Huffington Post warns of a “new dating trend” called mosting in This New Dating Trend Is Even Worse Than Ghosting
It’s essentially a subcategory of ghosting, said Tracy Moore, the journalist who coined the phrase in a January article for MEL Magazine.
“Mosting is ghosting, but where before you ghost, you completely love bomb the person with praise, compliments and faux perfect soulmate-type stuff,” she told HuffPost.
“It’s so over the top,” she added. “The ghosting is much more confusing and painful, because this wasn’t just a ‘meh’ date that you could take or leave. This person really made you feel like you had a rare connection in a sea of duds.”
It is hard to say what Moore is doing wrong given so little information. Perhaps it is the hot farts that are scaring the men away?
Off topic Dalrock, but I thought you might like to know Jordan Peterson agrees with you on Frozen, and apparently has a contact in Youtube who confirms it’s deliberate.
On topic, with all the #metoo hysteria and rape accusations after the fact, I find it unsurprising there are men who drop this kind of stuff as cover fire for their exit.
It’s kind of obvious though, isn’t it? You make it rapey for a man to out and out reject a woman and men respond by heaping false praise or making themselves look like beta wimps when they need to exit discreetly and end a relationship or date that isn’t going well. With no possible false accusations being made 20 years after the fact.
Once again, is there any man who can make these women happy?
Pingback: Something must have scared him off. | @the_arv
Nope. Leave well enough alone.
Sorry Wraithburn. Didn’t see you posted a similar comment before mine. Looks like a perfectly acceptable reaction to the #metoo hysteria and womens’ constant changing and moving of the goalposts with respect to sexual interactions.
These things are ancient tactics in the war between the sexes, as shown in this Elvish poem.
“An elvin-maid there was of old,
A stenographer by day;
Her hair was fake, her teeth were gold,
Her scent was that of cheap sachet.
She thought that art was really ‘keen,’
The top ten she could hum;
Her eyes were full of Maybelline,
Her mouth, of chewing gum.
Her head was full of men and clothes,
Her hair, of ratted curls;
Her legs she wrapped in fine Sup-Hose,
For nights out with the girls.
She met one morn an elvin-lad,
Who took her to the fights,
And said he owned a spacious pad,
And went to law school nights.
And so that night she gave her all
In back of his sedan;
So rich, she thought, so sharp and tall,
A perfect family man.
But then he told her with a smirk,
That he loved another,
And was a part-time postal clerk
And lived home with his mother.
A silver tear rolled down her cheek
As she bussed home by herself;
The same thing happened twice last week,
(Oh, Heaven help the Working-elf!)
— From “Bored of the Rings” by the Harvard Lampoon.
I think I count as having “mosted” someone, so I feel a) ahead of the curve and b) like a big man.
It’s a function of online dating. There were two potential women in the offing, and I had dates lined up with them both. The woman I went out with first had her charms, so I wanted to keep her in play until I’d met the other one (scheduled for a week or so later), then see how the land lay.
I paid for dinner and then went for the old grab-and-kiss straight after, and she appeared very pleased with the attention and went doe-eyed. A week later I met the other woman, decided she was the one for me, and not that long afterwards we got engaged.
Without the internet I would never have had multiple options around like that, so there wouldn’t have been the same need to keep multiple plates spinning.
There’s a song by Whitesnake. Which finishes:
But would I lie to, would I lie to, should I lie to you?
Just to get in your pants
I think so
From 1981. This is all so so old.
It’s so tiring these days to watch women bounce between having all the agency in the world and then at the drop of a hat, absolutely none at all.
If someone you just met showers you with over-the-top attention without even really knowing you…that doesn’t signal a few alarm bells in your head?
I guess when the collective female ego is that massive and therefore “intrinsically worthy” of the attention, logic and self-reflection fall by the wayside.
First off that I am not seeing this “trend” discussed anywhere else makes me skeptical that it is in fact a thing, beyond a Twitfeed or two.
But assume it is: wouldn’t this tactic just be an “amplification” of the old PUA maxim, “leave them better than you found them”? As in, the morning after your ONS, be nice, go to breakfast, be pleasant, take selfies, send a nice text after you part about how much fun you had, etc. etc. butnot promising anything specific.
Which other masters of the universe have noted is a good pre-emptive to avoid being me-too’ed or accused of being a cad and a churl, or an assaulter type. Compare the opposite: what happened to Mattress Girl’s unfortunate Columbia bad boyfriend she hounded for years in public, as revealed in the facebook posts attached to the still-publicly-available federal complaint he brought against Columbia.
DISCLAIMER: The foregoing is no endorsement. My task is chronicling the WHAT IS, not the WHAT SHOULD BE. (Then adding a bad pun or two)
So, there are “plenty of women” willing to have casual sex without a man saying how amazing they are. Apparently, the real key to getting casual sex is that “they think you’re hot”. That seems counter to the idea that women are having sex hoping to find security.
Another hard-hitting article from the female typists at the HuffPo! There could literally be a genocide in a neighboring country and these narcissistic bimbos would dump it, in favor of a story about the unrealistic waistline in the new Barbie edition.
Man its only been 12 years since I went off the market. No idea what ghosting is.
Only if he submits to her perpetual unhappiness.
Could be another ‘Tinder’ phenomenon.
Let’s face it…there a lot of new things out there because of the easiness of casual sex. So much for that empowerment, ladies.
Scott:
Ghosting: what happens when one person in a romantic relationship suddenly, without warning or expectation, disappears from a person’s life and goes total “no contact”. Removes and blocks from social media, does not return texts or phone calls, erases all traces of his/her relationship with the person being ghosted, acts as if the relationship never existed.
Eh. “Expectation” should be explanation.
I was “mosted,” or as we call it here, “frivorced.”
Why not just go full honesty.
I’m just looking for sex…after you’ve sacrificed your body in such an intimate way for the purposes of my own orgasm I will not call you again nor will I even bother to acknowledge your existence because that shows a woman who has very little self respect and is basically is an open quiver. Unless I’m horny again then I’ll give you a call.
Pingback: Something must have scared him off. | Reaction Times
@Scott and thedeti
IOW: The egalitarian version of how, historically, a woman treats a man after she deems him creepy or clingy.
Yeah that’s true…I guess I’ve been ‘ghosted’ by a number of women. I didn’t write a HuffPo article about it though because that’s usually what happens when they close the door to you.
“It’s not you, its #metoo.”
Consider your time and emotional health valuable, and invest in dating accordingly. Expect the possibility of her flaking on you and appreciate that it showed her true colors early on. Also good to go to a date with some type of backup or side task so that if it goes south, you haven’t completely wasted your time.
.
And as for Huffpo, I would not doubt that they would strictly censor all opinions from our side, so they should be treated as another branch of the feminist propaganda machine.
A sea of duds. (Most men)
Confusing and painful. (Her lack of power and control, triggered introspection*)
Wasnt just a ‘meh’ date (like an attractive man with no game)
Take or leave (only she gets to decide!)
Made you feel (date a man with game)
A real connection (date attractive man with game)
*by introspection i mean ‘must write new essay about this disturbing trend that is happening (to me!)
Male attractiveness is the operative condition. These are the conplaints of carousel girls who are realizing the decline of their SMV generated options in real time.
Bumble was created to deal with the first set of carousel problems: unattractive men ‘approachig’, men who ‘just don’t get’ that she’s not that type of girl (with him), and guys without enough game to provide the plausible deniability pellets to her hamster – aka ‘one thing led to another’.
Her SMV goes down and/or mileage goes up and new problems surface. The ‘right’ kinds of guys (the ones shes used to banging) aren’t following thru.
She has already decided to bang him and he is playing out the script but then ghosts. Wait, thats from her playbook!. She is entitled to choose. WTF is this ‘trend’ all about? Lol
Apparently this bird thinks that only men get to be disposable commodities in the online dystopia of dating.
@Wraithburn
Good find on the Jordan B. Peterson tweets. He’s slammed Frozen on a few occasions before in his YouTube videos, but it’s interesting to see an apparent insider confirm that the “hidden messages” were placed there on purpose. Yet another demonstration of how pathetic the modern church is when we have to rely on a secular academic to pick up on propaganda that they claim not to notice so that they’ll be able to have the luxury of sitting out a culture war.
Then again, maybe this has something to do with why the evangelicals are starting to come out against Peterson now that he’s been catching some attention. Check out this recent piece from a supposed “conservative” site. It warns about how his message to young men is really quite dangerous, because if those young men do “sort themselves out” and end up improving their lives for the better . . . they might be at risk for becoming proud. We certainly wouldn’t want that to be true of men in the church!
Link is here: https://mereorthodoxy.com/book-review-12-rules-life-jordan-peterson/
I’ve definitely done this. It’s a good way to keep several options in play at once, depending on the girls in question. Believe it or not, it also increases the chances she will remain attracted to you after you disappear. This means, 1) dramatically lowered odds for false rape accusation and, 2) increased odds of you being able to have sex with her at a later date.
@Gaza
You win the thread!
@feministhater
No worries, we’re just seeing the same thing.
“Climb every Mountain,
Ford every Stream,
Blah blah blah blah blah blah,
Until you find your Dream.”
Is that, from over fifty years ago, really any different from Frozen? – yet I find it hard to think that it was the true precursor to Women burning their Brassieres or Nuns abandoning their Cloister.
What is it with Americans and their endless dreaming. zzzzzzzzzzzzzz
@Darwinian Arminian
It really is an indictment of the current church culture that we have pastors like Wilson writing screeds about the failures of today’s young men, and we’ve got agnostics like Peterson building them up.
Peterson really is just building Better Betas…can’t have the carousel riders hit their late 20s and not have a Beta to wife them up. Note that Peterson does not criticize women. It’s all about men being responsible.
As for ghosting and this new trend of mosting, I remember when I started online dating. The first few months were rough:
1. I’d get numbers, plan dates, the girl would be excited. Three days later, on day of date, no response, no show.
Learned first hand what flaking meant. And you know what, I didn’t mind if a woman changed her mind. It’s the fact she wouldn’t even respond to text if she was still coming.
