John_for_Christ wrote:
You must be a stranger to logic! Look, I'll go slow for you: You asserted in your last post that God's Word doesn't support polygamy. You offered no proof.

. . .

The logic was simple. Unlike you, I hold to actual logic, not my own imaginary version of it.

Gen. 2:24 only states that every marriage a man has--whether one wife or more--makes him one flesh with his wife. You have to eisegete Scripture to get the idea of monogamy here...

Simply because you assert that I offer no proof is not evidence that I have offered no proof. Myself and others have over and over defended the faith with scripture, and you and "technicus terminus" have done nothing more than assert your polygamous positions.

John_for_Christ wrote:
What you said was rhetoric--no proof, no logic. All you basically said was: "No it isn't!"
Just as you can say that the Bible doesn't teach polygamy, I can say that it does--with equal authority.
However, I can also point to Scripture: Gen. 4:19, Exod. 21:10, Deut. 25:5-10, 2 Sam. 12:8, Jer. 3, Ezek. 23, et. al. There's also the proof in that God did not EVER condemn those who were polygamists for polygamy.
So, by using Scripture, I can claim GREATER authority for my statement: POLYGAMY IS BLESSED AND SANCTIFIED BY GOD!

So, by that logic, we should only have ONE child, because Jacob and Esau fought with one another? This is simply fallacious logic...

Jesus' argued against divorce by sighting how things were "from the beginning". If we look at the same point we see how things were "from the beginning", and "from the beginning" God did not give Adam more than one wife. Therefore, we may conclude that if things have changed from that point, any allowances were done because of the hardness of men's heart.

Dan wrote:
I’m glad to see your post Dr Phil. I just got the hardcopy of that report in the mail yesterday.
All of the police protection in the world will be totally ineffective against the pope’s main enemy … which is God. The pope (and any other unsaved person) is in the gun sights of God and will remain so until He causes them to repent and believe or pulls the trigger.

Stephen Hamilton wrote:
Who pays for all the security? The NYPD is financed by the tax-payer, right? So American tax-payers must stump up for the security of the head of one denomination - what happened to the "separation of church and state"? One thing which will not be "unprecedented" however is the blatant idolatry and paganism on show. We have sadly seen it all before.

Born Again NT Bible Believer wrote:
I am a born again man. I believe in polygamy because the Bible teaches it.
Sex is good in marriage. Thats why Martin Luther was involved in Philip of Hesse's second marriage. Martin Luther also said, "I confess that I cannot forbid a person to marry several wives, for it does not contradict the Scripture. If a man wishes to marry more than one wife he should be asked whether he is satisfied in his conscience that he may do so in accordance with the word of God. In such a case the civil authority has nothing to do in the matter." (De Wette II, 459, ibid., pp. 329-330.)

John_for_Christ wrote:
Several logical flaws here:
(1) There are NO Scriptures that define marriage as just two individuals. This has yet to be proven against Scriptural evidence to the contrary.
(2) The Ancient Jews and the Old Testament do not distinguish between monogamy and polygamy as forms of marriage. . .
Therefore, without specific statements to the contrary, the baseline is that polygamy and monogamy were the "norm". Deviations from the norm must be proven.
(3) Since the norm was polygamy/monogamy, the LEAST PLAUSIBLE HYPOTHESIS is that passages such as Genesis 2:24 reflect monogamy, when other Scripture, history, and grammar all contradict your hypothesis.

Or could it be that your biases are coloring your viewpoint? Which explanation is the one YOU desire?

1) It is not I who fails to see the plenary teaching in the word "two" from 1 Cor. 6:16. It is not I who sees that Adam had many wives in the beginning.

2) The "norm" or normative behavior is not the "Law". You are supposed to have more revealation than the Jews of the OT.

John_for_Christ wrote:
You've never demonstrated how Genesis 2:24 actually APPLIES to polygamy.
. . . this only describes a man joining his first wife, and states nothing positive or negative about having more than one wife.
At worst (for your point-of-view) it means that a man is one flesh with his wife--no matter whether she is his first or 101st wife. This is the view Paul the apostle took in 1 Cor. 6:16. Therefore, you are disagreeing with Paul and GOD, not with us.

In the least plausible hypothesis argument all of the scriptures that define the acceptable marriage of only two individuals is ignored. Thus, the only accepted explanation by the polygamists is the one desired. For example: "I left a saucer of milk and cookies outside overnight. In the morning, the milk and cookies were gone. Clearly, this proves there is a Santa Claus."

Mike wrote:
The first paragraph should read:
"The New York City Police Department is pulling out all the stops to protect Antichrist during his visit to New York next week. From rooftop snipers to hovering helicopters, it will all resemble the security operations used to protect the president."
The police protecting Antichrist!

Adelphos wrote:
More Cavalier Dismissals...
Well, I am proud to fit in with Abraham, Jacob, Moses, Gideon, David and other faithful followers of God!

Finally . . . something you say that makes sense: "I am proud . . ."

Adelphos wrote:
Dr. Phil
Ok, let us deal with logic then:

"'people specific' commands". Wow! What a stretch!

