Polygamy

Reba said:
Jillio didn't have to give her source, so why should I? She said, "it is said." Who said it?

If she can say men and women aren't meant to be monogamous, why can't I say that they are?
Click to expand...

Biologists, sociologists, psychologists, anthropoligists. That would be my source.
 
Reba said:
She didn't post them, did she? So, we don't know the basis for her statement, do we?
Click to expand...

All but you seem to have seen the implied reference in the nature of the statement made. But, just for you, I have now stated the source of my information.
 
Reba said:
As I posted before, in this thread and others, the Bible documents what happened in history, including the good, the bad, and the ugly. Just because something is recorded doesn't mean it's approved of. In fact, just the opposite. God used those examples of polygamy and other disobedience to show the negative and destructive outcomes that resulted. Never does God approve of polygamy or concubines.

God is also merciful. He knows that for those already in those relationships within their cultures, they couldn't just toss the extra wives and concubines to the street. He protected the women in those circumstances.

Polygamy is never portrayed as a positive situation anywhere in the Bible. In especially the New Testament, monogamy is uplifted and emphasized often.

Did you just list those references, or did you actually read them? If you read them in context you would see that the polygamous situations always ended badly.
Click to expand...

And there are just as many that use their God and their religious teachings to support the existence of polygamy. The argument of "because God says so" really isn't very effective in supporting anything, because those of opposite belief can use it just as effectively as you do.
 
jillio said:
And there are just as many that use their God and their religious teachings to support the existence of polygamy. The argument of "because God says so" really isn't very effective in supporting anything, because those of opposite belief can use it just as effectively as you do.
Click to expand...

Exactly.
 
Daredevel7 said:
That was my point. If one were to "prove" that humans were NOT meant to be monogamous, all I can think of is to prove that they have temptations or compare them to animals. I don't see what other proof there would be. And you DO accept that humans have temptations, it's just a matter of not giving in.

Everyone is talking about showing proof. I am just questioning the purpose of giving proof in the first place.
Click to expand...

It isn't about a comparison to animals, although I don't know why some find a comparison based on biology so offensive.

It isn't a matter of temptation, either, really. Temptation can exist and not be acted on.

The belief that man is not intended to be monogamous is based on biological data, sociological data, psychological data, anthropolgical data, and history of man's behavior.
 
DeafCaroline said:
You made a good point! there are many good reasons for monogamy, won't contest that at all. Just saying that given that a high percentage of men, including married men, cheat on girlfriends and wives, (and yes, there is a percentage of married women who cheat too) that true monogamy is almost more of a romantic ideal than a reality.
Click to expand...

Reasons for monogamy are, as I stated before, social creations. They have very little to do with the natural state of man.
 
Reba said:
Why do I need to add a disclaimer if no one else does?

If it makes you feel better, I will state, "I believe a man and a woman are meant to be monogamous because it's a fact that God established that relationship in the Bible." (Not the "bible"--I don't know which book that is.)

Besides, whether or not I state something as a fact doesn't mean you have to believe it. Lots of people post lots of stuff here at AD as "facts" which I don't believe.

People here don't even agree on the "facts" of A/C for vehicles, or how to train dogs. That's fine.
Click to expand...

Fact needs to be subject to empirical proof. What is contained in the Bible cannot be subjected to empirical proof, and therefore, can be stated as fact. It can only be stated as a belief.
 
jillio said:
It isn't about a comparison to animals, although I don't know why some find a comparison based on biology so offensive.

It isn't a matter of temptation, either, really. Temptation can exist and not be acted on.

The belief that man is not intended to be monogamous is based on biological data, sociological data, psychological data, anthropolgical data, and history of man's behavior.
Click to expand...

and seeing what man has done to man and to this planet, I'd rather be an elephant. comparisons to animals is not offensive to me at all. animals should be offended to be compared to man though :D
 
jillio said:
The belief that man is not intended to be monogamous is based on biological data, sociological data, psychological data, anthropolgical data, and history of man's behavior.
Click to expand...

There is evidence that shows WHAT exactly? There must be specific evidence to show that man is not intended to be monogamous. I feel like one cannot prove SPECIFICALLY that man isn't meant to be monogamous, only supported by evidence that proves something else (such as the frequency of sexual yearnings of an individual).
 
Daredevel7 said:
There is evidence that shows WHAT exactly? There must be specific evidence to show that man is not intended to be monogamous. I feel like one cannot prove SPECIFICALLY that man isn't meant to be monogamous, only supported by evidence that proves something else (such as the frequency of sexual yearnings of an individual).
Click to expand...

Combine the studies of the disciplines I have mentioned, and the evidence is more than overwhelming. Much more so than evidence that man was intended to a monogamous creature. Monogamy is, after all, nothing more than a socially created condition.
 
Aleser said:
I don't understand?! You're not making any sense. You never make ANY sense, jillio. :laugh2:
Click to expand...

:laugh2:

Yeah, I've been told that before!:lol: Usually by those that cannot come up with anything to discredit something I have stated, lol.
 
jillio said:
Oh, but it is very relevant.

Humans are driven by instinct.
Click to expand...
But they have a conscious will that allows them to make choices of right and wrong. Animals do not.
 
jillio said:
And there are just as many that use their God and their religious teachings to support the existence of polygamy. The argument of "because God says so" really isn't very effective in supporting anything, because those of opposite belief can use it just as effectively as you do.
Click to expand...
I never said that polygamy didn't exist in the Bible. I said that it was against God's plan of one man for one woman in a lifetime marital commitment. There are no examples of polygamy being a positive arrangement in the Bible.
 
Back
Top