2. When I did get dates, sometimes they went bad (no big deal), something they went well. Sometimes I’d want to see them again. And sometimes I’d get no response to text messages.
At some point, I got really good at having zero expectations of a woman to a) keep her word to show up to a date, b) have the common courtesy to let me know if she wasn’t interested.
Problem with online dating is that there are no real social consequences for acting like an a**hole. The probability you know the same people is miniscule. But I don’t think women realized it goes both ways.
@Vyasa But I don’t think women realized it goes both ways.
Excellent observation because it plays out in other ways too; when women get hit back, the look on their faces is priceless.
The original Jizabel story is great at illustrating the huge phony, Lucy Van Pelt, lies women tell (credulous) men: “Men should just some out and tell women all they want is sex. HONESTLY, plenty of us would be DTF, no problem, just tell us UPFRONT and be honest.K?”. YEAH that will work 0.0000001% of the time.
Vyasa,
Peterson really is just building Better Betas…can’t have the carousel riders hit their late 20s and not have a Beta to wife them up. Note that Peterson does not criticize women. It’s all about men being responsible.
Agreed. Jordan Peterson is really just another Tradcon. He is only Purple Pill at best. Blackdragon did a whole article providing evidence that Jordan Peterson is just a TradCon.
What is she complaining about?
Women “most” all the time. They promise you a lifetime of companionship,children, fidelity. They dress up in a white dress and invite all their friends to hear her swear that she will “most” you forever. If she is devout, she will even declare it before God!
Of course, w know how this , all too often, ends.
If women are going to skew the market- and skew it big time they have – men will adjust accordingly.
Good luck in finding “ true love”, ladies!
Meanwhile, CGI is becoming more realistic :
https://venturebeat.com/2018/03/21/epic-games-shows-off-amazing-real-time-digital-human-with-siren-demo/
VR Sex that is more interesting than 80% of women is on track by 2020.
Scott
Man its only been 12 years since I went off the market. No idea what ghosting is.
The rate of social change has accelerated. Most people haven’t noticed, yet.
Opus
“Climb every Mountain,
Ford every Stream,
Blah blah blah blah blah blah,
Until you find your Dream.”
Is that, from over fifty years ago, really any different from Frozen?
Well, yeah, because the song from Frozen every single girl remembers contains this key line:
No Rules For Me. It’s different.
Peterson may well be building a better beta, but unlike 99% of the church leadership he doesn’t talk down to young men and does not berate them (much). If church leaders were as smart as they pretend to be, they’d copy Peterson’s style and quit verballly beating men like a cheap pinata.
Never mind the idea of compassion towards confused fellow men, I’d never ask any church leader to go that far. Just pointing out that copying the competition can work out in terms of market share, and therefore votes & dollars.
My son has. He graduated college just two years ago and teaches high school. He says that he can’t relate at all to the current crop of HS kids.
I expect we’ll soon reach the point where juniors and seniors can’t relate.
@Opus, c’mon — comparing “Climb Every Mountain” to “Let It Go”?
Did you ever actually see The Sound of Music? If so, it wasn’t recently enough to remember the context of “Climb Every Mountain”.
And perhaps you’ve also forgotten another song from that movie, which Maria sang with Liesl:
I’ll take “Lyrics least likely to appear in Frozen 2” for $400, Alex.
Spike: Women “most” all the time. They promise you a lifetime of companionship, children, fidelity. They dress up in a white dress and invite all their friends to hear her swear that she will “most” you forever. If she is devout, she will even declare it before God! Of course, w know how this, all too often, ends.
Weddings might even be called The Big Most.
@Splashman
You have me there. In fact I saw The Sound of Music twice (in the movie theatre); the first time with my Mother and siblings and secondly shortly thereafter with my then squeeze. When I say saw a second time I have to confess I saw little for knowing that it was the longest movie then playing I figured that would mean even more snogging time than any other movie and that was why I ‘saw’ it twice (bored the pants off me even though it had plenty of Nazis). I have a theory that snogging has gone the way of the dodo and that teenagers no longer so indulge, but it was greaaaaaat and I cannot see how sex-dolls or VR can ever come close to replicating the experience.
Shortly thereafter the bitch dumped me – and in the circumstances of our grappling in the dark of the theatre it is not surprising that she failed to get the song’s message – but she was hot and could have any boy she wanted. So much for under-age (both of us) cinema sex.
“If you’re reading this and recognize yourself as a serial moster, Moore kindly asks that you learn to dial down the high praise on early dates. ”
…and of course, the inevitable call to the men, to solve the women’s problems. 🙂
“VR Sex that is more interesting than 80% of women is on track by 2020.”
The more vocal members of La Feminista are already harping about sex doll brothels, and they’ll no doubt be harping about that too. They know they’re becoming obsolete.
A woman writes about Adam and Eve for the London Review of Books: https://www.lrb.co.uk/v40/n05/anne-enright/the-genesis-of-blame
Her article has more errors, heresies, and rebellious feminism that I can list.
@ Darwinian Arminian
Yes, it has been interesting to watch the churches begin to respond to Peterson’s emergence. They just can’t seem to grasp that Peterson is resonating with young men because he hasn’t surrendered to postmodernism while the churches did so a long time ago. Men, especially young men, instinctively gravitate to strength and abhor weakness. It’s really that simple.
@dragnet, you’re over simplifying it imo. They respond to all sorts of things. With respect to Peterson, I’d add integrity and objective truth (at least the parts they grasp) for example. But it’s important to keep in mind that while a material number of young men respond to men such as Peterson, we also have a material number of young men responding to and supporting third/fourth/radical wave feminism.
Giacco;
“It’s so tiring these days to watch women bounce between having all the agency in the world and then at the drop of a hat, absolutely none at all.”
Such a great observation. Much like how they can swing from “We’re taking over” triumphalism to writing off any shortcoming to the patriarchy. The “Victor….Victim” binary axis of the female mind. Whichever role has the most utility, or dispense the most serotonin rather, given the situation.
The best visual had to be the “Future is Female” placards marching side by side with placards championing equality at the incoherent pusshat “rage is fun” marches.
@Major Styles: There is, in South Africa, and they are. You are 100 percent correct.
Why does any male use their real name when dating this generation’s army of online personality disordered feminist sluts is beyond me. Hi, I’m Joe Blow from Coco-mo and that’s all you’ll EVER know about me. Let’s talk about your favorite subject, you *grin*.
“Ghosting” “Mosting” …intricate, complex social behaviors requiring study, research and explanation (all through the F.I. lens, natch)….or women not yet even beginning to come to terms with how much their pedestals have lowered?
With steam coming out of my head, I was going to storm off on one with Opus (but darnit! he is British and I cannot bring myself to reproach one of my fellow countrymen – unlike you Yanks where it is fair game, :)) but I see Splashman got there first and did my dirty work for me, and Opus has more or less relented, and all is good and all, but still…
PLEASE OPUS, DON’T TOUCH THE SOUND OF MUSIC AGAIN!!!
OR…the puppy gets it!
Whoa, that’s better, everything’s good again. Deep breaths, all is calm, all is good, easy, easy, breathe…
🙂
LOL.
We Catholic girls/women go nuts if someone so much as touches our sacred film-‘bible’. I grew up loving that film. I went to a convent school. I entertained lofty ideas of becoming a nun once. I have friends who DID become nuns. I now live in the Swiss Alps not far from the Austrian Alps where the true story of the von Trapps unfolded. I go hiking/running/skiing on the same mountains the von Trapps are said to have crossed, into Switzerland, on fleeing the Nazis…
I know, I know, nuns can be very cruel individuals. But my grandfather started an important tradition in my family when he one day decided that ALL his daughters will be raised my nuns, even though he always disliked nuns (he believed they couldn’t be ‘normal’ for choosing not to be wives and mothers). Beginning with his eldest daughter my mother, ALL the women in my family have been to convent schools.
My grandfather was not even Catholic. Anglican as they come, he decided that nuns are the best educators of young women, despite his beliefs about nuns. He always said, no-one was better equipped to bend the will of wayward girls into shape than a wizened old nun with no pity (because of course she lacked maternal sympathy!) LOL, my grandfather was one strange man, I have to say 🙂 (Yes, pot calling kettle black, I know! Clearly hereditary in our case 🙂
I was taught (by the nuns) to model myself on Our Lady herself (yes, tough act to follow!).
“Until a man claims you in the sacred scarament of Matrimony, you serve God your father, as your Holy Mother Mary did. After your husband takes you under his wing, in his home, at his side, you are his, and you serve God AND him, as your Holy Mother Mary did serve God and St Joseph.
Understand?”
Fifteen-year old Spacetraveller liked the sound of that and replied “Yes Sister”.
And she still does to this day 🙂
In this context, “Climb every mountain” is a very positive message that fifteen year old Spacetraveller took to mean “achieve all you can in the service of God your Father, and when the time comes, also for the glory of your husband, whoever he may be. And whatever that ‘achievement’ may be, be it being excellent in maintaining a home, being a great support/helpmeet for ‘il capo’, being a good listener, studying to be a nurse, engineer, whatever. You should be a high value woman for a high value man. Anything less, and you disappoint God”.
Maria’s conversation with young Liesl is exactly along those same lines.
“You are sixteen going on seventeen. One of these days you will meet a young man who will change you forever (hopefully in a good way, lol) in the way God intended. You will be his. He will OWN you (in the way God intended). You will belong to him. You will be part of him. You will be part of his family”.
(I recently learned that the name-change for newly married women is a symbolism of this marital OWNERSHIP. I didn’t know that before! No-one explained this to me at our pre-Cana. I just thought it’s a nice tradition, etc etc. But symbolism matters on a deep level too).
I think all of the above is beautiful. I don’t know much about this ‘Frozen’ film yet (maybe someday soon I shall find time to watch it to see what you are talking about) but I get the feeling it really cannot be compared to *my* Sound of Music.
