Taxiarches
**********
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian/Greek
Posts: 5,847


Avowed denominationalist


« Reply #17 on: August 09, 2012, 03:09:46 AM »

Something that does not make sense to me about Orthodox ethics. If Orthodoxy teaches that the purpose of sex is to produce children to be raised under the faith and that we are only allowed to have one wife, then how do we explain basic human biology? The human male was not built for monogamy.

James, I'm going to copy here what I posted in the random topics thread for you:

[Trigger Warning: This post contains Theory of Biological Evolution]


Let us first examine the closest living genetic relative of the Homo sapiens, the Chimpanzee, because I told us to.

Chimpanzee males are much larger and stronger than Chimpanzee females. Chimpanzee males develop crests as a sign of dominance. Chimpanzee females express visible signs of ovulation. The Chimpanzee males fight over ovulating females and the stronger one gets the female. This results in many "polygamous" situations.

Now, let us examine the homo sapiens:

Homo sapiens males are not, comparatively, much larger or stronger than Homo sapiens females. They do not develop crests as a sign of dominance. The females do not express visible signs of ovulation; human males, therefore cannot fight over ovulating females.

Why did homo sapiens evolve this way, and what does it say about their 'natural' sexual practices?

[Trigger warning: Investigation in progress among biological anthropologists]

Recent discoveries have overturned the idea that hominids evolved to walk on two legs in order to walk and see across distances over savannah land. One of the oldest bipedal hominids walked on two legs in the forest. Because you can carry more food that way. Who is carrying food? The males. Why? To feed the female and her children.

Chimpanzee males ensure that they have the largest possibility of being the father of as many children as possible by mating with as many ovulating females as possible. But a hominid male invests a lot of time an energy in feeding his children in order to ensure their survival. What stops a stronger male from simply impregnating his female and making the providing male a cuckold while he's not around?

Because hominid women don't show visible signs of ovulation, other males do not know when the female is fertile. So they don't know if mating with her will produce offspring from that mating or not. But this still leaves a problem: What makes the providing male more likely to impregnate the female on random chance than another male who mates with her?

Hormonal Pair Bonding, that's what.

Studies in homo sapiens have shown that pair-bonded partners have linked hormone cycles. Male testosterone peaks when female fertility peaks. This ensures that the pair-bonded, providing male has the greatest chance of impregnating his female and providing for his own children.

So, in short, the so-called "default" mating behavior of the hominid is serial monogamy with occasional straying. Interesting; that's just what you see today.
« Last Edit: August 09, 2012, 03:11:09 AM by NicholasMyra » Logged

Quote from: Orthonorm
if Christ does and says x. And someone else does and says not x and you are ever in doubt, follow Christ.

"You are philosophical innovators. As for me, I follow the Fathers." -Every heresiarch ever
Kerdy
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,732


« Reply #18 on: August 09, 2012, 07:49:42 AM »

Something that does not make sense to me about Orthodox ethics. If Orthodoxy teaches that the purpose of sex is to produce children to be raised under the faith and that we are only allowed to have one wife, then how do we explain basic human biology? The human male was not built for monogamy.

James, I'm going to copy here what I posted in the random topics thread for you:

[Trigger Warning: This post contains Theory of Biological Evolution]


Let us first examine the closest living genetic relative of the Homo sapiens, the Chimpanzee, because I told us to.

Chimpanzee males are much larger and stronger than Chimpanzee females. Chimpanzee males develop crests as a sign of dominance. Chimpanzee females express visible signs of ovulation. The Chimpanzee males fight over ovulating females and the stronger one gets the female. This results in many "polygamous" situations.

Now, let us examine the homo sapiens:

Homo sapiens males are not, comparatively, much larger or stronger than Homo sapiens females. They do not develop crests as a sign of dominance. The females do not express visible signs of ovulation; human males, therefore cannot fight over ovulating females.

Why did homo sapiens evolve this way, and what does it say about their 'natural' sexual practices?

[Trigger warning: Investigation in progress among biological anthropologists]

Recent discoveries have overturned the idea that hominids evolved to walk on two legs in order to walk and see across distances over savannah land. One of the oldest bipedal hominids walked on two legs in the forest. Because you can carry more food that way. Who is carrying food? The males. Why? To feed the female and her children.

Chimpanzee males ensure that they have the largest possibility of being the father of as many children as possible by mating with as many ovulating females as possible. But a hominid male invests a lot of time an energy in feeding his children in order to ensure their survival. What stops a stronger male from simply impregnating his female and making the providing male a cuckold while he's not around?

Because hominid women don't show visible signs of ovulation, other males do not know when the female is fertile. So they don't know if mating with her will produce offspring from that mating or not. But this still leaves a problem: What makes the providing male more likely to impregnate the female on random chance than another male who mates with her?

Hormonal Pair Bonding, that's what.

Studies in homo sapiens have shown that pair-bonded partners have linked hormone cycles. Male testosterone peaks when female fertility peaks. This ensures that the pair-bonded, providing male has the greatest chance of impregnating his female and providing for his own children.

So, in short, the so-called "default" mating behavior of the hominid is serial monogamy with occasional straying. Interesting; that's just what you see today.
Not being an evolutionist, I must admit this is a very sound argument.
Logged
yeshuaisiam
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox, Anabaptist, Other Early Christianity kind of jumbled together
Posts: 4,200


A pulling horse cannot kick.


« Reply #19 on: August 09, 2012, 03:28:33 PM »

God never called polygamy a sin.   In fact so many in the OT were polygamists.

It was just written that a bishop should only have one wife.

The church however outlawed it from canon (I do not know of which one if anybody has info on it).