Adelphos wrote:
Inconsistent reasoning and exegesis is the foundations for a "monogomist only" position. It is quite fascinating to see how they practice interpretation. They ignore some passages, while embracing ones that seem to endorse their position. Yet, they completely ignore passages that may suggest another position. I am quite amazed! This is the same thing I have experienced when conversing with Jehovah Witnesses!
Blessings!

You have still failed to show how Gen. 2:24 has been repealed. Your only defense is to say that because God allows the eating of meat, this means it is okay to have a "harem". Another fallacious argument by Bad Analogy:

Claiming that two situations are highly similar, when they aren't. For example, "The solar system reminds me of an atom, with planets orbiting the sun like electrons orbiting the nucleus. We know that electrons can jump from orbit to orbit; so we must look to ancient records for sightings of planets jumping from orbit to orbit also."

Adelphos wrote:
1. Actually, the context proves my point. Creation story has the following points. God commanded Adam and Eve to eat only vegetables, work in a garden, and not be single. Yet, we know that this is not the whole truth. One verse NEVER makes the whole truth. If you think it does, then you should take a course in hermeneutics.
. . .
3. Polygny is never taught as sin -

Adelphos wrote:
1. You have not proven what I am teaching is a damnable heresy.
2. I do not deny the Lord. This is blatantly false.
3. You have not proven that any truth is distorted. You have merely proven you disagree. Hermeneutically, very weak!
4. I have no sexual fantasies with young girls, nor do I advocate such.
Therefore, this practice of unproven condemnation is based upon pre-suppositional bias.
Your exegetical analysis of Gen 2:24 is full of holes

2. To distort the truth from point one is to deny the Lord who is the truth.

3. See pts. 1 and 2 Only hermeneutically weak to the polygamist who can not repent of his sin.

4. Yeh, right!

5. No presuppositional bias except in the mind of the infidel who tries to justify himself.

Again in closing, you have not proven with scripture that Gen. 2:24 has been repealed. Now, let's talk about hermeneutics.

Adelphos wrote:
1. So, what Biblical definition of False Prophet are you using? This should be interesting!
2. You condemned OTP before you know the facts. The "heresy" of the Mormon church concerning polygyny is totally different view than what Christian polygynists hold.
3. Your point three may be in the area of "bearing false witness" again.
4. I don't mind if my doctrine is corrected. However, what you have presented is hermeneutically unsound.
Blessings!

2. Your justification for polygamy may be different than the Mormons, but it is polygamy none the less. The law of Gen. 2:24 has not been repealed.

3. It is not false witness since your own defense of polygamy condemns you as an infidel by your own mouth as a witness. Your defense of other polygamists who are guilty of pedophilia makes you a partaker of their sins.

Adelphos wrote:
Dr. Phil
Yes, all Scripture is profitable for doctrine. So, tell me, how does one interpret narratives, compare narratives, embrace hermeneutical analysis to include principles regarding necessary inference, didactics, with principles of full revelational truth (no doctrine is ever based on a single passage), in order to ensure that Scripture interpreting Scripture. Basically, no theologian in their right mind would make a doctrine out of a single doctrine. Doctrines are made by compiling everything that is said about the particular topic, examining each passage for similarities and differences, blending them as grammar and hermeneutics allow, so that all inconsistancies are resolved, resulting in a exhaustive understanding of the particular doctrine.If there are passages that seem to contradict other passages, you don't pick the passages you agree with.

Adelphos wrote:
Dr. Phil.
1. It is a fallacy of logic to use one part of the creation story to present a full doctrine of any subject. For you to be consistent with your own usage of the Genesis 2:24 passage, you would need to claim that being single is sin. Eating meat is sin. Working outside of farming is sin. All of the above items are further explained throughout the Bible.
2. 1 Tim 3:2 has more than one option in the Greek - whether you like that or not - it is a fact!
3. Abraham, Jacob, Caleb, and David were not "unchaste" infidels! Sorry! Scripture again disagrees with you.

Old Time Polygamist wrote:
Polygamy can offer protection for the women. Unlike monogamous marriages where men can beat their women unchecked; polygamous marriages provide the woman protection with the supervision of other adult women.
Polygamy also allows women to take a break. A wife can take a break from watching the children and let the other women do it. A great benefit for the child who still has family care, and a great benefit for whose families live in remote areas far from nurseries.
I would recommend polygamy for anyone interested. Its good for you, society, and the women!!
1Ch 4:5 And Ashur the father of Tekoa had two wives, Helah and Naarah.

Your arguments are fallacious. They beg the question of what are the real issues aside from these Red Herrings that you employ. The question is "Is Polygamy lawful?" Has the law of Gen. 2:24 been repealed? Did God in the beginning give Adam more than one wife? The sinful behavior of the Fathers does not constitute a repeal of the law, nor does the two wives of Tekoa provide grounds for imitation. Furthermore, it does not repeal 1 Tim. 3:2

"What think ye of Christ, whose son is he? Luke 22:42

Also,

1. What do you mean by "I do not teach that works secure our salvation"? Who said anything about "securing salvation"? We are talking about "acquiring salvation" in soteriology.

2. What do you mean by "embraces the provision of our justification"? Where does the Bible teach "Embrace the provision of our justification", and thou shalt be saved?

3. When did Paul say that "there wasn't any New Testament"?