I will go so far as to say that every young woman, Catholic or not, should see this film. If for nothing because it is excellent as a tool for preparation of a young woman for marriage. (Both Maria and Liesl are preparing for marriage in this sense). And of course, because it is a well-loved, care-free film of old!
But then again, I may be a weird one with strange affiliations, lol.
Profile of a Modern American Strong Independent Woman …
A retired U.S. Navy Chief (a woman) explains why tattoos brought meaning to her life:
But she doesn’t explain the purple hair and lipstick.
Back in the day, no one except sideshow circus freaks had tattoos on a visible part of the body (head, neck, hands, or feet). It was called “following the peacock.” In other words; if you were stupid enough to put tattoos on yourself at least you retained the ability to dress smart, work a normal job, etc…
Now you have all these disordered single feminists and their bastard dingbats running around trying to look like sideshow circus freaks and they think it’s normal.
I like it when women purposely uglify themselves…makes it a lot easier to see red flags and avoid.
@American
”we also have a material number of young men responding to and supporting third/fourth/radical wave feminism.”
You are missing 1st and 2nd wave feminism. They laid the groundwork for 3/4/5 feminism.
They are the same types of wicked women including the suffragettes who committed terrorist violence:
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/feb/06/the-role-of-violence-in-winning-votes-for-women-and-men
Peterson’s integrity and pursuit of objective truth are the “strength” I’m referring to.
@ Dalrock
Check this out – https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/mom-two-writes-dear-husband-letter-asking-parenting-help-super-relatable-012124601.html
My favourite comment in response to this joke of an article –
“The letter clearly wasn’t to her husband. It was to her Facebook friends to share how much of a hero she is doing exactly what women have been doing for thousands of years.”
@American
2nd wave feminism and how they used the problem of domestic violence to destroy the family:
This also provides some insight into the real dynamics of domestic violence.
She also received death threats for daring to speak the truth:
“…My people go into exile for their lack of knowledge; And their honorable men are famished, And their multitude is parched with thirst.
Therefore Sheol [hell] has enlarged its throat and opened its mouth without measure…” -Isaiah 5:13-14 NASB.
@dota
that is hilarious
women complaining about running their household and how hard it is are just hilarious….
I really want to see the faces of women from 2000 years ago when they listen to these modern women with all their technology whine and complain…
Dota,
““The letter clearly wasn’t to her husband. It was to her Facebook friends to share how much of a hero she is doing exactly what women have been doing for thousands of years.””
She is also working as a Marketing Executive – she is worn out from trying to have a work career and everything else.
Therefore Sheol [hell] has enlarged its throat and opened its mouth without measure…” -Isaiah 5:13-14 NASB.
Why do people still use non-KJV bibles?
Most of these new versions are new age books. They’ve gotten rid of several important verses, and also watered down many doctrines of the Church.
Moreover, they make the Word of God even more difficult to understand (e.g. most people understand the word “Hell”, but not many people understand “Sheol”). If the intention of modern translations is to help people understand Scriptures better, they did just the opposite.
@Dave
Sheol does seem to be very similar to the Greek doctrine of Hades. This is also the place from where God brought forth the spirit of Samuel when Saul sought the powers of the Witch of Endor.
Mosted, Ghosted, pumped and dumped, humped, lumped and dumped tomato, tomatoe.. What, the sluts of Huffington Post are looking for better, kinder ways to spin that hamster wheel? They have to look in the mirror and consider they allowed a man to turn them into a cum-dumpster and the men having soiled them so, never saw them again? How do we look at that, at her? How is she to look at herself? I believe in the old ways. I’m going with plain old slut. Games, silly games, most, ghost, whatever. Honey, until you stop being a slut, men will keep dumpstering you. Then one day, they won’t even do THAT. These are the girls with Daddy-Issues.
Cue the hungry-cat sound effect and footage.
This post could be about GunnerQ. So scared he had to block me from his blog and delete my comments. What a man!
https://gunnerq.com/2018/03/20/bring-it-glosoli/
Damn straight! The insuffrablegettes were worse than today’s lot and that says all that needs to be said.
No one cares about your pet peeves. Look around you, the women are a complete and utter joke. You want to marry more than one? Have 10 for all I care and have a nice life full of contentious and moaning bitches draining you of every ounce of your energy and sanity.
Women “most” all the time.
And as usual, they gag and retch violently when given a taste of their own medicine.
‘No one cares about your pet peeves.’
GunnerQ cared, but not able to back up his talk.
I’m ambivalent about polygamy personally, but not about God’s word.
This does not work if the man has multiple wives. You can flat out deny as you are want to do but it’s as clear as day. You cannot give yourself 100% to two, three or four other people.
It’s a pointless debate. Have at it though, it will sure be a glorious ride!
Thanks for the info on Erin Pizzey. I had not heard of her before. Anyone read her latest 2011 book “This way to the revolution: a memoir” yet?
Erin’s podcast: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLHLREeMe4S0Pwbz0xiDkSWWGk2jpRx1Os
And while there are many inferior translations of the Holy Canon in the world today, I’m not aligned with the “King James Only movement (KJOM)” for good reason. But neither am I inclined to get into another long exhaustive debate over why I’m not aligned with the KJOM here as it’s outside the scope of this forum. I read and use the KJV but I prefer the NASB and NKV when dealing with those outside the KJOM. Onward. EOM.
Excuse me, sir. Seeing as how the VP is such a VIP, shouldn’t we keep the PC on the QT? ‘Cause if it leaks to the VC he could end up MIA, and then we’d all be put on KP.
Well he’s actually saying a man will leave his family to set up another with a wife, becoming one flesh with her. He cannot then take up another wife and become, yet again, one flesh with her as well without diminishing the bound with the first wife.
How many times can a man become one flesh with subsequent people. Does this not divide him each time he takes a new wife? That if he is to take a new wife, he must first extract his flesh from his first wife to be properly able to bind himself to his new wife? Or are we to believe that this union, the bound itself, is not meaningful?
I really don’t understand how a man can have multiple wives and yet ‘enjoy the wife of his youth’. It seems counter-productive to put that in the Bible if a man can just take a far younger woman as his new bride and enjoy her instead..
^ I see what you did there with the acronyms, lol.
Sorry, that should be ‘bond’ not ‘bound’.
>How many times can a man become one flesh with subsequent people.
There is no limit. They do not literally become one flesh of course.
>Does this not divide him each time he takes a new wife?
Yes. Most men would only want or need one wife. Some patriarchs could handle/needed two or more.
>That if he is to take a new wife, he must first extract his flesh from his first wife to be properly able to bind himself to his new wife?
There is no flesh subtraction necessary. Men remain virile into old age, women become infertile in their 50s/60s. Stop and ponder why there is a difference, and why many patriarchs took younger wives later in life. It’s all God’s design.
>Or are we to believe that this union, the bound itself, is not meaningful?
It is of course meaningful. But men have sexual needs well into their old age, whereas women lose their sexual desires post-menopause. The bible shows the solution (to those who need it/want it/can afford it): more wives.
>I really don’t understand how a man can have multiple wives and yet ‘enjoy the wife of his youth’. It seems counter-productive to put that in the Bible if a man can just take a far younger woman as his new bride and enjoy her instead..
Some men are able to enjoy both, men have different sex drives, different levels of wealth.
This woman is correct: https://youtu.be/6dnNGF4NaKQ
Don’t tell their children that, then.
Thank you glosoli. Your statements prove most interesting. You seem to be stuck trying to find a means for men to not have to divorce their old wives to be able to get their sexual needs met by a younger women.
I hope others find your responses as interesting as I have.
Dear Glosoli:
You went to his house and took a leak on his carpet, and he asked you to leave. Now you’re bee-yatching about it here. I have zero sympathy for your whining.
Why not get your own blog, and post your responses there? If you put meaningful content up, I’ll help promote it.
If you’re a serious antifeminist, you’ll get your own blog and add one more “unsafe space” to the internet.
Regards,
Boxer
“Polygamy was never lawful for any of the persons in the Bible. There never existed an express biblical permission for such a deviation from the ordinance of God made at the institution of marriage in the Garden of Eden (Gen 2:21–24).
There are at least four passages that conceivably could be construed as giving temporary permission from God to override the general law of marriage found in Genesis 2:24. They are Exodus 21:7–11, Leviticus 18:18, Deuteronomy 21:15–17 and 2 Samuel 12:7–8. But each one falls far short of proving that anything like divine permission was being granted in these passages.
Scripture does not always pause to state the obvious. In many cases there is no need for the reader to imagine what God thinks of such states of affairs, for the misfortune and strife that come into the domestic lives of these polygamists cannot be read as a sign of divine approval.
It is true that Jacob was deceived by Laban on Jacob’s wedding night, but that did not justify Jacob in agreeing to Laban’s crafty plan to get him to stay around for another seven years to ensure continued prosperity. Two wrongs in this case did not make a right.”
Reference: Kaiser, W. C., Jr., Davids, P. H., Bruce, F. F., & Brauch, M. T. (1996). Hard sayings of the Bible (130). Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity.
>Thank you glosoli. Your statements prove most interesting.
You’re welcome.
>You seem to be stuck trying to find a means for men to not have to divorce their old wives to be able to get their sexual needs met by a younger women.
Do not put words into my mouth. I simply mention biological facts of life and facts from the bible.
>I hope others find your responses as interesting as I have.
Sure.
>Polygamy was never lawful for any of the persons in the Bible.
You seek to add to Jehovah’s laws. God warned us not to do that.
>’But each one falls far short of proving that anything like divine permission was being granted in these passages.’
The fact that God chose to specify laws on the subject leaves no room or need for conjecture on His permission for multiple wives. To argue otherwise is to argue that God is incoherent, and contradictory in His ways and laws.
The ‘bad outcome’ argument is weak. Despite every law God gave to the Israelites, and that were repeated by Jesus, we see nothing but bad outcomes, as mankind delights in disobeying God and following his own evil heart.
Alfred the Great stands out as a counter-example however, bless him.
Not putting words in your mouth. The word ‘seem’ should clarify that quite sufficiently. Do you think marriage is a biological fact of life?
