"As iron sharpens iron, so a man sharpens the countenance of his friend." (Proverbs 27:17)
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Hugh McBryde
Joined: 23 Nov 2005
Posts: 71
Location: Montana Again (Whew)
|
 Posted: Sat Dec 15, 2007 6:55 pm Post subject: Right.. |
|
|
| foc wrote: | | "You are free to believe whatever silly thing you choose to believe." |
Take your ball, go home. Paraphrased, your answer amounts to "Whatever". I shall take it in the non responsive way it was offered. foc, what you fail to deal with here, is that you've followed me to a number of forums to post specificly against what I say. I accept your admission of defeat. Now, don't bother me about this again.
_________________
"Every word of God is tested; He is a shield to those who take refuge in Him. Do not add to His words Or He will reprove you, and you will be proved a liar." |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
foc
Joined: 18 Jul 2007
Posts: 47
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 17, 2007 12:12 am Post subject: Re: Right.. |
|
|
deleted
Last edited by foc on Fri Dec 21, 2007 3:59 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Hugh McBryde
Joined: 23 Nov 2005
Posts: 71
Location: Montana Again (Whew)
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 17, 2007 11:20 am Post subject: So why do you discuss it? |
|
|
| foc wrote: | | "You seem to be under the impression, Hugh, that firstly I have any inclination to get into this meaningless topic with you again." |
Yes, because you've followed me to several forums and posted to the subjects I post to. For that reason I have the impression that you want to get into the topic. More than that, it would appear you want to "get into it" with me. | foc wrote: | | "Do you believe it will somehow turn out differently this time around?" |
Clearly, you are under the impression you won something "the first time". If that is the case, pony up with the winning argument, I'd like to see you run it again. It won't fly. | foc wrote: | | "Discussing polygamy IS a pathetic waste of time, effort, energy and brain cells and frankly MY time is better spent working on the 17 total websites and forums I run that ARENT a waste of a day." |
Woooo, we are important, aren't we? I don't discuss Polygamy foc. Ok, I discuss it about as long as it takes to say I don't discuss it. | foc wrote: | | "And you will be outright lying if you claim that in the past that we didnt go MANY pages of round after round about this meaningless topic." |
I wouldn't say it was meaningless and your attention to it suggests it's not meaningless to you either. I can't account for your obstinance so "going round after round" means what? | foc wrote: | | "I have no desire to wasted another day with you concerning an issue that doesn't affect a single person I know, nor anyone I've ever read about." |
Ok, go away. Like you said you would. | foc wrote: | | "That is MY choice to make and you can either be a man and accept that fact....or you can repeat your past response and toss a tantrum...that is your decision to make." |
Ok, someone is having a tantrum here. | foc wrote: | | "No one is stalking you, Hugh. Your talking like a paranoid/delusional who things everyone is out to get him." |
You are in fact the most persistent dogger of my steps anywhere in the cyber world. If you're not a "stalker" that's fine. What are you then? Garden variety "obsessed"? | foc wrote: | | "I don't have enough time in the day to follow you anywhere." |
You keep saying that, and it's easy to prove. | foc wrote: | | "Learn what a search engine is and type in 'remarriage' sometime and see where it leads you. I couldnt care less about polygamy or if you take ten thousand wives. My only concern is remarried brothers and sister and their being harmed." |
foc, honestly, I don't think about you until you show up and start posting the same stuff that didn't win for you elsewhere. | foc wrote: | | "You sincerely need to find a real hobby." |
Um, right. | foc wrote: | | "If that's what you need to believe to help you cope with the issue, I'm fine with that." |
Agreed, you are defeated. Prove it by leaving me alone. You rarely say anything of substance, you always try to make it personal. I have no desire to get into a wrangle with someone who just wants a fight for a fight's sake. I will not however, back down when you don't offer anything other than your stubborn recalcitrance. | foc wrote: | | "And maybe you should think about bringing up threads that are months old..." |
I'm sorry if you can't keep up with the timeliness of my responses. I posted last to this thread in January, then you showed up in July and threw your two cents worth in, with words I had already dealt with elsewhere. Clearly, I am more contemporary with my reply to you, than you were to me.
