Why men won't marry you
- Thread starter serpentdove
- Start date
A polygamist asks me if I have ever emotionally abused another person?
Pr 23:7, 1 Co 6:18, Ro 8:33 Would you consider telling another the truth
Last edited:
Serpentdove, Could you answer this question?: "If a woman has an explosive device strapped to her body--sure, take her out." Does it have to be an explosive device? How about "coming at you with a hammer"? would that be enough reason to respond with violence?
A simple 'yes' or 'no' would do.
1PeaceMaker
New member
There are two things wrong with your post:
1. I am not a polygamist, and I answered this. I'm one of the 1/7 of Americans that currently believe polygamy is not immoral. So unless you want to redefine the word to fit a whole 1/7 of America instead of about 100,000 souls, leave me out of the definition.
2. You almost seem to be answering me indirectly, but then the answer would be yes, so you have to think about why you would answer by turning a verbal club on me for bringing up Matt 7:12 .....
Not only have I; I did on this thread. What would you like to know, and before expecting an answer from me, answer me the original question I asked of you.
Interplanner
Well-known member
1PeaceMaker,
if you 'do not believe it is immoral,' why is that? Also, why aren't you one? Wouldn't that question be awfully close to 'if a man looks on a woman to lust after her, he is in adultery with her'?
if you 'do not believe it is immoral,' why is that? Also, why aren't you one? Wouldn't that question be awfully close to 'if a man looks on a woman to lust after her, he is in adultery with her'?
1PeaceMaker
New member
Because God regulates moral behavior and forbids immoral behavior. God gives instruction on how to be a proper polygamist man, not how to be a proper thief, murderer, or cheat. And God called himself a polygamist with 2 wives in one parable. He never likens himself to an adulterer.
Polygamy is not the place lustful people resort to. The lustful people tie the tubes of their sacred temples or otherwise focus solely on nonreproductive sex to avoid children who are speedbumps or even barriers to sexual opportunity. (parents know what I mean!)
Because we are content, very fertile, and God didn't tell us personally to like He did when we got married to each other 16 years ago. That was all on Him. Nobody asked to join us or anything, and we don't go looking. It's just that simple.
Lust means to covet. Covet means to desire to take what is not yours. Men and women experience involuntary arousal at certain sights. You can flee those situations when needed, like righteous Joseph did. That is not lust. Lust is not accepting, believing and embracing/desiring God's will.
Interplanner
Well-known member
Peacemaker,
I believe you've confused some social conditions from the ancient near east with today. In the frequency of war in the ancient near east, there was polygamy because, also, there was a very low value on unmarried women; very few had success in life without marriage. Throw a war in there, losing say 50% of your male population, and polygamy looks very different.
I don't know where you live in the modern era or even if we are talking about the 1st century, but there are no conditions like that today or even in the first century, also there was still some polygamy, if the implication of the qualification of a leader falls that way, in letters to Timothy and Titus.
You've also taken one analogy about God, but not another. Another is that he was wheels within wheels. So is every airplane or perhaps car out there today a form of God. I don't think so.
A stronger analogy is that Christ has a bride. One bride. The millions of people who are that bride are a collective singular. Then there is the harlot who is pitted against this bride. But the bride is still one.
But to be even more direct, we find that before an allowance for polygamy, if there was one, there is Gen 1-11, and we know that Jesus did not take a skeptical view of their value. A man leaves his parents and joins to his wife in which both husband and wife are singular.
Now on a few details: where are instructions on how to be a good polygamous husband? I do know where there are instructions on not being a thief.
Re God telling you personally. Well, get me your number, because I have question personally for God, and you can pass them on to me. We have instead the New Testament. Like the word "will" the idea is that there is sufficient communication in the NT for situations we will encounter. We find out things like a son and mother having sex is quite mistaken, in I cor 5. Is that the only mistake? No. But now we know that the original order is validated: one male, one female, not related going back two generations, humans, in a known marriage commitment, etc.
Finally on the last paragraph. Women are rarely stimulated visually; more often they are repelled by visual. They are however in search of security and loyalty and character.
The last line seems to be missing a negative, such as in the last phrase 'embracing...God's will.'?
I believe you've confused some social conditions from the ancient near east with today. In the frequency of war in the ancient near east, there was polygamy because, also, there was a very low value on unmarried women; very few had success in life without marriage. Throw a war in there, losing say 50% of your male population, and polygamy looks very different.