Likewise with slavery. It’s a point with no end. Is it sinful to have slaves? We can argue in endless circles. This blog has seen this same argument happen before. You believe one set of ideals and we don’t. Neither will see eye to eye ever. Take up your own blog and preach your beliefs, this isn’t the place for you to do so.
Have a nice day.
One should take this to heart.
>Not putting words in your mouth. The word ‘seem’ should clarify that quite sufficiently.
I know exactly what you’re trying to do. It’s a common online ploy: setting up a straw man point. Stop it, it’s something the evil leftists do, not honest men.
>Do you think marriage is a biological fact of life?
No.
OT:
What are the doctrinal/theological differences between Complementarianism and Patriarchal?
What sections of Scripture differentiate the two doctrines?
Don’t assume or tell anyone what to do. Saying ‘seem’ is giving you the benefit of the doubt and acknowledging that I don’t know your motives. It allows you to explain your point of view.
>Likewise with slavery. It’s a point with no end. Is it sinful to have slaves?
Of course not.
>We can argue in endless circles. This blog has seen this same argument happen before. You believe one set of ideals and we don’t.
True, I follow the bible, you follow progressive liberal Puritan thinking and your own heart.
>Take up your own blog and preach your beliefs, this isn’t the place for you to do so.
You disagree with Jesus:
‘Then Jesus came to them and said, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19 Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you.’
I aim to teach men to obey God, not to add nor subtract from His commands. You prefer to disobey. I pray every day that those who claim to know Christ will recognise they don’t.
Your statements are here for everyone to read.
It’s not a stretch to note that your reasoning is about men needing younger woman to satisfy their sexual urges when their older wife no longer can; without having to divorce her at such a stage.
Don’t pretend I put words in your mouth.
Everyone falls short, even you. Don’t think you have the right of it. That is pride talking.
Now look who is putting words in other people’s mouths.
This is an absolutely nonsensical statement… Jesus isn’t speaking, you are. We are having a disagreement. Something normal people do. You are so absolutely sure of your correctness that you assume you can speak for Jesus himself and anyone who disagrees with you is disagreeing with Jesus.
You forget yourself. You are but a human. One that can be wrong,
Just an FYI. If slavery is not sinful, is it a wise thing to do?
>It’s not a stretch to note that your reasoning is about men needing younger woman to satisfy their sexual urges when their older wife no longer can; without having to divorce her at such a stage.
That would seem to be one of the reaosns why God allows multiple wives, and why patriarchs took younger wives. That, and they were obeying the command to multiply, and more children is beneficial to the whole family/nation.
‘Everyone falls short, even you. Don’t think you have the right of it. That is pride talking.’
I am called by Jesus to do this, as should all who claim to follow Him. I do so with humility, and back up every point I make with logic and scripture.
>Now look who is putting words in other people’s mouths.
It’s a historical fact that Puritans were anti-polygamy (as were the Romans). And your views are liberal and progressive, as they deny the evidence of scripture and God’s literal statutes on this subject. You may dislike the description, but that’s what you are.
>This is an absolutely nonsensical statement… Jesus isn’t speaking, you are. We are having a disagreement. Something normal people do. You are so absolutely sure of your correctness that you assume you can speak for Jesus himself and anyone who disagrees with you is disagreeing with Jesus.
You twist my words once again. You disagree with Jesus in ignoring His command when He gave us the great commission.
>You forget yourself. You are but a human. One that can be wrong,
I am human, but the bible is easy to understand, if one doesn’t have one’s own prejudices blinding them.
‘Just an FYI. If slavery is not sinful, is it a wise thing to do?’
If done in accord with God’s laws, slavery is a good institution for all concerned. You do know that people chose to sell themselves into slavery, for the security? Nowadays, most of humanity is a slave to the usurers, but with no choice on the matter, and no security.
What views of mine? We have had a disagreement on polygamy and your presume to know my entire views about everything? We’re done.
Just oozing with humility….
“If done in accord with God’s laws, slavery is a good institution for all concerned”
Now that’s a hot take, even with the conditional.
>’What views of mine? We have had a disagreement on polygamy and your presume to know my entire views about everything? We’re done.’
>You believe one set of ideals and we don’t.
My views are biblical, yours are something other than that. You seem to disapprove of slavery and polygamy, hence liberal & progressive.
2-0.
I’m still wondering where in God’s law He was a-okay with polygamy…when there’s more than enough evidence in Scripture that God was stressing one man-one woman in the marriage setup.
Even Christ the model for marriage has one wife…the church. It’s not Christ and the church, synagogue, mosque, and the Mormon concubines on the side.
Wonder no more earl, have a read of these verses, I assume you’ve never read them before:
>Exodus 21:7–11, Leviticus 18:18, Deuteronomy 21:15–17 and 2 Samuel 12:7–8.
God literally provided commands for how to deal with aspects of having multiple wives.
I’m wondering how any God-fearing man can find a way to misconstrue this.
I don’t see regulation of something the same as approving of it. Your arguments are based on God regulating both slavery and polygamy as making them good. Rather than just a means to regulate a behaviour.
You use the Old Testament as your proving grounds; Earl makes a valid point, Jesus has but one wife, the Church, and Christians are meant to emulate Christ.
You make use of labels. I am not saved, I am but learning as I go. I am not progressive, nor conservative. I don’t approve of slavery or polygamy but don’t see them as sins.
There is no humility in your words, only hubris.
>Jesus has but one wife, the Church, and Christians are meant to emulate Christ.
So are you going to destroy the billions of sinners in the world? Are you going to die for our sins?That’s what Christ did and will do. No, we’re not called to be like Christ, other than we are called to obey God’s commands, repeatedly:
‘And hereby we do know that we know him, if we keep his commandments. 4He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him. 5But whoso keepeth his word, in him verily is the love of God perfected: hereby know we that we are in him. 6He that saith he abideth in him ought himself also so to walk, even as he walked.’
One of the most quoted out-of-context bible verses that exists. It’s all about the commands, which Jesus kept perfectly.
>I don’t see regulation of something the same as approving of it. Your arguments are based on God regulating both slavery and polygamy as making them good. Rather than just a means to regulate a behaviour.
Only God the Father is good, and everything he’s given us is good, including (of course) his laws and commands. I urge you not to deny that which is obviously good.
>I am not saved, I am but learning as I go. I am not progressive, nor conservative. I don’t approve of slavery or polygamy but don’t see them as sins.
I pray that you will be saved. It is good to learn, and that is why I spend time on blogs sharing the word of God. Your disapproval of slavery and polygamy is a progressive view. It’s anti-God, it won’t help you toward salvation to be stiff-necked about it.
>There is no humility in your words, only hubris.
I feel joy at showing the coherence and good of God’s designs and laws, on behalf of God, but I have no pride in myself. I simply quote scripture and apply common sense and logic, and leave my own views out of things. Although, oddly, my views do seem to align very closely with everything God has given.
@Earl
Even Christ the model for marriage has one wife…the church.
Church is a plural word. It means the body of believers. More than a singular.
God tells David that he had given him many wives, and would have given him twice as many if he had wanted them. He didn’t disapprove of David’s polygamy. It was his adultery with Bathsheba and the murder of Uriah that he was punished for.
Does 2 Samuel 12 approve polygamy?
http://www.equip.org/hank_speaks_out/does-2-samuel-12-approve-of-polygamy/
Keeping score of your supposed points is an obvious sign of pride. Don’t be coy. This is the last time I will respond to you. Go start your own blog, don’t use someone else’s blog to further your purpose. You have stated numerous times now that you have the right of it and that people here are unBiblical so I urge you to start your own Missionary and save as many souls as you can if that is your calling instead of throwing pearls before swines.
You have God’s designs and laws at your fingertips, there is nothing to stand in your way. Go and do it or shut up.
>Keeping score of your supposed points is an obvious sign of pride. Don’t be coy.
It’s joy, not pride.
>This is the last time I will respond to you. Go start your own blog, don’t use someone else’s blog to further your purpose. You have stated numerous times now that you have the right of it and that people here are unBiblical so I urge you to start your own Missionary and save as many souls as you can if that is your calling instead of throwing pearls before swines.
Currently I am spreading the word on blogs, but I do have other projects in mind, including a blog. I do expect to die for my work, history shows that those who follow the word truly are persecuted, but it’ll be a worthy life and a worthy death.
>Go and do it or shut up.
It’s not good to tell a brother to shut up when he’s talking about God’s laws.
Huh?
‘You shall not marry a woman in addition to her sister as a rival while she is alive, to uncover her nakedness.
Leviticus 18:18
That seems to be a command to not marry a second wife.
If a man sells his daughter as a female slave, she is not to go free as the male slaves do. If she is displeasing in the eyes of her master who designated her for himself, then he shall let her be redeemed. He does not have authority to sell her to a foreign people because of his unfairness to her. If he designates her for his son, he shall deal with her according to the custom of daughters. If he takes to himself another woman, he may not reduce her food, her clothing, or her conjugal rights. If he will not do these three things for her, then she shall go out for nothing, without payment of money.
Hence take another woman at your own risk…you can’t reduce things to your wife because you have the hots for another.
“If a man has two wives, the one loved and the other [a]unloved, and both the loved and the [b]unloved have borne him sons, if the firstborn son belongs to the [c]unloved, 16 then it shall be in the day he [d]wills what he has to his sons, he cannot make the son of the loved the firstborn before the son of the [e]unloved, who is the firstborn. But he shall acknowledge the firstborn, the son of the [f]unloved, by giving him a double portion of all that [g]he has, for he is the beginning of his strength; to him belongs the right of the firstborn.
Deuteronomy 21:15-17
‘If’…if is not the same as…’when’. And even then it was talking about firstborn son rights…not a ‘you can have two wives’ command.
Where’s the law that God stated or commanded…’A man can have many wives’? Then you got a case for polygamy.
glosoli,
3 comments on polygamy:
1. Is there ever an instance in Scripture where polygamy produced a happy marriage? Rather, the Scripture is full of counterexamples:
– Rivalry and jealousy between Sarah and Hagar (and one was only a concubine).
