Posted by Rx on April 12, 2008 at 15:56:26:
In Reply to: Re: a broken record posted by Nancy on April 12, 2008 at 13:41:15:
Excellent thoughts Nancy.
Im still unclear how you feel God has indicated that polygamy is second best, or is inherently potentially unedifying in some way.
What we "may" do, that isnt cited as sin, describes a whole array of things not just polygamy. Infact, doesnt it describe almost the whole of our liberties? Eating, relaxation, where we work, etc.
Im not sure why we need examples to defend doing what is not cited as sin; nor even expressly indicated as being contemptable, such as divorce of a non-adulterous wife.
If you veiw polygamy as you would the marriage of a widow for example, suddenly its a liberty that is ok in 'popular view'. And in one case at least, polygamy is virtually for men who have been deserted by their wives. Even from a civil standpoint if she has divorced him, this is legal. Is he still married to the previous woman according to scriptural standards? I believe so.
Calling polygamy sin in that case is curiously "indoctrinated". But I dont say that is the only acceptable circumstance, Im just not sure I care.
Again, I call to task the present thinking. What is NOT polygamous about the free-sex western thinking? If a whore is joined, just as Adam and Eve were joined, (as Paul indicates in 1Cor6:16), then the endorsers of the news today, and of the teaching of every church, and of civil law, are woefully self-condemned:
It is not "mere" fornication; wedding or none.
So is Paul a liar?