aumeehn:
please stop encouraging people into polygamy! its one of the main cause of high drugs abuse in the North. Polygamy breeds nothing but hate between blood brothers.

main cause of drug abuse in the north? and what is the main cause of drugs we have in the south? what is also the cause of the mortal problem between jacob and essau? what is the main cause of mortal problems we see among sisters and brothers of monogamous homes? and please don't tell me the problems are more in polygamous homes because there is no evidence yo prove that! you really need to listen to yourself as you say polygamy causes drug adiction in the north!

if you have a personal problem with polygamy, well that's fine and you should go straight up anf own it! stop passing your sentiment as truth!

also i was listening to fasola being interviewed by morayo of TV and he said something about party primaries are like SIBLING RIVALRY. this means sibling rivalry even in monogamous homes is a legend! yet some people think polygamy causes it

Ubenedictus:
lol
The church is one bride not plenty brides.
So all Christians together as the one bride of the groom, no room for multiple brides or polygamy.



I have seen people interpret the Bible in many ways but usually my first question is, "how did the original audience interpret it? How did the early church and their successors receive the apostles words? "

If your understanding is foreign to the first 1000years of Christianity, then you must be dabbling in heresy.

That is how I check myself, I suggest you check yourself too

ubenedictus does not want to reply my mentions.

MiddleDimension:


ubenedictus does not want to reply my mentions.

don't feel that way.

the response message box is open on my browser but I can't find the time or state of mind to put the thought in typed words.

I will respond, please.

MiddleDimension:


i am glad that even though you disagree with me, atleast you got my point unlike the other people especially the lady. they even went as far as misquoting jesus saying anyone who has more than one wife has comitted adultery; where exactly did jesus say that!

anyway, i understand you disagree with me and i do not have a problem with that. all i want you all to do is to get the point and relate it with the bible. these kind of issues get rejected the first time they are presented. even among you christians, when you show it to perhaps the people on here that the bible said in james that you should confess your sins to one another, they will still argue with you and say it is only when you offend someone that you should take that step. also when you talk about the gospel of john where it outrightly backs up your teaching of confession, since it is not something these people have ever been told in their churches, they will argue it with you! untill after some time, then they will gradually agree, as it is with Oyakhilome today.

lol,
Guess you brought up cases you know I'll be sympathetic to...

But those guys citing Jesus aren't too far off...

Jesus said if you divorce your wife and remarry you have committed adultery what do you think he will say if you keep your wife and marry another.
Is it not the same adultery? That rule doesn't make sense if we allow polygamy, if polygamy is right then remarriage is too.
Jesus asserts that if the first marriage stands then the second is adultery... This should be true both for divorce and polygamy.

as for the church being the bride of christ, that is not disputed at all, and i have not said otherwise. but let me ask you, @ubenedictus, are you a bride of christ? when you say jesus is your personal lord and saviour, do you also mean he is your groom even though he is also the groom of other believers like you? if yes, do you think you all are 'sharing' the same groom, thus is not whole and entirely yours (personal), just as he is whole and entirely your brother's (personal lord and saviour)? so why then is this thinh difficult to get by the other people here with rediculous rebuttals!

The answer is no!

I am not the bride of Christ or a bride of Christ, I am not a body of Christ either nor am I the body of Christ.
The whole idea behind eclessiology is that we together are the one body and bride.

I alone am just a part of the body, alone am just a part of the bride, essentially Christianity is communal even though modern churches emphasize on its personal aspects.
But the idea of a body and that of a bride are singular thus making us all members of that one body and one bride.
The body is the church so too is the bride not just one christian....but the assembly of all who are in Christ

as for the how the early church interpreted things... well, all i can say is, among the early christians, from the apostles to the other first century christians, polygamy was a norm, and they never saw it in anyway negative. that is why jesus and the other apostles NEVER said anything against it.

Not really true.

Roman law was monogamous except for certain Jewish... It was to the same Jews who Jesus addressed their laws reminding them that from the beginning God created one man and one woman.... and United them as one.

In fact Paul a Jew would frown upon a believer who converted with his polygamous family and tell him not to assume leadership in the Church. The leaders are to be examples to the people.
The type and pattern for marriage will be the one Christ with his one bride, the beginning Adam with his Eve etc.
In fact by the end of the first century the question was no longer about monogamy but about the desirability of celibacy in church leadership as Corinthians show.