I don't know where you live in the modern era or even if we are talking about the 1st century, but there are no conditions like that today or even in the first century, also there was still some polygamy, if the implication of the qualification of a leader falls that way, in letters to Timothy and Titus.
You've also taken one analogy about God, but not another. Another is that he was wheels within wheels. So is every airplane or perhaps car out there today a form of God. I don't think so.
A stronger analogy is that Christ has a bride. One bride. The millions of people who are that bride are a collective singular. Then there is the harlot who is pitted against this bride. But the bride is still one.
But to be even more direct, we find that before an allowance for polygamy, if there was one, there is Gen 1-11, and we know that Jesus did not take a skeptical view of their value. A man leaves his parents and joins to his wife in which both husband and wife are singular.
Now on a few details: where are instructions on how to be a good polygamous husband? I do know where there are instructions on not being a thief.
Re God telling you personally. Well, get me your number, because I have question personally for God, and you can pass them on to me. We have instead the New Testament. Like the word "will" the idea is that there is sufficient communication in the NT for situations we will encounter. We find out things like a son and mother having sex is quite mistaken, in I cor 5. Is that the only mistake? No. But now we know that the original order is validated: one male, one female, not related going back two generations, humans, in a known marriage commitment, etc.
Finally on the last paragraph. Women are rarely stimulated visually; more often they are repelled by visual. They are however in search of security and loyalty and character.
The last line seems to be missing a negative, such as in the last phrase 'embracing...God's will.'?
Last edited:
Let the reader decide (Pr 23:7).
each:What freak cult do you belong to? :smokie: 2 Chr. 11:23
Gals like yourself
If I'm the last American :5020: standing, I'm standing (Eph 6:13).
Do you still know how to blush?
Ex 20:14Eccl 10:2, Jn 10:20
You would come to the conclusion that I am :yawn: emotionally (Ac 20:20) and :yawn: physically abusive (Pr 13:24).
Matt. 12:36, 37
You think you're doing the world a favor by helping perverts :freak: spread their Abrahamic seed :granite: around. You're not.
"Now the so–called Golden Rule comes right in here—
Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets [Matt. 7:12].
All right, when you meet somebody new, how are you going to treat him? You don’t know—you are not to judge—but if he is a dog or a swine, you had better know. You have to beware of phonies today. So what do you do? Make it a matter of prayer. “Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them.” This is the principle on which you should operate. “Therefore” is the most important word in the Golden Rule. It relates the Golden Rule to that which precedes it. That is, it postulates it on prayer. It all comes together in one package. Don’t lift out the Golden Rule and say that you live by it. Understand what the Lord is talking about. Only as we “ask, seek, and knock” are we able to live in the light of the Golden Rule." McGee, J. V. (1991). Thru the Bible commentary: The Gospels (Matthew 1-13) (electronic ed., Vol. 34, pp. 102–103). Nashville: Thomas Nelson.
You misquote me (Eph 4:14).
Would you consider telling another the truth
Telling another the truth is called love not abuse (Ac 20:20).
oly: No one is asking you for personal information. You've revealed your dark heart plenty (1 Jn 5:19). :granite: Where do I go to scrub my brain? Luke 5:14, 15, Phil 4:8, Pr 4:23
No more, please (Eph. 6:16; 1 John 2:13).
1PeaceMaker
New member
So polygamy was a bit of an equalizing feminist movement back then to compensate for misogyny towards widows? That's an interesting way to think of it. Certainly it rebalances power into the hands of women.
But in the here and now is where we are facing a population collapse where more children are required to deal with the imbalance. And besides, we have a gospel laborer shortage no matter how big the population is.
I don't see why polygamy isn't relevant today to families who have already chosen it. It certainly isn't for the faint of heart or wallet.
Actually the bride is the biggest collection of brides, plural. Sure, we are one in Christ, the bridegroom, but otherwise individuals.
The point was about the joining into one flesh, that is natural for a man and a woman. Not a command against more than one bride. Jesus never said having more than one wife or husband was adultery even when he had plenty of chance to do so. After all, he did that with divorce and matters of the heart, magnifying them, but interestingly not putting adultery into that category.