_________________
"Every word of God is tested; He is a shield to those who take refuge in Him. Do not add to His words Or He will reprove you, and you will be proved a liar." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
foc
Joined: 18 Jul 2007
Posts: 47
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 18, 2007 9:50 am Post subject: |
|
|
deleted
Last edited by foc on Fri Dec 21, 2007 3:59 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Hugh McBryde
Joined: 23 Nov 2005
Posts: 71
Location: Montana Again (Whew)
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 18, 2007 10:22 am Post subject: Monte Hall says: "Let's make a Deal!!" |
|
|
| foc wrote: | | "I dont remember saying I was going anywhere." |
Could have fooled me there bucko. A few posts back you said: | foc wrote: | | "You have a wonderful time bickering to yourself here today, chap. I have 6 forums and 5 or 6 websites that need my attention. Now....how do I UNsubscribe to this thread so I get no more emails to follow back here to just to hear men trying to justify taking more than one wife" |
You need to brush up on some more precise methods of communication there my friend. That sounded like a swan song to me. While we're at it, do you think you could drop the chap crap and I'll move on from the "Bucko" and "My Friend" characterizations? | foc wrote: | | "Ill be right here, I simply am not going to play this little game with you where you pervert the intent of the WHOLE of scripture to justify your lust for many women." |
I can't lust for my wife so unless you can prove that I have desire for an inappropriate object of my desire, let's refrain from the sentencing phase of this "trial" until you've convicted someone. Earlier in the thread, | I wrote: | | "If that is the case, pony up with the winning argument, I'd like to see you run it again." |
You seem to think you have defeated me and the argument I represent. It should be easy then. Rehearse that argument again for us, here. Just one foc, not all of them, just one. For if you have defeated me there must have been a conclusive and decisive moment. Let's do that again and I'll replay my half of the discussion for all to see.
If I lose, then I've lost, if you lose, then bring out your next best argument, perhaps you were only wrong about which one the winner was. We'll do them one at a time until we find where you have defeated me.
_________________
"Every word of God is tested; He is a shield to those who take refuge in Him. Do not add to His words Or He will reprove you, and you will be proved a liar." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
grand_puba
Moderator
Joined: 12 Mar 2005
Posts: 43
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 18, 2007 11:03 am Post subject: |
|
|
Just so both of you know, I fully intend to delete the majority of posts from the past few days. The taunts, bluffing, and bickering are not productive. However, some of this is temporarily tolerated as the unavoidable positioning that comes from imperfect mortals working out their differences. So, please present your arguments, if they have not already been presented. If you feel like some previous post best embodies your central argument and you have nothing more to say, please link to it in a final, concluding post and be done.
I would like for this forum to have succinct exchanges of real arguments based on commonly accepted grounds (i.e., Scripture). Everything else, I will delete as I have time.
Once you two are done, I shall lock this thread.
_________________
Have you read the Rules? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Hugh McBryde
Joined: 23 Nov 2005
Posts: 71
Location: Montana Again (Whew)
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 18, 2007 11:20 am Post subject: Do as you wish. |
|
|
foc has shown up in several forums now, and engaged me in deliberate conflict. He rarely debates points, he starts fights. You have played right into his hands. He has been in two or three forums now in which he comes in and initiates insulting behavior. Then the discussion is characterized as you have just done.
In our society the bully in a fight always or nearly always wins. They start the fight, the fight is broken up with methods where both combatants are said to be equally and mutually responsible. The fight ends with the behavior of the bully being judged to be the same as the one assaulted.
foc judges himself to "win" these debates precisely in this way, by shutting them down. It is interesting that the more "free wheeling" the style of the forum, the less likely it is for him to show up and challenge me. He choses to do so where the sensitivity level to conflict is high.
I suggest that you review the thread, and see who started shoving. Frankly I have found I will wait forever if I wait for someone to show up and stop me from being shoved. As soon as I shove back, the police show up.