In fact the early Christians used to condemn the Jewish schools that still allowed polygamy.

1. Justin Martyr (c.160) rebukes the Jews for allowing polygamy:


"Your imprudent and blind masters [i.e., Jewish teachers] even until this time permit each man to have four or five wives. And if anyone sees a beautiful woman and desires to have her, they quote the doings of Jacob." [ANF, vol. 1, p. 266]



2. Irenaeus (c.180) condemns the Gnostics for, among other things, polygamy:


"Others, again, following upon Basilides and Carpocrates, have introduced promiscuous intercourse and a plurality of wives..." [ANF, vol. 1, p.353]



3. Tertullian (c.207) was also explicit:


"Chapter II.-Marriage Lawful, But Not Polygamy. We do not indeed forbid the union of man and woman, blest by God as the seminary of the human race, and devised for the replenishment of the earth and the furnishing of the world, and therefore permitted, yet Singly. For Adam was the one husband of Eve, and Eve his one wife, one woman, one rib. (ANF: Tertullian, To His Wife)




4. Methodius (cf.290) was clear on the issue, arguing that it had stopped at the time of the Prophets:


"The contracting of marriage with several wives had been done away with from the times of the prophets. For we read, 'Do not go after your lusts, but refrain yourself from your appetites'...And in another place, 'Let your fountain be blessed and rejoice with the wife of thy youth.' This plainly forbids a plurality of wives." [ANF, vol. 6, p.312]



So you see, from Jesus going back to the beginning to trace one man one Eve, to Paul disallowing polygamist from leadership and stating a one Bridegroom one bride idea all in the first century.
To Justin an early Christian martyr in the 2nd century, to iranaeus the Bishop down to the third and fourth century..... Some of these even before the Bible was even canonised, representing the transmission of the Christian faith from the early times....

I am a Catholic and for me these things are simple.
I look at what the Bible says and implies, I look at how the early Christians talked about it and how the church all over practiced it... Scripture, interpreted in line with Apostolic tradition and taught by the church. If I see those 3 thing together on a particular issue and I refuse to believe then I am a heretic.

the bible warned against getting drunk, adultery, etc. all the things the bible warned against, especially those ones widely known to the people, were all mentioned by name! idolatry was widely known among the people, and so when the apostles were condenming it, they mentioned it by name. how then can a thing like polygamy, widely known among the apostles, was not mentioned by name in any condenmination?

Christ himself already told us how to go about the issue of marriage... It was not so in the beginning... After reading that discourse I know what marriage is and what it isn't

if you still want more evidence from the bible that god is not against polygamy, well he sent nathan to david to tell him about his sins, and this is the quote from the bible:

7 And Nathan said to David, Thou art the man. Thus saith the Lord God of Israel, I anointed thee king over Israel, and I delivered thee out of the hand of Saul;

8 And I gave thee thy master's house, and thy master's wives into thy bosom, and gave thee the house of Israel and of Judah; and if that had been too little, I would moreover have given unto thee such and such things. please pay attention to the words in colour.

david was punished not because he had other wives. as you can see from the verse that i quoted there, it was god himself that gave him those wives. he was punished because he took another person's wife, more like...''thou shall not covert thy neighbour's wife''. and not only that, he killed the husband! of course that would outrage anyone.

God also used to deliver whole nations to the Israelites so that a whole people adults and kids are killed akin to genocide... Do you think because God approved it then and delivered it... We too should go such lengths in war and then assume we are free from sin?

go to the north and you will see polygamous homes living in peace, including christian polygamous homes. don't fall for the propaganda against the north!

also, another example if a good polygamous home is given in the bible below:

genesis 4
19 And Lamech took unto him two wives: the name of the one was Adah, and the name of the other Zillah.

20 And Adah bare Jabal: he was the father of such as dwell in tents, and of such as have cattle.

21 And his brother's name was Jubal: he was the father of all such as handle the harp and organ.

22 And Zillah, she also bare Tubalcain, an instructer of every artificer in brass and iron: and the sister of Tubalcain was Naamah.

those who like pointing out unhapiness in polygamy should please do so here!
and the whole idea of where ever polygamy is mentioned, unhapiness follows, can't you see that that is dangerously the same arguement jehovah's withnesses bring up against birthdays?

infact, that the children of lamach's marriage went on to be the father's of those who played harp etc, shows that they had a beautiful home where they could become renowned in their endeavours.