– Jacob being bought and sold like a whore by Leah and Rachel.
– Rivalry between Elkanah’s wives Hannah and Peninnah
– Acrimony and murder in David’s household among the sons of his many wives.
– Solomon’s many wives leading him away from God and into idolatry.
Probably more that I haven’t thought of.
2. God giving rulings about something doesn’t indicate his approval, He also regulated divorce (the “certificate of divorce”). But Jesus makes clear that God never approved (Mark 10:1-9).
3. The New Testament elder (church leader) must be “husband of one wife” (literally, “one-woman man”) (Titus 1:9). So only consider polygamy if you aren’t interested in meeting God’s highest standard in his church.
Tracey Moore obviously isn’t telling the whole story. The guy she was with got what he wanted and left to find new “conquests”. She is in the settling down stage of her life after riding the carousel for many years. She probably raised red flags and rushed into things and started planning her life with him only to realise life has other plans. She is blaming everyone except herself, like Hillary after losing the election. What Happened? by Hitlery Rotten Clinton. The question and answer are on the front cover of the book.
Well, exactly… regulation of something does not mean approval, it often means that thing leads to bad consequences down the road and thus needs to be restricted.
Where is the Biblical authority for the idea that we – now – are in hoc to the Usurers – and exactly who are these people? I think we ought to be told.
Off topic, but something I found nice to read.
https://ljubomirfarms.wordpress.com/2018/03/25/what-is-beautiful-to-my-husband-is-sublime-to-god/
@earl,
If God covers a situation in His statutes (i.e. if you take another wife, don’t take the sister of your current wife), He’s conveying His having no issue with two or more wives. If you can’t understand that simple bit of logic, I’m afraid I’m struggling to explain it in simpler terms. If, not when, because polygamy is an ‘if’. Some did, some didn’t.
@Hmm,
I don’t view the bible as a book describing a history of human happiness in those times at all.
It’s the opposite surely. I don’t expect my life on earth to be overly happy, but I strive to make it holy. The Israelites were mostly terrible people, showing their disobedience and hatred toward God so many times. Very few of them are good examples for anything worth striving for. Despite that, God still decided to send His son to die for them (and us).
Re divorce, yes you are correct. But did Jesus say anything at all about multiple wives? Not a peep. Don’t extrapolate to suit your own agenda is the best way to approach these matters, there’s clarity in the word of God. Also, in these satanic times, we are rife with divorce, yet polygamy is illegal: what do you reckon? Do you see what satan did there?
I agree that church leaders should only have one wife.
@feministhater,
>Well, exactly… regulation of something does not mean approval, it often means that thing leads to bad consequences down the road and thus needs to be restricted.
God gave the rules to Adam and Eve in the garden of Eden. He literally created the institution of marriage. How did that first marriage work out for Adam, Eve, Cain & Abel? I’d imagine plenty of unhappiness, plenty of remorse for those bad consequences. None of the bad things that happen here are the fault of God or his rules and laws. Everything is because we turn away, and we continue to do so, even you here who argue against slavery/polygamy. I know we’ll never learn, and so Jesus will return.
Will you be in the elect? Will He know you, despite your works? Or will you be disappointed as you are turned away, because you didn’t keep his law? Do ponder that seriously please.
@Opus,
Just read the law on usury and you’ll see. Every penny on the planet is created by usurers (except crypto currencies interestingly).
Thank you to Dalrock for allowing me to comment today. I won’t make a habit of repeating myself on this subject either (well, not here anyway). Good night brothers.
While God opposes having more than one wife or husband at a time, the way God opposes polygamy is not as strong. This is because though polygamy is not as good as monogamy, it is still is a lot better than fornication, adultery, serial monogamy (divorcing to remarry), etc…
Prohibitions against polygamy are given in both the Old and New Testaments, but not in ways that include everyone or that make violating the prohibition something God punishes as sin.
The New Testament prohibition of polygamy, with respect to church leadership, looks as if God is working to see leaders set an example. Which makes sense as God first designed human sexuality for a one-biologically-born-male and one-biologically-born-female relationship. God did not make multiple wives for Adam or multiple husbands for Eve. The original marriage formula was simply one of each: “Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh” (v. 24).
In the New Testament, Jesus reminds us that God’s formula for marriage is and always has been monogamy, not polygamy. Asked about divorce, he repeats the marriage formula from Genesis but adds, “So they are no longer two but one flesh” (Matt. 19:6). The additional comment stresses what Jesus considered most important, and while highlighting the importance of the one flesh
union, he did so in a way that focused attention on monogamy over polygamy.
Just because one [i]can[/i] do something doesn’t mean that one [i]should[/i].
Gary Thomas wants women to reject passivity in their marriage too, because God made them “rulers.”
http://www.garythomas.com/taking-action/
Sweden bans religious schools (Jewish schools mostly exempt): http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5495915/Sweden-vows-ban-religious-schools-tackle-segregation.html
The Social Democratic party, which currently leads a minority government, has pledged to ban all religious free schools to tackle segregation in the country.
Ardalan Shekarabi, Sweden’s minister for Public Administration said that ‘teachers, not priests and imams should be in charge of schools’. …
There are 71 primary and upper secondary religious schools, which make up five per cent of all free schools in Sweden. One is Jewish, 59 are Christian, and 11 are Muslim.
There are several other Jewish schools which do not fall into this category, as they do not have specific religious elements in their education plans, and exist to cater to an ethnic minority.
Fashion for the “edgy Muslim girl”: https://pjmedia.com/trending/fashion-forward-clothing-line-edgy-muslim-girl-hit-market/
I.e., Fashion industry believes Muslims girls should be SJW sluts too.
@RPL: The hypocrisy and self-deception is amazing given that atheism is a false view of the world that results in very negative consequences (the 20th century is a case study in the negative consequences of state atheism) which they teach in their public school system. http://freethinker.co.uk/2015/12/24/swedish-schools-teach-that-faith-is-outmoded-and-irrational/
glosoli, I have no dog in this fight but…
You ARE being prideful.
I see Poke’s Law is in full flower….
What is “Poke’s Law”?
Gary Thomas wants women to reject passivity in their marriage too, because God made them “rulers.”
Another worm-toungue
@American
In the Old Testament the conditions were such that Polygamy was a “necessary evil”
http://www.tektonics.org/lp/polygamy.php
American – I find it amusing that Sweden, which has an official (and very cucked) state church says such things about religion. Perhaps the Church of Sweden is about to have its franchise revoked.
We are definitely living in “interesting times”. If the consequences were not so terrifying, it would be fascinating to watch them unfold.
The real state church of Sweden is the church of the Social Justice Warrior
About polygamy: although after the fall cases of polygyny (but never polyandry) are recorded, tolerated, and sometimes regulated, it is never explicitly commanded, only tolerated.With the advent of Jesus he restored marriage to the pre-fall condition: one-man-one-wife. As such the church has nearly always condemned polygyny.
Most of the defenders of polygyny are required to combat this historical church position. The only way to do so, is by clinging to old covenant allowances, and ignoring new covenant commands.
Case in point: glosoli has ignored any argument based on new testament commands, and counter-responded to any such argument with “not to add nor subtract from His commands”, by which he means old testament commands. When challenged on his view on the relation between old and new covenant – in this and other threads – he again chooses to ignore this distinction. It is typical of any defender of polygyny I have encountered. It is bad theology. driven by bad exegesis, driven by male sexual lust.
Not that it adds much to the (theological) discussion, but this is supported by human nature: in polygyny, women are usually not that happy to share a husband (not really “their” husband) with another woman, and would rather have a husband of their own. Feelings of jealousy and neglect dominate. As are battles to become the preferred wife. And similar to the animal kingdom where wife-hoarding is common in some species, most males will never be able to have sex, which results in constant battles to become the harem leader. Such is the fate of polygamist societies.
Due to the influx of muslim immigrants, unofficial polygyny has been on the increase in “Christian” nations. The attack on biblical marriage by communists, by feminists, and by homosexuals will be followed by an attack by Mohammedans. Mark my words.
For the record, I’m all in favor for biblical monogamous marriage, but recognize the inherent difficulties with it, just as Paul describes in 1 Co 7. Current Western societies treatment of sexuality and marriage is far removed from biblical norms. And yes, that includes many churches.
@glosoli: But men have sexual needs well into their old age, whereas women lose their sexual desires post-menopause. The bible shows the solution (to those who need it/want it/can afford it): more wives.
No, not at all. The bible shows the norm on sexual needs: have sex with your spouse, regardless of your sexual desire.
1 Co 7:3 The husband should fulfill his marital duty to his wife, and likewise the wife to her husband.
I would place more credence in the comments of glosoli were it not that his answer to my question was an evasive non-answer. Telling me whilst I am reading here and enquiring of him the man who claims to know that I should go elsewhere for the answer without even specifying where I should go and alleging that there is some law (whose?) is as vague as it can be. He may have good points but to me it looks more like trolling.
Dave said: “Why do people still use non-KJV bibles?”
My answer: why do people still use the KJV? It’s not an accurate translation, at least on this theological point. You used the example of ‘hell’ vs ‘sheol’. You should know that hell (the lake of fire) is not the same as sheol. Sheol means ‘the grave.’ The KJV mistranslates sheol as hell; the modern translations are correct in using ‘the grave’ or ‘sheol’ or some close synonym in every occurance of the word. Here is one example:
When Jacob the patriach spoke of dying, he said he would go down to sheol (Gen 37:35; Gen 42:38). If the KJV were to be consistent in its translation then it should state that Jacob went to hell.
Is glosoli an avatar of artisanal toad?
Is glosoli another artisanal toad?
While God opposes having more than one wife or husband at a time, the way God opposes polygamy is not as strong. This is because though polygamy is not as good as monogamy, it is still is a lot better than fornication, adultery, serial monogamy (divorcing to remarry), etc…
Actually, polygamy is in every way the same thing as adultery, maybe worse (because the polygamist engages in sexual activities with another person other than their lawful spouse).