_________________
"Every word of God is tested; He is a shield to those who take refuge in Him. Do not add to His words Or He will reprove you, and you will be proved a liar." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
grand_puba
Moderator
Joined: 12 Mar 2005
Posts: 43
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 18, 2007 11:47 am Post subject: |
|
|
Hugh,
You miss my point. I am not blaming anyone. I am asking both of you, "Get to the point".
My plan is tolerate the "shoving" temporarily in this thread, if that is what it takes for the two of you to get down to business, because I realize you two have a history.
If you two do not want to discuss this topic any further with foc, or if you cannot discuss this any further with him, that is fine. Whenever you are done, I will delete the nonsense and lock the thread, but I will only lock it once the debate is concluded.
My intention is not to police anybody's spiritual character - that is a task too big for me. The best I can do is moderate the content, and that is what I am trying to do here - nothing more.
Finally, when someone insults you and you return in like kind, you are playing into their hands - regardless of what I do. "What is the chaff to the wheat?" (Jeremiah 23:28). In other words, present what you believe to be the truth, ignore the insults, respond to the real arguments, and leave the rest in the hands of the authorities. That would be my advice to everyone on this board.
Thanks,
The Moderator
_________________
Have you read the Rules? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Hugh McBryde
Joined: 23 Nov 2005
Posts: 71
Location: Montana Again (Whew)
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 18, 2007 12:08 pm Post subject: Our story so far. |
|
|
foc quite naturally believes he has defeated the argument I presented before. This means he has at least one powerful argument that conclusively proves his point, at least he thinks he does.
I suggest that foc present that argument again. One argument. We will debate it to the conclusion. For example, if foc regards the example of "elder monogamy" to be instructive to the laity, and that represents a conclusive argument, and his best, we shall debate that.
Should this not prove to be a conclusive argument in his favor, we will move on to one of the many other arguments for monogamy only and deal with that one until it reaches impass or conclusion and so on.
If I am defeated once, my whole argument collapses. If there are 20 major arguments for "monogamy only" and foc is defeated 19 times, he does not lose. I must run the table, he need sink only one ball. I am willing.
_________________
"Every word of God is tested; He is a shield to those who take refuge in Him. Do not add to His words Or He will reprove you, and you will be proved a liar." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
foc
Joined: 18 Jul 2007
Posts: 47
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 20, 2007 8:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
deleted
Last edited by foc on Fri Dec 21, 2007 4:13 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
foc
Joined: 18 Jul 2007
Posts: 47
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 20, 2007 8:50 pm Post subject: Re: Do as you wish. |
|
|
deleted
Last edited by foc on Fri Dec 21, 2007 3:58 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Hugh McBryde
Joined: 23 Nov 2005
Posts: 71
Location: Montana Again (Whew)
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 20, 2007 11:34 pm Post subject: I will address only the points that touch on the debate. |
|
|
| foc wrote: | | "He asserts that Gods will for marriage is polygamy, shows a few cases where it happened, assumes that means it is Gods WILL for marriage." |
False. A common debate tactic is the "strawman". That is the characterization of your opponents argument in a way that resembles their argument, but is in fact not their argument. I do not assert that God's will for marriage is Polygamy. I am not in favor of Polygamy. Polygamy is a secular concept and is defined as the having of multiple spouses. I have never advocated Polygamy and cannot ever conceive of doing so. I am an advocate of the occasional Polygyny. Polygyny being the having of more than one wife concurrently.
By saying occasional I do not say that "Polygyny is God's will for marriage" which is also, like using the term Polygamy, too broad a statement. Polygyny is God's will for some men, and clearly can only be God's will for only some men unless there is a sudden dramatic change in the ratios of men to women. Polygyny is neither better than, or worse than Monogamy. In fact, I contend that by not having words to distinguish one form of family relationship from the other, that God in fact describes family life as a continuum of relationships that can range from a man with one wife to a man with any number of wives. | foc wrote: | | "I show that God didnt create a harem for Adam but ONE woman and then show a few areas were polygamy was nothing short than a problem for men who did take more than one wife." |
Your two statements here, are that there is an inflexible archetype of what marriage is, and it is depicted by Adam and Eve, and that Polygyny is trouble, inherently.