Now on a few details:
Leviticus 20 has some guidelines. The first wife should never be diminished in anything she has, marrying your mother in law while married to her daughter is framed as wickedness, etc.
God told David He gave him his wives and would have given him even more if he'd only asked, when rebuking him over his one recorded sin with Bathsheba. David's other relationships were never described by God as sin. David was described as having only the one sin in his lifetime and that he was righteous ever after.
Right, but not on how to steal less wickedly.
1. Why would you want to hear God through me if He can just speak to you? Why would I speak to God for you and deliver His messages if you already can't hear Him?
See, you should understand.
Not when electrodes are placed to record what women don't notice. Even when they said they were not stimulated, their blood was going to certain places, anyway. So their minds don't always match their bodies. And it's not as obvious with the anatomy what is happening.
I think your eyes just tricked you. The point being, lust is unbelief, like all sin.
1PeaceMaker
New member
Do you see what you are doing here?
I left a freak cult because they were in the habit of breaking up polygamous families when they converted them. It's wrong to wreck children's homes and put asunder what God has joined.
Why? Do you violate Matt 7:12? Do you falsely accuse others or stir up division in the Body?
Are you saying some children are not as valuable as others?
That's not what Jesus is saying. Jesus is saying because your Father is so good to you, giving when you have need, therefore, live by Matt 7:12.
It's the same as when he explained that those who are forgiven much love much (the law of reciprocity). Luke 7:47
No. Would you consider calling me a polygamist truthful?
True.
I wasn't offering personal information in that quote. I was offering what I thought you were asking for, a definition of abuse.
I'm emotionally abusing you (Ac 20:20).[] "Do you see what you are doing here?"
Ga 5:9
Keep your
You're no blushing bride (Jer. 3:3, Rev. 19:7, 8).
No (Pr 23:7, Mt 5:28).
See:
PeaceMakingPerv
Our definitions differ (2 Co 6:14).
Jesus loves you (Jn 3:16). Jesus is willing to save you (2 Pe 3:9). Repent (Eze 18:30-32; Ac 17:30). Believe (Mk 9:23).
1PeaceMaker
New member
Let's see if that's the truth:
Was it malice or love that motivated your response to me?
The "seed" is the body of Christ, as one, which are many. Each child born is Seed. All children are of the kingdom. I am concerned that you appear to be railing against the innocent.
I don't break up any marriages. Do you? I don't put asunder, so what's to keep to myself?
By what right do you accuse me? James 4:17
And the question isn't what kind of bride I am. We are trying to determine if you are an abuser. Not a disciplinarian or loving friend.
I can withdraw my question if you withdraw yours to Yorzhik, otherwise, being a godly woman, you should be able to handle taking what you dish.
Am I a sinner in your eyes just because I don't believe polygamy is a sin? I have to be more than the only faithful wife of one faithful man and believe in Jesus Christ, I must now add certain beliefs that are just like yours or go to hell??
We follow God so it's logical to believe that God would keep us from polygamy if it's a sin for us. So far, 16 years and counting as monogamous.
I recommend you either make the context more accurate or delete that, because it's going to make people think I'm menopausal or something, as well as the hypothetical widow comment... it's just that. The lack of context is confusing to the reader, I believe.
Let's examine that. Examinations determine who is in the faith and who is wanting.
Your definition of abuse is not righteous rebuke or instruction in righteousness. Neither is mine.
I hope you keep that in mind when you accuse me, then.
In your mind, is that predicated on me agreeing with you about polygamy, because I don't see polygamy mentioned...
From what? I've done my repenting of unbelief, I've been given the fleshy heart with the law written on the inward parts.
I do, but do you expect me to believe all your pet doctrines before you consider me a believer?
So you approve of hitting women if you hit them in the right place. Got it. So I meet with your approval, where is the proper place you want them to be hit?
Interplanner
Well-known member
Peacemaker,
What population collapse? Or are you referring to the competing polygamy of islam and what might happen to the west and is happening to Europe?
Gospel workers are not created by physical birth. If you are Mormon, say so. The Spirit of God moves as it wills and creates people who are reborn in spirit.
Polygamy was not allowed by Christ, as his comments on remarriage reflect. They were spoken in terms of rulings made by Rabbis Hillel and Shammai of the time. Oddly he came out close to Hillel. Shammai was otherwise strict but had allowed remarriage for trifled reasons. The point here is that Shammai (conservative) did not allow polygamy, but rather, serial remarriages, which Christ called adultery. You lose either direction on that.