And polygamy is worse than serial monogamy (whereas the serial monogamist still pays lip service to God’s original plan of “one man, one wife”, and seems to eschew fornication by marrying his serial spouses, the polygamist completely ignores God’s law on marriage by hoarding every woman who catches his fancy). And the fornicator is the worst of them all.
I could come up with three major reasons why God permitted polygamy in the OT:
1. To reduce the prevalence of fornication. If God were to ban polygamy outright, the “extra” spouses would have to be divorced, and the latter may have trouble finding future husbands, having been publicly humiliated by their former spouses. This will leave a lot of young, attractive, sexually available, sexually awoken, and vulnerable women in society, and the possibility of rampant fornication will exist. Incidentally, second and latter wives tend to be younger and more attractive than the first wives, and the attraction between these women and their former spouses wouldn’t go away simply because the law forbid their union.
2. To save the innocent parties. To prevent fornication that might arise from polygamy, God would have to institute the death penalty for polygamists. But then, this will leave a mass of widows, innocent widowers, and innocent children in its wake.
3. As a demonstration of God’s mighty grace. This is the same reason why God does not strike fornicators, adulterers and homosexuals dead with lightning the moment they commit their sins. He wanted to “shut them up” to the coming redemption in Christ Jesus.
@Paul
It is bad theology. driven by bad exegesis, driven by male sexual lust.
Paul. Don’t start blaming “bad men”. Some of us who “defend” biblical polygany do so because it is where the scripture leads. Honestly the Bible (NT or OT) does a very poor job of conveying that monogamy is Gods way. Two small verses among dozens that seem to support polygany. (NEVER polyandry as stated above)
As to whether it’s smart, Jesus tells us that to fully serve God we should NOT MARRY AT ALL. If we wish to be a deacon in the church, we should limit ourselves to one. Because wives naturally take our time and attention away from fully serving God. It’s allowed and not a sin, but our attentions are divided.
Use scripture. All through here is see individuals VIEW of scripture supported by secular reasoning, instead of biblical reasoning shaping their view.
@Dave
”Actually, polygamy is in every way the same thing as adultery, maybe worse (because the polygamist engages in sexual activities with another person other than their lawful spouse).”
Dave, Adultery is sleeping with another mans wife. It is not engaging “in sexual activities with another person other than their lawful spouse”. That may be defined as fornication. You also assume that the miltiple wives aren’t “lawful spouses”. Lawful is a secular word because that is the law you speak of, civil, not Gods.
Just for the record, polygany is a BAD Idea for most guys. Allowed or not. I don’t advise it, but will state what the scripture says regarding it.
Dave, Adultery is sleeping with another mans wife. It is not engaging “in sexual activities with another person other than their lawful spouse”. That may be defined as fornication.
No, sir. A polygamist is already married to his first wife, but chose to “marry” additional women. Those additional women are not his rightful, God-sanctioned spouses. If he sleeps with any of them, he commits adultery, not fornication.
And it is not an assumption that extra spouses are not rightful spouses, as far a God’s original design is concerned. If God wanted men to have more than one wife, He would have established that design from the very beginning.
The NT period covers approximately a period of 100 years.
It is inconceivable that there was not one person in the church during this period who could come to an understanding that it was OK for Christians to engage in polygamy. Not one.
Even when Apostle Paul addressed the issue of polygamy in the church in those days, he rendered polygamists ineligible to hold positions of leadership in the congregation, indirectly telling everyone else not to contemplate the practice.
Only those who have become deceived by the spirit of the last days would claim to have a better understanding of any doctrinal issue than the early Apostles.
As a MGTOW, I’m surprised Red Pill men are actually advocating polygamy. Just keeping one contentious, rebellious woman in check is trouble enough. Why increase the risk?
Jesus tells us that to fully serve God we should NOT MARRY AT ALL
Nope. Jesus didn’t say that.
What Jesus said was that some people decided, of their own volition, to become eunuchs, and therefore did not marry. God never commanded anyone in the NT not to have a spouse in order to serve God “fully” (whatever that means).
Matt 19:12 (KJV)
For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother’s womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven’s sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.
Even Apostle Paul said he had a right to “lead about a sister, a wife”, the same way several Apostles did, but chose not to do so:
1 Corinthians 9:5
Have we not power to lead about a sister, a wife, as well as other apostles, and as the brethren of the Lord, and Cephas?
We definitely can serve God “fully” with our spouses and children:
1 Tim 3:1-4 (KJV)
1 This is a true saying, If a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work.
2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;
3 Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous;
4 One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity;
No. Artisinal Toad made valid arguments (albeit with untrue premises). He also had a sense of humor.
@Hose_B: Honestly the Bible (NT or OT) does a very poor job of conveying that monogamy is Gods way.
Not really according to the majority of Christians during the last couple of thousands of years. Maybe you can read some recent articles here on Dalrock where some excellent defenses against polygamy were made.
Man this thread went completely off the rails.
@Dave: We definitely can serve God “fully” with our spouses and children
To bring a bit of balance to that: it is better not to marry IF you can control your sexual desire.
1 Co 7
8 Now to the unmarried and the widows I say: It is good for them to stay unmarried, as I do. 9 But if they cannot control themselves, they should marry, for it is better to marry than to burn with passion.
And if you’re unmarried you have more time to please the Lord.
32 I would like you to be free from concern. An unmarried man is concerned about the Lord’s affairs—how he can please the Lord. 33 But a married man is concerned about the affairs of this world—how he can please his wife— 34 and his interests are divided. An unmarried woman or virgin is concerned about the Lord’s affairs: Her aim is to be devoted to the Lord in both body and spirit. But a married woman is concerned about the affairs of this world—how she can please her husband.
And the married life will give such trouble, it is better not to marry
28 But if you do marry, you have not sinned; and if a virgin marries, she has not sinned. But those who marry will face many troubles in this life, and I want to spare you this.
38 So then, he who marries the virgin does right, but he who does not marry her does better.
Notice what the basic attitude for men and women in marriage should be (1 Co 7:33,34):
A. a married man is concerned about how he can please his wife
B. a married woman is concerned about how she can please her husband.
@Paul
”No, not at all. The bible shows the norm on sexual needs: have sex with your spouse, regardless of your sexual desire.
1 Co 7:3 The husband should fulfill his marital duty to his wife, and likewise the wife to her husband.”
This is precisely why its better for those with low libido to just remain single. And for those with those with such a libido that exceeds their self-control to marry a spouse one burns with passion for.
The last thing anyone should do is marry because its expected for them to do so despite their libido not exceeding their self-control or of a low sex drive.
Hence we would solve the problem of unsatisfied women who have husbands that do not fulfil their marital duty and likewise of the other way around all other things being considered.
”Hence we would solve the problem of unsatisfied women who have husbands that do not fulfil their marital duty and likewise of the other way around all other things being considered.”
Or solve the problem being unable fulfil the marital duty to their spouses satisfaction. Due to low sex drive.
More on-topic for this blog: “The Ignored Correlation Between Fatherlessness and Mass Shooters
No one wants to talk about the importance of fathers in boys’ lives, because society is too concerned with not stigmatizing single mothers.”
https://stream.org/the-ignored-correlation-between-fatherlessness-and-mass-shooters/
“Stephen Baskerville, a professor at Patrick Henry College, says ‘by far the main predictor of shooting rampages — along with all other criminality and virtually every social pathology among young males — is a home without a father’.
Barbara Hollingsworth, writing for CNS News, observes, ‘Growing up without a father has a far greater statistical correlation to gun violence than most sociological factors, including poverty and gun ownership, a statistical analysis of gun homicides in the U.S. shows’.” ~ Rachel Alexander
Our culture sacrifices children at the altar of feminism.
@Paul
I also don’t agree that I Corinthians 7:33,34 is saying what should be, but rather describing the way it is by nature.
@Dave
Adultery is sleeping with another man’s wife. That’s the only definition of adultery in the Bible I am aware of, although I’m willing to read any references you provide.
Hose is right in his view on the Bible and polygamy. The Bible is borderline obscure on polygamy. It’s really weird. And don’t forget, if a man’s brother in Israel died without seed, his brother was obligated to take his widow and raise up seed for him. That pretty much mandates polygamy in a lot of situations.
…And since we have those people around, I’ll clarify that adultery also includes the married woman sleeping with someone other than her husband.
Squid,
Depends on what you mean by “a lot”. Sure, it happened, but that was not a common thing.
It is also not a major focus anywhere past the idea of raising up seed to a dead brother, when the biological component was so strong.
It does seem a bit odd to me as the child would still have a strong tie (bio) to the one who caused his birth rather than the father who had died. But this was for inheritance, not sexual pleasure. Note that his brother’s wife isn’t really his wife, since the children are in his brother’s name.
I (fortunately) missed out on much of the polygamy discussion, but one more comment:
Hose_B,
Yes, it was better for David to have an additional wife in his growing harem than to have killed someone for their wife. That does nothing to prove that having any more wives was a good thing in the slightest.
Go back to the beginning, as Jesus did. God made one man and one woman to be partners for life. He did not give Adam a harem.
God allowed polygamy for the hardness of their hearts, just as he did with divorce. Even the Law accounted for how men were, not what the best path was. Missing that point shows great ignorance.
Mosting is obviously a P&D defense against a tape accusation.
The guy’s goal is to get her to respond with some positive statement in a permanent form (like a text or email) dated AFTER the P&D to give him some defense in case she gets rape.
@BillyS
“Note that his brother’s wife isn’t really his wife, since the children are in his brother’s name.”
Except that all the rest of the children are his. As in, he continues to live with her as his wife. The question being God’s position on polygamy, it would seem to continue to be muddled.
RPL,
Exactly.
It is like them arguing that Napalm is a good way to get rid of weeds in your yard. It might do that, but I doubt it would be a good way in the overall scheme of things.
Squid you are likely correct (and my original reply in error), but it is not clear. It only notes what happens to the first son, nothing about anyone else.
