Evidence for God from Science

Shirtless I would tell you not to go around having sex with multiple partners. However, this discussion is going around in circles and frankly abstaining from anything because you believe it is unrighteous is a great show of love to God, regardless if it truely is a command from him. The Holy Spirit will guide us and frankly sex with multiple partners would most definitely lead to sin if it in of itself is not sin.

The Bible is not 100 percent clear about this yes but that still doesn't change the fact that sex even with one partner is not for everyone. Jesus made this clear.

God created sex as means of reproducing and for our benefit, i don't see why anyone would need multiple wives, which leads to more sin (greed, lust etc.).

Yes you have proven that God didn't specifically outright say he condemns polygamy but God also doesn't support it, so i leave it to you.

vvart wrote: The Bible is not 100 percent clear about this yes but that still doesn't change the fact that sex even with one partner is not for everyone. Jesus made this clear.

Oh, I agree totally! I am aware that polygamy is not for every one; I just think that the high divorce rate is the result of a misunderstanding of what marriage is supposed to be. If having multiple wives can create more love and help save a marriage, no way is it sinful!

vajaradakini wrote:A normal sex drive doesn't increase the more sex you have, but remains largely the same.

I couldn't agree more!

Shirtless wrote:If men and women in a polygamous relationship thought that their arrangement was meaningless with no sense of bond, it would not be called polygamy, it would be called swinging.

I believe whole-heartedly in what you say in 1. 1-4. I have no argument there.

2.1) If marriage means two people give themselves to each other, then each person has ownership of the other.

Okay, hold the phone, stop right there! This is the heart of why I believe in polygamy. You think of marriage in terms of a business deal--that wives are cords of wood meant to be divided evenly among people, and if one man gets two cords of wood, he owns more than he's allowed. I don't want to own anybody.

I'm assuming this also means that you would not want to give yourself to someone else either? If you don't want someone to give themselves to you, or vice-versa, then it is as simple as not getting married.

Please note that if you agree with my points 1.1 to 1.4, what is it one gives if not themselves? Is to give one's self to another in marriage just empty words? Seems to be that way today, but no! Therefore 2.1 logically follows, that if one gives themself to another, then they also belong to that other. It is not a "business" deal as though such is entirely impersonal and devoid of emotion, but is still a deal—a covenant between two. A deal to fulfill anothers desires of needing to be complemented, to be there for them through easy and hard times, to help fulfill an important purpose God gives us to raise a family under Him. If one does not want or can keep such a covenant, then they should not make the commitment to get married in the first place.

shirtless wrote:Of course you think of it as mutual ownership, but it's flawed IMO . To say your wife can't love another, much less marry a man other than you, is basically saying: "I own you! You can't be with anyone except me--and if you feel like this system isn't working and you want to expand, then you just aren't committed enough, and it's your fault."

Is "love" to you only a desire? C.S. Lewis spoke of the varying loves—storge, philia, eros and agape. If possible I'd recommend picking up a copy of his book The Four Loves. Sadly English represents them all simply as "love." Therefore if I am monogamously married, and I lust after another woman, such cannot be labelled "love" in the entire sense "love" encompasses. Yet, my love and respect for my wife would mean I'd respect her, and my covenant with her that I am not entirely mine to give to someone else. Therefore, despite my feelings, I should remain faithful to my wife.

Kurieuo.

Shirtless why are you arguing this?
you have no substantial evidence and everything you are saying in your favor fall into semantics or speculation.
Although in the Old Testament there were kings/people who had numerous wives, that still doesn't change what Jesus and many prophets said. Also I'd like to note how you seem to take the Jewish people at the time of the OT as great example of what constitutes Godly men. Now i'd be wary of this because from what I can tell throughout the whole Bible, Jewish people in general turn away from God quite often. Also you have overlooked the fact that God perhaps in allowing people to have multiple wives so to speak was appeasing their sinful hearts for God had to pave the path for the coming of Jesus. Jesus tells us that moses did in fact allow for divorces to happen for this very reason.

Let me just put it this way, your walking on a very fine line here. By making such a claim you are discrediting many, among those who sp
end their lives studying scripture. Now if you are wrong (which is extremely likely and I and many would agree that you are) and someone follows your word, then you have tempted them into committing sin have you not?
Such actions are to be avoided at all cost.

Also as Kurieuo said the desire to have sex with more then one woman has to do with lust not love.

vvart wrote:you have no substantial evidence and everything you are saying in your favor fall into semantics or speculation.

Are you seriously telling me that you've read ALL my posts? You talk about "Jesus and many prophets" even though you don't want to comment on the avalance of passages that I've given that support my view that Jesus and the prophets are talking about divorce, not monogamy.

Your desire to attack me instead of the information I give shows me that I'm getting on people's nerves. So I'll end this topic soon. I only ask that you read my last post on "Genesis marriage" and take it seriously.

And if it will ease the tensions, a third party perspective might be in order. Have you ever heard of religioustolerance.org? It's basically an encyclopedia of info on world religions. The site is known for having no real opinion, and looks at all sides of an issue. This is certainly the case with marriage, in that they have no real opinion on polygamy. But they do study the Bible endlessly as you say, so their observations are worth noting.
http://religioustolerance.org/mar_bibl.htm

Religious tolerance is an atheist cover-up. Notice how they hardly even mention anything bad done by atheists but are quick to judge actual religions(especially christians)

I know, I know. I'm not happy about it. They go out of their way to prove evolution. I've emailed them several times asking them to add things. But they are a well educated third party perspective that would be a better choice than a conservative Christian site, or a liberal one like "Liberated Christians".