In dealing with the first claim, that Adam and Eve are an archetype in all ways for us to follow in the arena of marriage, you lack a statement, anywhere in scripture, that this is so. You have statements that hold up the permanence of marriage such as in Matthew 19, where Christ decries divorce, but Jesus is focusing on one aspect of marriage and stating that the original intent for marriage with regard to permanence, is expressed by their marriage, and that the original intent for all of us, as well as Adam and Eve IS permanence. Christ does not extend this archetype status to other areas of the relationship of Adam and Eve and due to the fact that it is impossible to do so, it is clear that Adam and Eve's marriage CANNOT be archetypal and instructive in all ways. We do not marry what amounts to our own clone, as Adam does. In the first generation after Adam, the archetype of his marriage is discarded since we are in fact compelled to marry differently than he did, and marry our own sisters and brothers. This also was not substandard or wrong. It was though, different. It also sets up a possible pattern for the end of Polygyny. Namely, sibling marriage was once compelled by God to fulfill his righteous command, and later, sibling marriage was expressly forbidden. This proves that what God once saw as perfectly righteous, in fact absolutely necessary, might also later be put aside. This COULD be the case with Polygyny.
As far as Polygyny being trouble? This is impossible to prove. There is no statement in scripture that Polygyny alone is causative of strife. There is the clear statement that the taking of "strange" or "foreign" or "unbelieving" brides is trouble. There is the clear evaluation at the end of Nehemiah that this in fact WAS the trouble that Solomon got into. There is no unvarnished claim anywhere in scripture that the mere presence of multiple wives led to evil or trouble.
There are no marriages we can point to that were entirely righteous. All are touched by sin. Thus the experiment is not controlled and the only examples that can be cited in scripture are never pointed to elsewhere in scripture as proof of the evil, however subtle, of Polygyny. | foc wrote: | | "How God laid out rules for the provision of the first wife if a man did take a second making it VERY easy for the first wife to walk out of the marriage, and also very clear instruction for leaders in the church, who are men who set the example for the rest, who are to be of ONE wife in order to take these positions." |
I won't touch on what I think is a manifestly false assertion, but I will point out that making a marriage easy to walk out on, isn't the same thing as condemning the form of marriage. | foc wrote: | | "Hugh disagrees and keeps insisting that its ok if we dont follow the rules for the elders that they are meaningless to the flock they lead." |
The rules for marriage of priests would have prevented Ruth from ever gaining Boaz as a husband, and would have interrupted the line of the Messiah. So would they have prevented the man who took Rahab, from taking her, also breaking that chain. A priest could only marry a "virgin of Israel", neither of these women qualified. The point? Requirements of office do not constitute a condemnation of those who do not fit those requirements.
_________________
"Every word of God is tested; He is a shield to those who take refuge in Him. Do not add to His words Or He will reprove you, and you will be proved a liar." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
foc
Joined: 18 Jul 2007
Posts: 47
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 21, 2007 4:07 am Post subject: |
|
|
Dear READER
You will have to go thru the scriptures yourself and decide what YOU believe in this matter, not allowing anyone here to push you into believing anything one way or the other.
Since scripture as a WHOLE neither encourages nor outright prohibits polygamy, you will have to decide whether you believe that taking of multiple wives was mere 'tolerated' and permitted by God.
OR, if it was literally encouraged for men, even just 'some' men, to take as many wives as they could find.
My guess is that if you go thru ALL of Gods words that most of you will conclude the former, not the latter, but go and see for yourselves which is right in this matter. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
foc
Joined: 18 Jul 2007
Posts: 47
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 21, 2007 4:12 am Post subject: |
|
|
| grand_puba wrote: | Hugh,
You miss my point. I am not blaming anyone. I am asking both of you, "Get to the point".
My plan is tolerate the "shoving" temporarily in this thread, if that is what it takes for the two of you to get down to business, because I realize you two have a history.