Though the idea seems to be that she is taken care of by family (“not a stranger”) rather than one arguing in support of polygamy. Killing your brother to get his wife would definitely be considered a sin, so I don’t see how this command could be used to argue in favor of general polygamy since it covers a very specific, limited case.
Artisanal Toad certainly had untrue premises. glosoli has many of the same ones. However, there is no doubt they are different people.
@BillyS
I don’t know what to do with it on either account. I’d like to draw a hard fast line, but I’m unable to do so. I think it’s significant that several places use the phrase “wife of your youth” to indicate a specific and sole wife, but then I don’t know what to do with the inheritance situation.
@Burner Prime wrote: “Men should just some out and tell women all they want is sex. HONESTLY, plenty of us would be DTF, no problem, just tell us UPFRONT and be honest.K?”
This is an almost word-for-word quote of line from Tootsie (ca 1982). The Jessica Lange character (Julie) told Dustin Hoffman (as Dorothy Michaels) much the same thing. Later, at a party that Dustin attended as a man, he approached Julie and repeated the statement word for word. Julie flung a glass of wine in his face and walked off.
Squid,
What do you mean by “what to do with it”? Clearly polygamy is not the best route. So aim toward the best route and allow others if necessary. What action are you required to take? Merely note that it is not ideal and go forward focusing on the ideal of marriage as one man and one wife for life.
Nothing in the example you note requires general polygamy, as I already noted, so you have no compulsion to attempt to overturn the laws of the land to support it, though we seem to have elements of it in many ways (AFBB).
Do you think polygamy would be a good thing for society? Why push it?
From a teaching perspective, the question is eventually going to come up as a norm. I’d like to have an answer. As this battle of sexes gets worse, I guarantee there are going to be some changes. I’d like to have that answer. Just look on here. It’s already starting to be asked.
Squid,
Do you see any problem with saying something like:
Put that in your own words, but it would seem to fit with what most have been saying here. Anyone can correct me if I am wrong of course.
Isn’t it possible that Moses allowed people to practice polygamy, because of “the hardness of their hearts,” but from the beginning it was not so?
Just asking…
Boxer
For a forty year old man wanting to line up a twenty-year old wife? Yes. I see a problem with that response. The question of “Is it sin?” remains unanswered and would be the only rational deterrent, I think. I agree with everything you’re saying. I don’t believe it’s going to hold water for very much longer.
@Boxer
“Isn’t it possible that Moses allowed people to practice polygamy, because of “the hardness of their hearts,” but from the beginning it was not so?”
Raising up seed for your brother’s inheritance was a commandment. And again, I’m not arguing for polygamy. I agree with BillyS’s position that it’s a bad policy. Just seems strange the Bible does not seem to ever clearly address it.
That’s actually a really good point, but it doesn’t completely answer my question. I think there were a lot of legalities that Moses instituted in good faith, which didn’t perfectly line up with the will of the divine. Both St. Paul and Sigmund Freud suggested that Mosaic law was a stepping stone to something greater, rather than an end in itself.
My brother Glosoli claims to believe in Jesus, so I don’t know what is so confusing to him about this, the concept of the intermediate… Maybe he can tell us…
Best,
Boxer
What is “Poke’s Law?”
“As a Dalrock post discussion grows longer, the probability of a heated discussion involving polygamy approaches 1”
The Law was given to show that people could not live a righteous life themselves. Only Jesus could fulfill it, plain and simple.
Squid,
It is not sin, but it is also not wise.
Not a good idea, even if not sinful. Very applicable, including the last part. It will definitely not solve the problem some proclaim (rebellious wives).
I am not sure what you mean by this.
I actually went into HuffPo (no worries, I will be asking Christ for forgiveness tonight for that sin of raising that site’s traffic by 1-click) and I have to tell you….
I was laughing so hard at the article, I actually tears in my eyes as I write this. 😀 I am literally in tears here, folks, this whole thing was just too hilarious. 🙂 When I was halfway through it, I thought the whole thing was a spoof or a hoax, but then realized the writer is serious, then I could not help but laugh! That article should be in the comedy section, targeting delusional individuals, who need to group-share in some sort of weird NYC-style online therapy!
First, there are only three plausible reasons for a guy to “mosting” some girl after a hook-up off Tinder, probably happening within an hour or two of meeting in person:
1) He is an ultra-Beta/Gamma that got lucky and does not know how to handle the whorish modern Western woman;
2) He is a sociopath or a pathological liar; or
3) He is afraid of false rape accusation and wants to get out “peacefully” later, without her calling cops and falsely accusing him of rape.
Second, what makes the whole thing so funny is here we have a typical NYC “strong, empowered woman” (translation: a leftist harlot), who claims to be “fallible, loud, and political as I can be” (translation: Marixt, self-agrandizing, rude, and nasty loon). She herself claims that she enjoys getting pumped ‘n dumped by hundreds of random/stranger dudes (see below), while living in the east-coast Gomorrah of America and while writing for a publication that is so far left, it makes Stalinist propaganda seem moderate in nature.
Here is how Gabrielle describes herself in said article:
“I secretly hoped that he was the same as me, that his chest also simmered with hidden indiscretions, and that the speed with which we slept together was as typical for him as it was for me. Because if it wasn’t, I would have to wonder if, upon discovering the truth, he would recoil. I would have to wonder if he would think of me as dirty or morally deficient, even though he already said he found me gentle.”
Is this a “dream girl” for anyone?? Does such a woman is worthy of such praise, oh say Proverbs 31-style??!? And getting this from a guy from TINDER, of all places, who she describes as “cute”, whom she was banged by after less then 1 hour?
Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight….. Now, for BEST PART: Check out her pic!!! Here is Gabrielle Ulubray, who is widely referenced in that HuffPo article (she is a NY Times writer!):
(This is her professional pic used in NY Times, PhotoShopped-enhanced and with perfect lighting and perfect photo conditions, so this is as good as she is going to look, ever!)
Does any sane/reasonable person think she should believe that she is “amazing, beautiful, etc etc etc?”
LOL Gimme a break, sweetheart!
That would be like some woman saying to me that I have Arnold Schwarzenegger’s body when I can only bench 250lbs and have 12% body fat (low, but not nearly Arnold caliber!). lol Of course a woman saying I look like Arnold is only joking, but I am sane, normal, and realistic, so of course I know that!
If Gabrielle truly believe that with her leftist lunatic mindset and her complete lack of good looks (and self-awareness, it seems), that she somehow qualifies for any “cute guy” to say “I think you’re the girl of my dreams,” I would like to set up a meeting. I have a bridge to sell you and you will be rich charging everyone to cross it! 😉
Maybe we need to start a “Delusional People, Inc.” (DPI) and run group therapy sessions online and charge big for it. Might as well profit from the decline!
Surely, we live in a time of great delusion. Gabrielle Ulubray is the poster-child for the delusional. She should be (DPI’s spokesperson or something). 🙂
@mojohn says:
“Men should just some out and tell women all they want is sex. HONESTLY, plenty of us would be DTF, no problem, just tell us UPFRONT and be honest. OK?”
LOL above. 😆
The average western modern woman wants as much honesty from a man, as a man wants HPV-caused throat cancer from such a woman (men get that from eating out loose women). 😡
When a woman asks a man “honestly”, she is giving you a shit-test. ❗
https://heartiste.wordpress.com/2010/02/09/its-a-trap/
She WANTS you to lie, and she wants to see if you have the balls to deliver the lie (or to make her feel better while soaking herself in her own delusional mind). It is a trap!!!
Dalrock, RoK, Chateau Heartiste/Roissy, and others have has discussed this at length: https://dalrock.wordpress.com/category/game/
*Here is a crash course on shit-tests from women:
https://heartiste.wordpress.com/2010/10/04/brushing-off-common-shit-tests-from-girls/
https://heartiste.wordpress.com/2008/12/17/common-shit-tests/
https://heartiste.wordpress.com/2010/05/26/two-words-women-love-to-hear/
*Here is crash course on slut-detection (also research “1,000 cock stare” – see Gabrielle Ulubray’s photo I posted above):
http://www.returnofkings.com/16837/24-signs-shes-a-slut
http://www.returnofkings.com/23539/26-more-signs-shes-a-slut
http://www.returnofkings.com/149710/30-signs-that-a-woman-has-slept-with-over-100-men
Honestly gents, I think most heartache that some men allow themselves to feel from his dealings with the modern “strong, independent, sassy, empowered woman” is self-inflicted. Learn who the sluts are, learn how to deal with their shit-tests, and run Game.
You can either enjoy the decline or seek out a “decent woman”. It is very hard to find in the West, hard to find in the 3rd world Conservatribve world, and impossible to find in Western Europe. But in “middle America”, it is not impossible to find a decent woman, if your definition of “decent” is under 20 roosters in her poon and she is at least a 6 in appearance.
At some point, you, as a man, will have to make a choice: enjoy the decline and pass the shit-tests and keep going until all you can get is Pay 4 Play (P4P) or try to find a decent woman, whatever that means nowadays. This is what I mean: https://illimitablemen.com/2016/01/22/the-choice/
It will be fine one way or another, as long as you have the information and act with even a modicum of wisdom and common sense. 🙂
My .2 cents.
The question being God’s position on polygamy, it would seem to continue to be muddled.
This is like trying to debate tithing. No point.
I’ll stick with the secular argument. Every advanced society in history–regardless of religion–has banned polygamy. Until someone can counter the secular reasons it was banned in every advanced society, it should remain banned.
I’m surprised Red Pill men are actually advocating polygamy.
They are not red pill men. By definition, red pill men do not live in a fantasy world–they are realist.
Polygamy advocates live in a fantasy world. They fantasize that if polygamy became legal and accepted that they would somehow end up with multiple wives.
Dude, if you haven’t convinced multiple women to move in with you, or have a wife and mistress (with the wife’s knowledge), then you haven’t got a snowball’s chance of having multiple wives. None, nada, zero. Give it up and get real.
@info: “Hence we would solve the problem of unsatisfied women who have husbands that do not fulfil their marital duty and likewise of the other way around all other things being considered.”