All Polygamy was before Christ. Yet Christ told us of Marriage and Divorce. If Christ Fulfilled the Law and comes and says what he did about these Subjects then why are we looking at Solomon, Abraham, etc... I don't Understand? If Jesus said and THE TWO will become Flesh so they are no longer TWO but ONE flesh. It does not mean and the 3-? will become One! To me that is twisting the words of God. You are saying "But" to your Creator! Jesus Re-emphasized everything important in Ministry as did the Apostles.

my two cents I guess

I think Jesus was just saying two at a time...that and he was relating to the poor people who couldn't support more wives. There was plenty of polygamy after Christ. Monogamy for Christians started around the third century.

Shirtless wrote:I think Jesus was just saying two at a time...that and he was relating to the poor people who couldn't support more wives. There was plenty of polygamy after Christ. Monogamy for Christians started around the third century.

Really? Who? Apostles? The Church Fathers? Were they Polygamists?

I didn't try and attack you, but I'm showing you that your perspective is one sided, there are numerous explanations why people such as solomon may have been allowed to have numerous wives and that it doesn't mean its acceptable. For example did Jeremiah or Isaiah have multiple wives?

Also I think you disregarded the second portion of my post which is think would be wise to consider.

Kurieuo wrote:

Shirtless wrote:

K wrote:2.1) If marriage means two people give themselves to each other, then each person has ownership of the other.

Okay, hold the phone, stop right there! This is the heart of why I believe in polygamy. You think of marriage in terms of a business deal--that wives are cords of wood meant to be divided evenly among people, and if one man gets two cords of wood, he owns more than he's allowed. I don't want to own anybody.

I'm assuming this also means that you would not want to give yourself to someone else either? If you don't want someone to give themselves to you, or vice-versa, then it is as simple as not getting married.

Please note that if you agree with my points 1.1 to 1.4, what is it one gives if not themselves? Is to give one's self to another in marriage just empty words? Seems to be that way today, but no! Therefore 2.1 logically follows, that if one gives themself to another, then they also belong to that other. It is not a "business" deal as though such is entirely impersonal and devoid of emotion, but is still a deal—a covenant between two. A deal to fulfill anothers desires of needing to be complemented, to be there for them through easy and hard times, to help fulfill an important purpose God gives us to raise a family under Him. If one does not want or can keep such a covenant, then they should not make the commitment to get married in the first place.

I just forgot about a relevant passage from Paul, which I think is decisive on whether in marriage, one belongs to the other:

• The husband should fulfill his marital duty to his wife, and likewise the wife to her husband. 4The wife's body does not belong to her alone but also to her husband. In the same way, the husband's body does not belong to him alone but also to his wife. (1 Cor. 7:3-4)

Kurieuo.

seeing as you deleted my earlier post, which i am very annoyed about but i forgive you becuase you are not understanding, if you were true followers then if you though tht what i am is wrong u should forgive my thoughts.i just need to tlk about it. i follow god vry strictly but i cann help who i am, and the reason why i am a homosexual isnt becuase i like it its because in science we did about the human body and we were tld about this prostate gland and it made me think why would god give us this if he didnt want us to use it?

someone please reply im so confused about what to do, i seems by creating it god wants me to be like this but in the words of him and his followers he says not to?

someone please help!

Mr.Gay.UK wrote:seeing as you deleted my earlier post, which i am very annoyed about but i forgive you becuase you are not understanding, if you were true followers then if you though tht what i am is wrong u should forgive my thoughts.i just need to tlk about it. i follow god vry strictly but i cann help who i am, and the reason why i am a homosexual isnt becuase i like it its because in science we did about the human body and we were tld about this prostate gland and it made me think why would god give us this if he didnt want us to use it?

someone please reply im so confused about what to do, i seems by creating it god wants me to be like this but in the words of him and his followers he says not to?

someone please help!

Was this the post? http://discussions.godandscience.org/vi ... ight=#9856

I didn't see a third post from you, but possible Kurieuo deleted it. Or maybe you just lost where you posted it? If so, might I suggest the Search function at the top middle of the page, below the main banner. You can search for your own name to retrieve your former posts.

At any rate, I'm awaiting your response to my post in the other thread.

Mr.Gay.UK wrote:seeing as you deleted my earlier post, which i am very annoyed about but i forgive you becuase you are not understanding, if you were true followers then if you though tht what i am is wrong u should forgive my thoughts.i just need to tlk about it. i follow god vry strictly but i cann help who i am, and the reason why i am a homosexual isnt becuase i like it its because in science we did about the human body and we were tld about this prostate gland and it made me think why would god give us this if he didnt want us to use it?

someone please reply im so confused about what to do, i seems by creating it god wants me to be like this but in the words of him and his followers he says not to?

someone please help!

No, Christians aren't called to be tolerant. If I'm to tolerate the fact your an active homosexual, then I'm letting you off into the world without warning you that God says it is an abomination, and God doesn't randomly call things sin, there's a reason. AIDS and other STD's just being one of them (AIDS in the homosexual community is becoming a status symbol I'm told....but maybe just over here in the US who knows). And to your statement that you can't help who you are, well, one, you can, but it can be hard. An alcoholic can change, he just needs some outside help, and the brains to STAY AWAY FROM LOCATIONS THAT SELL ALCOHOL. That's what God is for, He's supposed to transform you to His image if you let him. And to your prostate question, the prostate gland...um...how should I put it...greases the runway for your little soldiers. That's why it's there, it adds nutrients so the sperm make it to the egg alive it seems.