I have heard of happy polygamist, and happy homosexual couples even happy remarried couples and happy cohabiting couples but I still don't accept them either.

I don't measure morality according to each person's understanding of happy but according to the revelation of God's will.



You forced me to hurry the reply so bear it's skeletal shape

Ubenedictus:
don't feel that way.

the response message box is open on my browser but I can't find the time or state of mind to put the thought in typed words.

I will respond, please.

i can relate to this.

i feel that way too. sometimes, its just time i do not have

Monogamy is a societal and cultural western construction. The Bible never advocated monogamy or prohibited polygamy. People who try to use the Bible to that, can only twist some verses to read invisible laws that are existent only in their perception.

Many of the heroes of faith in the Bible were polygamous and in itself, it was never a problem in their ministry. That some polygamous couples in the Bible had some issues, does not mean polygamy is bad. Even monogamous couples in the Bible had issues too, the first being Adam and Eve.

In the new testament, what is prohibited by Paul is that an overseer of a church be polygamous. That aside, he implicitly allowed others to continue.

Celibacy, polygamy/Polyandry or monogamy are choices each person must make freely. No option is better than the others, it's a matter of personal preference.

People who use the male and female reference of Genesis 1, quickly forget that there are other instances where the same expression is used.

Genesis 6:19 You are to bring into the ark two of all living creatures, male and female, to keep them alive with you

When god asks Noah to bring all the living animals of the earth, he likewise used the term male and female. Do you mean there were only 2 animals he brought since it is singular?

Male and female simply mean there are two genders. No that there are only 2 people.

In the same vein, when a single man has 20 wives, or a single lady has 20 husbands, each ones are his wife / her husband. So the "let each one have his husband" principle is not broken.

Similarly, love your neighbor as yourself does not mean you have only one neighbor. No matter how many neighbor you have, love each one as yourself.

Thanks for reading my submissions.

Cc. MiddleDimension, Ubenedictus, lilmissfavvy.

LoJ:
People who use the male and female reference of Genesis 1, quickly forget that there are other instances where the same expression is used.

Genesis 6:19 You are to bring into the ark two of all living creatures, male and female, to keep them alive with you

When god asks Noah to bring all the living animals of the earth, he likewise used the term male and female. Do you mean there were only 2 animals he brought since it is singular?

Male and female simply mean there are two genders. No that there are only 2 people.

In the same vein, when a single man has 20 wives, or a single lady has 20 husbands, each ones are his wife / her husband. So the "let each one have his husband" principle is not broken.

Similarly, love your neighbor as yourself does not mean you have only one neighbor. No matter how many neighbor you have, love each one as yourself.

Thanks for reading my submissions.

Cc. MiddleDimension, Ubenedictus, lilmissfavvy.

the only reason born-agains are against polygamy is because their pastors and priests told them it is not in accordance with ''the word of god''. but the truth remain that their pastor did nit tell them, because he doesn't know better!

the likes of donnie, when he left the Catholic church, would probably thinkthe Catholic doctrine of confession id against 'the word of god'. but ask him his opinion on the same topic now that oyaks has also believed in the sacrament of reconciliation and i am sure he will say it is Biblical. it is possible that the Catholics in explaining to him, used the same points and scriptural references oyaks used in his devotional. but no, he did mot see it until he heard it from Oyaks himself.

the same way the eaoteric organizations like the rosicrucian order use to tell them Christianity isn't a religion but they never listened until oyakhs started saying the same thing, and it spread to other churches, then they begin to parrot it like it is a new revelation.

MiddleDimension:


the only reason born-agains are against polygamy is because their pastors and priests told them it is not in accordance with ''the word of god''. but the truth remain that their pastor did nit tell them, because he doesn't know better!

the likes of donnie, when he left the Catholic church, would probably thinkthe Catholic doctrine of confession id against 'the word of god'. but ask him his opinion on the same topic now that oyaks has also believed in the sacrament of reconciliation and i am sure he will say it is Biblical. it is possible that the Catholics in explaining to him, used the same points and scriptural references oyaks used in his devotional. but no, he did mot see it until he heard it from Oyaks himself.

the same way the eaoteric organizations like the rosicrucian order use to tell them Christianity isn't a religion but they never listened until oyakhs started saying the same thing, and it spread to other churches, then they begin to parrot it like it is a new revelation.

