Yes. Long time investigation happening because of child/adult forced marriages. Warren Jeffs all over again. I think a relative of his came up here but do not know for sure.
Why Is Polygamy So Controversial?
- Thread starter Doug5
- Start date
Yes. Long time investigation happening because of child/adult forced marriages. Warren Jeffs all over again. I think a relative of his came up here but do not know for sure.
- Joined
- Aug 25, 2011
- Messages
- 1,467
- Reaction score
- 1
I can believe that. Everyone gets a shot at procreation. Each woman gets to have a child and each man gets to have a child. Or at least, each man *believes* he gets to have a child to pass on. It's still likely not every man gets to pass on his genes.
In polygamy, the losers are much more obvious. In polyandry, it is not as obvious, but the men pony up his resources, because he believes... that child *could* be his. How is he to know?
I still say polygamy and polyandry are bad. Because in both cases, most men lose, because they don't succeed in passing on their genes. Whether some men are more likely to believe they are doing better under polyandry is not the point, in my view. The result is, most of the men might as well be "shooting blanks" because they are still not fathering children.
Having one mate really is the best for men and women. (Of course, I'm not trying to comment on gay and lesbian relationships here. I'm talking about the issue of procreation and passing on ones genes which is a strong human instinct in both men and women regardless of orientation.)
I do not disagree with you, overall, but the fact is that with polyandry men are more assured of the 'species' moving on. They do not think about whether it is *their* sperm propagating...they just know that a new life is created by the overall union. And, despite what you might think, that is the most important part.
walrus
New Member
- Joined
- Feb 7, 2011
- Messages
- 59
- Reaction score
- 0
im not equating anything I know for a fact that 6 women in one house with one dude is a recipe for disaster id be pretty miserable if i have six wives when one seems too give me a run for my money hehehe jk on the last bit, and im pretty sure the woman in those communes whatever is the correct words make a fuss otherwise we wouldnt be hearing of em rebecca
Have you been raised, from young age, in polygamist mentality? I have though a little removed. The women *ARE* different. They are far more submissive because their society frowns upon them if they have opinions and think outside box or, how do you say, stir the pot? Their 'society' shuns them if they try to be different or speak up. This is how they keep them in line. They can't go anywhere unless escape somehow. They are forced to behave or suffer consequences.
Not all polygamist communities are like the 'Browns' on TV who *DO*, I believe, have a more westernized view of marriages between them with jealousy, etc., even though he have 4 wives.
walrus
New Member
- Joined
- Feb 7, 2011
- Messages
- 59
- Reaction score
- 0
whatever told you that I was raised from a young age with a polygamist mentality? no I just have common sense >.> lots of big words in that post of yers im at a lost noooooooooo
:roll: This...
You claim some kind of inside knowledge but you have not *lived* it. I say you are wrong. You do *not* know for a fact. Women raised with this mentality *KNOW* how to behave...or else.
The ones you hear in the news are the ones who escape, like me, though not in polygamist marriage, and tell their story, or from the ones who are still there and they speak like a script was given them.
Reba.
walrus
New Member
- Joined
- Feb 7, 2011
- Messages
- 59
- Reaction score
- 0
how in the world does your post even begin to say I was raised by a pologygamist mentality, which it doesnt, and you dont have too live it too know for a fact (man I hate it when peeps pull that childish crap oh you dont know what its like if you aint there blah blah blah) I dont have too murder someone too know its wrong now do I? i do know women are headaches, so the fact that six women in one house with one guy I feel is a disaster tada get it now? you grew up in a mentality like that? im not really understanding you.
jillio
New Member
- Joined
- Jun 14, 2006
- Messages
- 60,232
- Reaction score
- 19
Troll much?
somedeafdudefromPNW
Active Member
- Joined
- Jul 6, 2009
- Messages
- 9,499
- Reaction score
- 1
Nice cherry-picking.
Unfortunately, the moderators forbid me from pointing out the contradictory nature between the Aramaic or Greek texts and interpretations of the modern translations.
Wikipedia does a good job highlighting the conflicts of interpreting the texts amongst Christians however:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polygamy_in_Christianity
Whether or not people are wrong for interpreting those is not up to debate. What matters is the scriptures are there and people do read them that way.
But don't say the God doesn't support polygamy. Almost every church founders struggled with this.
- Joined
- Jun 8, 2004
- Messages
- 54,903
- Reaction score
- 1,518
Cherry picking? All I needed was one example to prove my point. The rest simply reinforce it.
Wikipedia? You're kidding, right?
You can't tell me to not speak the truth. You can't deny the examples that I gave.
You can support polygamy if you want; that's your perogative. But you can't possibly say that God supported polygamy in the Bible. All the instances of polygamy in the Bible contradict that.
somedeafdudefromPNW
Active Member
- Joined
- Jul 6, 2009
- Messages
- 9,499
- Reaction score
- 1
The Old Testament constantly reinforces the existence and approval of polygamy. The New Testament is oddly divided upon the issue and remained silent consistently. What is clear is that the Bible has laws outlining what is one supposed to do with multiple wives in the Exodus and in Deuteronomy.
You do realize the only reason why academia rejects Wikipedia, or any encyclopedia sources, is because TAs and professors do not have the time to go through the article to verify the sources? All the sources are already in the article. Barring that, it's a nice summary.
It's the reason why it took me so long to reply because I wanted to verify whether or not what the modern founders (circa 1400s onward) thought of monogamy is true.
The sources are already there. Go verify it for yourself.
Your version is NOT the truth. Truth implies factual. No, it's not factual, but rather it is an INTERPRETATION of scriptures passed down to us. Those examples are merely one person's interpretation of the texts. If there is ONE truth, there would ONLY be ONE UNITED CHURCH. The simple fact Christianity has so many branches and splinters prove this.
Hell, the Reformation is rifed with contradictions and divisions on how to treat the question of polygamy versus monogamy.
- Joined
- Jun 8, 2004
- Messages
- 54,903
- Reaction score
- 1,518
I never said that the Bible disregarded the existence of polygamy. It was a fact of life during those times in that part of world. Acknowledging existence and approving are not the same thing. I acknowledge that crime is rampant in the world; that certainly doesn't mean that I approve of crime.
There is no place in the Old Testament where God approves of polygamy. In every instance of polygamy in the OT, bad things result from it.
The NT is not divided at all on the issue, and clearly states that God's will for marriage is one man and one woman. The picture of Christ and His church is of the Bridegroom and the Bride--one of each.
Using your logic: The Bible also has laws outlining what one is supposed to do about murderers and thieves. Do you say that means God approves of murderers and thieves?
Then why not use the sources instead?
I use the Bible as my source for what God said.
I stated facts about people and the things that happened in the Bible. If you don't want to believe what the Bible says, you have that right.
We weren't discussing the Reformation. I refer to the Bible, not religious movements.