My personal beliefs is that polygamy is not sinful.   It is okay for a Christian layman to engage in it if he wants to and his wives say its okay.   Just as the prophets and many persons of highlight in the OT did.

Now, one thing that is not explained EVER though is the HONEY-DO list.

Can you imagine 2 no... 4 wives writing you a honey-do list every weekend?  I am not joking.  That would be murder.



Aren't we taught a man will leave his parents for his wife (singular)?

And when divorce was brought into the picture, the allowance was infidelity.  You can't have multiple wives and not commit infidelity.

Not exactly the logic of polygamy....

True a man will leave his parents for his wife.
Then a man will marry another wife, never leaving his wife.
Then a man will marry wife #3, without leaving his other two wives.

Infidelity would exist outside of matrimony.
So if you were married once, and then divorced for reasons of infidelity, then there's a problem.

The practice of polygamy was very common throughout the biblical years, and is still common in many countries.

It just sound bizarre today frankly because we don't see it.
I don't think I view it as a sin.
How do you feel about female polygamists?
Those are called something like polyandry or something like that.
I disagree with those.

In a polygamist relationship, you know who the father and mother are of the child.   The other way around, you don't know who the father is.   It breaks the biblical patterns of the men's name going under the "begats".

Also biblically, I can't recall any females of importance who lived like that (or any at all for that matter).

The men however, there is a pretty good list who were polygamist or arguably polygamous.

Now that said, I would never agree to live like that or don't want to at all.  But I don't think it is entirely a sin so to say.
Logged

I learned how to be more frugal and save money at http://www.livingpress.com
yeshuaisiam
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox, Anabaptist, Other Early Christianity kind of jumbled together
Posts: 4,200


A pulling horse cannot kick.


« Reply #20 on: August 09, 2012, 03:31:31 PM »

Greetings in that Divine and Most Precious Name of Lord and Savior Jesus Christ!

God never called polygamy a sin.   In fact so many in the OT were polygamists.

It was just written that a bishop should only have one wife.

The church however outlawed it from canon (I do not know of which one if anybody has info on it).

My personal beliefs is that polygamy is not sinful.   It is okay for a Christian layman to engage in it if he wants to and his wives say its okay.   Just as the prophets and many persons of highlight in the OT did.

Now, one thing that is not explained EVER though is the HONEY-DO list.

Can you imagine 2 no... 4 wives writing you a honey-do list every weekend?  I am not joking.  That would be murder.



Aren't we taught a man will leave his parents for his wife (singular)?

And when divorce was brought into the picture, the allowance was infidelity.  You can't have multiple wives and not commit infidelity.

Not exactly the logic of polygamy....

True a man will leave his parents for his wife.
Then a man will marry another wife, never leaving his wife.
Then a man will marry wife #3, without leaving his other two wives.

Infidelity would exist outside of matrimony.
So if you were married once, and then divorced for reasons of infidelity, then there's a problem.

The practice of polygamy was very common throughout the biblical years, and is still common in many countries.

It just sound bizarre today frankly because we don't see it.
I don't think I view it as a sin.

I don't think the instances of multiple wives in scripture is in support of polygamy, rather I see them as cautionary.

Amen!  I agree, almost every instance of multiple wives in the Old Testament is filled with drama, even murder!  Whereas the ideal is the Patriarch Isaac, who was content and adored his one wife Rebecca, who comforted his soul when he was grieving over the death of his mother.  It seems that much like with divorce under Moses' Law, that God only gave polygamy out of the hardness of men's hearts, but clearly, from the beginning of creation He created them man and woman, and a man shall leave his father and mother and cleave to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.   Not three, not four, not five not six Wink



stay blessed,
habte selassie

I pretty much agree with this.  I see it as cautionary, but not a sin.

Also "the two shall become one flesh" works in Polygamy, as the women are not considered one flesh with each other.  Often the marriages are not at the same time either.

But heck no I wouldn't want that.  No way no how.  LOL.   I just don't view polygamy a sin, just "watch out buddy".  LOL
Logged

I learned how to be more frugal and save money at http://www.livingpress.com
yeshuaisiam
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox, Anabaptist, Other Early Christianity kind of jumbled together
Posts: 4,200


A pulling horse cannot kick.


« Reply #21 on: August 09, 2012, 03:36:45 PM »

It is okay for a Christian layman to engage in it if he wants to and his wives say its okay.

Lawl. Go to an Orthodox priest and see if he'll marry you to your second spouse. You have your answer.

Regardless of how things looked through the dim glass of Old Testament times, in its Church-era sacramental fullness, marriage is an icon of Christ and the Church. There is one Christ and one Church, so there is one groom and one bride.

From Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polygamy_in_Christianity

Many of the Old Testament Prophets and Patriarchs had multiple wives, including Lamech, Abraham, Jacob, Esau, Gideon, Saul, David, Solomon, Rehoboam, Elkanah, Ashur, Abijah and Jehoiada. Some interpretations also suggest Moses had a second wife in Tharbis. Other polygamists identified in the Bible include Ahab, Ahasuerus, Ashur, Belshazzar, Benhadad, Caleb, Eliphaz, Ezra, Jehoiachin, Jehoram, Jerahmeel, Joash, Machir, Manasseh, Mered, Nahor, Shaharaim, Simeon, and Zedekiah.

And often they had way more than a couple wives.

In standing tradition the church that existed supported polygamy much longer than it didn't.
Look, I'd never do it, but I can't call it a sin if the church (Jewish at the time) had so many who were polygamists.  Even the NT doesn't condemn it, but rather just states that bishops should have only 1 wife, which of course in Orthodoxy they have NONE.
Logged

I learned how to be more frugal and save money at http://www.livingpress.com
Tags:
Pages: 1   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.107 seconds with 49 queries.