I think you’re still missing the point. That’s OK, it’s so ingrained in everybodies’ mind that you NEED sexual desire BEFORE having sex. However, the biblical message is different. As soon as you marry, you have sex as often as you OR your spouse desires. This implies it will often happen when one of the spouses DOES NOT HAVE sexual desire at the moment. It is not relevant. You have sex out of love. You have sex out of duty. Which does not mean it is unpleasant. And usually you get turned on anyway.
Of course you’re free to marry who you want, so you would be mad if you chose someone who you’re NOT sexually attracted to. But once you’re married, your body belongs to your spouse for sexual pleasure.
@squid_hunt: The Bible is borderline obscure on polygamy. It’s really weird.
No it’s not, and so does the majority of Christians conclude. Simple scheme: tolerated and somewhat regulated in the old testament, forbidden in the new testament.
@squid_hunt: And don’t forget, if a man’s brother in Israel died without seed, his brother was obligated to take his widow and raise up seed for him. That pretty much mandates polygamy in a lot of situations.
Except it was permissible to NOT marry her.
Dt 25:8 Then the elders of his town shall summon him and talk to him. If he persists in saying, “I do not want to marry her,” […] 10 That man’s line shall be known in Israel as The Family of the Unsandaled.
Furthermore, the brother might have been unmarried. Hence not a strong mandate for polygamy. It shows a strong cultural tendency, just as levirate marriages were/are known in other parts of the world too. Obviously the focus is on preventing the bloodline of his deceased brother to discontinue (6: The first son she bears shall carry on the name of the dead brother so that his name will not be blotted out from Israel), to keep inheritance in the bigger family, and I suppose it is also to support the widow, both directly by marriage, and indirectly by offspring.
Of course the obvious reason for ‘mosting’ is that while the woman may have thought things were great, the man may have had a terrible time. I mosted one woman after she agreed to go on a date with me. (She demanded a chaperone, and what friend wouldn’t advise me not to date a graduate student from Queens I met at Campus Crusade for Christ who required a chaperone.)
I’ve had other cases when I should have mosted the woman.
@Paul
”I think you’re still missing the point. That’s OK, it’s so ingrained in everybodies’ mind that you NEED sexual desire BEFORE having sex. However, the biblical message is different. As soon as you marry, you have sex as often as you OR your spouse desires. This implies it will often happen when one of the spouses DOES NOT HAVE sexual desire at the moment. It is not relevant. You have sex out of love. You have sex out of duty. Which does not mean it is unpleasant. And usually you get turned on anyway.”
I have no disagreement. I would have to refine my thoughts and wording.
Its precisely because of marital duty that its better that people with little to no sex drive or those with a tight handle on it shouldn’t marry.
@Otto
”Polygamy advocates live in a fantasy world. They fantasize that if polygamy became legal and accepted that they would somehow end up with multiple wives.”
Only aristocrats and men like Donald Trump will end up with the fantasy scenario in. Hypergamy will ensure this to be the case.
@Otto
”Every advanced society in history–regardless of religion–has banned polygamy.”
Or if not ban make it exponentially difficult for polygamy to take place even in many Muslim nations.
@Paul
I don’t agree that the New Testament forbids it, except in Timothy and Titus regarding church officers. I think your argument basically boils down to the same as BillyS, a matter of prudence and preference. Which means it leaves it wide open for someone else to say, I prefer it the other way.
But I’m still open to the clear exposition against polygamy, since you say it’s there.
So when women do this there’s no problem and it’s simply “you go girl” female empowerment, but when Men do it there’s a problem?
I have to tell you, I am very confused and befuddled about this discussion about POLYGAMY.
First of all, all Red-Pilled humans know this will never happen in USA, unless we become Germany or Sweden and have massive Muslim immigration, to the point they will have enough votes to legalize polygamy.
Being red-Pilled = being realistic, honest, and fact-based. There is no political will for such a move, there are no support for polygamy from Feminists, or the Conservative Christians. Right now in America, with the institution of marriage dying out before our very eyes, some are talking polygamy?? That is blue pill talk, wishful thinking of an extent that I cannot even comprehend or fathom.
But let’s indulge some blue-Pilled fantasy and let’s suppose you could marry 4 women in America today and you managed to pull that off and marry 4 broads. Then wife #3 decides she is not haaaaaaaapy and takes your ass to court and sues you for 1/2 your stuff.
How is that gonna go with wives # 1,2, and 4?
What if 2 wives sue you for 1/2 your stuff (that could add up to 75% of your total assets?
If you think 1 wife divorce-raping you is bad, try multiplying that by 4!!! -_-
Polygamy would be a divorce lawyer’s dream scenario, but we KNOW our country has become much less affluent then before and therefore, they know there won’t be much to split during each of your 4 future divorces.
Can you imagine child support when dealing with 4 different women?? Say hello to your fav jail cell for me! 🙄
The discussion about Polygamy misunderstands the whole point of the OP article and misses the reality of American economic decline, and the unbelievably unfair situation with American Family Law court situation. It is absurd, implausible, and Beta.
@ChristianCool
Understand, CC, you think it’s a dumb discussion. You already said that once. Guess we’re all just betas and not as manly as you.
Squid,
I asked before and you didn’t answer: What are you wanting? You have a clear exposition. It is not banned, except for church leadership, but it is a horrible idea. What are you trying to prove by not accepting that?
@BillyS
That was in response to Paul, buddy. “You” doesn’t always mean you.
Squid,
I was responding to the general issue. It seems the case has been made. Paul is not correct, but only on a relatively small part. That is why I asked why you need further clarification. Are you planning on starting to advocate for polygamy?
Advocate legally I mean.
@BillyS
When people claim the authority of the scripture on an issue I think the Bible is vague on, I tend to ask for evidence. It’s pretty clear from my line of responses that’s my intent. They’re still there to read, if you’re interested.
I have read your replies Squid. They are not clear and I am still not sure why you are pushing the issue, but have fun doing so.
The legality of polygamy has been addressed many times, by several who reply here, so challenging Paul, for example, has little merit.
Oh, Billy…
@squid_hunt: But I’m still open to the clear exposition against polygamy, since you say it’s there.
Not only do I say it’s there, but that has been the testimony of the majority of the Christian Church.
I think you’ve heard many an argument before. But for the sake of completeness, let’s collect here some well-known texts plus a short description why it speaks against polygyny. I will only focus on general texts.
1 Co 7:2 But since sexual immorality is occurring, each man should have sexual relations with his own wife, and each woman with her own husband.
It says a man’s own wife, a woman’s own husband. If you are married to more than one wife/husband, the other party does not have you as their own anymore, they have to share you.
Eph 5:31 “For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh. 32 This is a profound mystery—but I am talking about Christ and the church.
It says a man and his wife is as Christ and the church. Not churches. The church, singular.
It says the two will become one flesh. Not three. Not four. Two.
Luk 16:18a “Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery.
It says it is adultery if you marry another women (EVEN AFTER YOU DIVORCED YOUR WIFE, but that’s a different point). If it’s adultery, it’s sin. If it’s sin, it’s not allowed.
Mt 19:4 “Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’ 5 and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’ ? 6 So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.”
The two will become one flesh. One male and one female. One flesh (Adam) into two (Adam and Eve), united again in one flesh. If anyone believes this still allows for polygyny, it would also allow polyandry. On what ground do you forbid polyandry, but allow polygyny?
[That polyandry is forbidden is usually not contested. A clear text showing it is forbidden Rom 7:3
So then if, while her husband lives, she is married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress: but if her husband dies, she is free from that law; so that she is no adulteress, though she is married to another man.]
@Squid_hunt
It is not that I think you are all “betas” for discussing polygamy. I would not be part of a discussion if I thought that. 😉 I am open-minded to any rational discussion and I think both sides actually make some valid points about it.
The issue is that we almost universally seem to agree that Marriage 2.0 = a bad deal for men in any Western country (including former colonies in the Americas, Brazil most notably as a Feminist hell).
Why, given how bad our divorce laws are in ALL Western country, no exceptions, why would any man be willing to marry 1 woman, much less 1-4 women! 😮 It just boggles the mind.
I think people are forgetting any divorce will od to man. Even Child Support for a child fathered by a man out of wedlock while he is legally married to another woman and has child(ren) with his wife, can be devastating to his legitimate family. He can lose over 33% of his PRE-tax income. Devastating.
Can you imagine what a polygamous-divorce can actually do to to the remaining 1-3 other wives, their kids, and the man of the family??
Devastating financially. 1 of the wives can put whole remaining family into poverty. It is same problem as 1 woman divorcing her husband and taking more then 1/2 his income, assets, and property. 😮
From a legal standpoint, unless you restored marriage to 1.0 and made divorce very hard to obtain and limit child-support, polygamy cannot happen financially, because the negative effects on the remanining spouse(s) and children would be unnnaceptable.
Then the only alternative is make divorce almost-impossible to obtain. Then you risk an Andrea Yates-type situation to the rest of the family. Since women almost never get punished for crimes they commit, this could become a real problem. You could have one of the wives just Andrea Yates the rest of the family on a whim! 😮
So you would need to legislatively and judicially fix:
*End no-fault divorce;
*Greatly limit woman’s access to husband’s income and assets (i.e. Enforce Prenups, create limited actions within statues, etc);
*End child support for non-married children from a man;
*Criminalize adultery;
*Limit child support for any and all children from divorce/extra-marital affairs;
*Require mandatory punishment for ALL crimes, so women are sentenced to same time in prison as men, removing judicial bias that protects women;
*Change State laws in all 50 States, because marriage is largely regulated by States (although gay marriage was created by US Supreme Court (illegally, I might add).
The task is so difficult that it makes the discussion almost pointless. That is the problem. I mean no offense or disrespect. 🙂
Earl said I like it when women purposely uglify themselves…makes it a lot easier to see red flags and avoid.
I had the same idea about women who wear men’s clothing, cut their hair, are fat, or refuse to cover their heads in church service. (Deut 22:5, 1 Cor 11, Titus 2:3-5, 1 Cor 11)