You do have a point.

I once explained the trinity to a friend, he totally disagreed with all the passages.
Three months later he was expressing trinitarian faith during prayers, I asked him how manage, he said a televangelist explained it to him.


The issue was not that my explanation was wrong, I did better than the televangelist, the problem was that I am not his pastor.


So yes, protestants flow with their pastors, but for me polygamy is an open and shut case. I would have to reexplain alot to accommodate it. That's some insincere mental gymnastics.

LoJ:
People who use the male and female reference of Genesis 1, quickly forget that there are other instances where the same expression is used.

Genesis 6:19 You are to bring into the ark two of all living creatures, male and female, to keep them alive with you

When god asks Noah to bring all the living animals of the earth, he likewise used the term male and female. Do you mean there were only 2 animals he brought since it is singular?

Male and female simply mean there are two genders. No that there are only 2 people.

In the same vein, when a single man has 20 wives, or a single lady has 20 husbands, each ones are his wife / her husband. So the "let each one have his husband" principle is not broken.

Similarly, love your neighbor as yourself does not mean you have only one neighbor. No matter how many neighbor you have, love each one as yourself.

Thanks for reading my submissions.

Cc. MiddleDimension, Ubenedictus, lilmissfavvy.

lol.

There are stronger arguments in the thread

Ubenedictus:
lol.

There are stronger arguments in the thread

like which one?

Ubenedictus:
lol.

There are stronger arguments in the thread

Which ones? I have read the thread and these are the pertinent points I have seen though I may have missed some.

Kindly point them out to me.

MiddleDimension:


the only reason born-agains are against polygamy is because their pastors and priests told them it is not in accordance with ''the word of god''. but the truth remain that their pastor did nit tell them, because he doesn't know better!

the likes of donnie, when he left the Catholic church, would probably thinkthe Catholic doctrine of confession id against 'the word of god'. but ask him his opinion on the same topic now that oyaks has also believed in the sacrament of reconciliation and i am sure he will say it is Biblical. it is possible that the Catholics in explaining to him, used the same points and scriptural references oyaks used in his devotional. but no, he did mot see it until he heard it from Oyaks himself.

the same way the eaoteric organizations like the rosicrucian order use to tell them Christianity isn't a religion but they never listened until oyakhs started saying the same thing, and it spread to other churches, then they begin to parrot it like it is a new revelation.

another thing:

i jusst laugh at people who use the ''in the beginning, god made them male and female'' to dismiss polygamy!

in the first place, my opinion that polygamy is ok is not based on the bible at all. i only use the bible because i am speaking with born-agains whose only infallable authority is the Bible. and when i read it, i still find it that EVEN THIS SAME BIBLE THEY CLAIM TO ABIDE BY AND TAKE ALL THEIR TEACHING FROM, STILL DOES NOT IM ANY WAY CONDEMN POLYGAMY.

now, for those who say the ''male and female'' nonsense, you should recall that when Adam and Eve bore Cain and Abel, there was supposed to be only four people in the world at the time. Cain killed Abel, and god laid a curse on him. in his protest, Cain said: THIS CURSE IS TOO MUCH FOR ME TO BEAR; WHEN ANYONE SEES ME, HE WOULD KILL ME!

listen to that point again. he said: when ANYONE sees me,..
the question is: who are the anyone he was talking about? if truely that story is anything to go by? this time, they are supposed to be only 3 people now since he killed Abel. at this point, Adam has not had other sons and daughters!

if that is not enough for you, well, the bible says Cain built a CITY when he was banished by god. he left his parent and went away amd became a wonderer. a wonderer goes just anywhere without any aim. he was worried that OTHER PEOPLE ELSEWHERE COULD KILL HIM. it means theae ''other people'' are not related to him. When he wondered and wondered, he came to a point and built a CITY. a city is not made of one person, right? and it certainly is not made of one family!

so those who like the ''he made them male and female...'' should think again.

joagbaje donnie et al

MiddleDimension:
When he wondered and wondered, he came to a point and built a CITY. a city is not made of one person, right? and it certainly is not made of one family!

so those who like the ''he made them male and female...'' should think again.

joagbaje donnie et al

Very correct.

Moreover, there are other instances where that expression male and female is used without meaning only 2 people, such as the verse I gave in my penultimate.