The letters that speak about leaders are speaking about 1-wife men. This is a vestige of the issue, but saying the same thing re polygamy.
You're not being fair about the analogy of Christ and the church. To validate polygamy he would have to have several churches. The passages (Eph 5) would have to mention several brides, wives, churches. Eph 4: there is one church.
Christ did put adultery in that category you mentioned with polygamy but in the way I just mentioned above, in which he was speaking to the rulings of Shammai. Hillel agreed with Christ about remarriage.
You missed my point about instructions about polygamy. they were for that ancient near east context, not today. Not even the 1st century. Like animal sacrifice. Like the colors of a priests robe.
David was cursed with his adultery and murder for the rest of his life. He was only righteous by faith; in which sin was not credited against him. Multiple wives were warned about from Deuteronomy on.
God does not give individual revelation. I was being facetious. You've put yourself on a dangerous precedent, totally subjective.
Lust is indeed unbelief. Just like polygamy. It is an escape hatch from making the one relationship what it should be.
What population collapse? Or are you referring to the competing polygamy of islam and what might happen to the west and is happening to Europe?
Gospel workers are not created by physical birth. If you are Mormon, say so. The Spirit of God moves as it wills and creates people who are reborn in spirit.
Polygamy was not allowed by Christ, as his comments on remarriage reflect. They were spoken in terms of rulings made by Rabbis Hillel and Shammai of the time. Oddly he came out close to Hillel. Shammai was otherwise strict but had allowed remarriage for trifled reasons. The point here is that Shammai (conservative) did not allow polygamy, but rather, serial remarriages, which Christ called adultery. You lose either direction on that.
The letters that speak about leaders are speaking about 1-wife men. This is a vestige of the issue, but saying the same thing re polygamy.
You're not being fair about the analogy of Christ and the church. To validate polygamy he would have to have several churches. The passages (Eph 5) would have to mention several brides, wives, churches. Eph 4: there is one church.
Christ did put adultery in that category you mentioned with polygamy but in the way I just mentioned above, in which he was speaking to the rulings of Shammai. Hillel agreed with Christ about remarriage.
You missed my point about instructions about polygamy. they were for that ancient near east context, not today. Not even the 1st century. Like animal sacrifice. Like the colors of a priests robe.
David was cursed with his adultery and murder for the rest of his life. He was only righteous by faith; in which sin was not credited against him. Multiple wives were warned about from Deuteronomy on.
God does not give individual revelation. I was being facetious. You've put yourself on a dangerous precedent, totally subjective.
Lust is indeed unbelief. Just like polygamy. It is an escape hatch from making the one relationship what it should be.
Ps 139:22[I'm emotionally abusing you (Ac 20:20).
"What's the most important thing in all the universe? Relationships." ~ Bob Enyart
Where did you get that idea? Jn 8:44 Your days are numbered (Prov. 21:10).
You've :yawn: made that determination.
He does not care to answer the question: Do you hit women? :chz4brnz:
Those are your exact words.
The reader may click on the link to read the complete discussion.
each: You're defending a man who is having a hard time answering the question: Do you hit women?
lain: You removed the scripture from my quote (Eph 4:14).
Jesus loves you (Jn 3:16).
Jonah and his plant get a bad rap (Jon 4:9). Those Ninevites likely raped his sister and murdered his family. The plant never did that.
You removed the scripture from my quote (Eph 4:14).
Jesus is willing to save you (2 Pe 3:9).
Come as the reprobate you are (1 Cor. 9:24–27).
You removed the scripture from my quote (Eph 4:14).
Repent (Eze 18:30-32; Ac 17:30).
1 Jn 1:6
You removed the scripture from my quote (Eph 4:14).
Believe (Mk 9:23).
"If you can sin, you're not God's child. You can fool everybody else but you can't fool him." ~ J. Vernon McGee
1PeaceMaker
New member
Matt 5:44
Love works no ill towards his neighbor. Love is never abusive. You seem to be claiming both that I am your enemy (I dispute) and that you should hate me.
Are you claiming you have a moral obligation to literally abuse me?
Matt 19:14
Where?
You can't marry your words to the Bible. I answered you. That's why I quoted your words.