If you two do not want to discuss this topic any further with foc, or if you cannot discuss this any further with him, that is fine. Whenever you are done, I will delete the nonsense and lock the thread, but I will only lock it once the debate is concluded.
My intention is not to police anybody's spiritual character - that is a task too big for me. The best I can do is moderate the content, and that is what I am trying to do here - nothing more.
Finally, when someone insults you and you return in like kind, you are playing into their hands - regardless of what I do. "What is the chaff to the wheat?" (Jeremiah 23:28). In other words, present what you believe to be the truth, ignore the insults, respond to the real arguments, and leave the rest in the hands of the authorities. That would be my advice to everyone on this board.
Thanks,
The Moderator |
I decided thru the night to fix the problem here. I have deleted my posts and given Hugh no one to argue with but himself.
It was my mistake to even respond to this man knowing the fit he thru on crosswalk and when I had the misfortune of having him show up at our previous forums.
I wont be responding to him again here as I dont intend on getting myself banned over this nonsense about polygamy.
Ill search for an 'ignore' feature and use it if one exists.
By the way, by my recollection, this was the first 'insult'
| Quote: |
| Hugh McBryde wrote: | | foc wrote: | | "But the manner in which God created the marriage covenant and the limitations placed on those in leadership in the church of not having more than a single wife show us that, while it is tolerated, polygany is not Gods will for marriage and is to be avoided by believers if they arent already in polygamous marriages." |
This is simply an unvarnished lie.
Hugh McBryde |
|
ENTIRELY uncalled for.
Simply stating that he disagreed with my conclusions was enough. Calling me a liar for no good reason was the original issue here.
As I have said, Hugh simply does not like being disagreed with. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Hugh McBryde
Joined: 23 Nov 2005
Posts: 71
Location: Montana Again (Whew)
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 21, 2007 1:08 pm Post subject: We've done this before, many times before. |
|
|
foc, there is the problem of what has gone before, you bring out an assertion you have brought out before: | foc wrote: | | "But the manner in which God created the marriage covenant and the limitations placed on those in leadership in the church of not having more than a single wife show us that, while it is tolerated, polygany is not Gods will for marriage and is to be avoided by believers if they arent already in polygamous marriages." |
The highlighted portion is not true. It is stated clearly. So what we have here is a clear untruth, since you have been confronted on it before, without ever replying to it. foc, if you had made this statement the for the first time here, I would not have used the terms "unvarnished lie", but since you've tried this on more than one occasion over a period of years, it is now no longer a case of you believing something in innocence and offering it in sincerity.
There is no statement of scripture that polygyny is "tollerated". "Tollerate" has a connotation of "putting up with". Polygyny occurs regularly and normally throughout the Old Testament and sometimes is known to occur merely because of size of a man's family. It is compelled as the result of two of God's laws as those laws require a man to marry regardless of his current estate, either being single or married.
The additional notion that polygyny should only be maintained by those who are unfortunately already in one, also has no scriptural support. These assertions are both products of your strong belief in your position, but you already know, and have known for years that they are not overt statements of scripture, anywhere. Hence the wording. If you like I can change it for you to something along the lines of "conscious misrepresentation".
_________________
"Every word of God is tested; He is a shield to those who take refuge in Him. Do not add to His words Or He will reprove you, and you will be proved a liar." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
foc
Joined: 18 Jul 2007
Posts: 47
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 21, 2007 8:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| foc wrote: | Dear READER
You will have to go thru the scriptures yourself and decide what YOU believe in this matter, not allowing anyone here to push you into believing anything one way or the other.
Since scripture as a WHOLE neither encourages nor outright prohibits polygamy, you will have to decide whether you believe that taking of multiple wives was mere 'tolerated' and permitted by God.
OR, if it was literally encouraged for men, even just 'some' men, to take as many wives as they could find.
My guess is that if you go thru ALL of Gods words that most of you will conclude the former, not the latter, but go and see for yourselves which is right in this matter. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Hugh McBryde
Joined: 23 Nov 2005
Posts: 71
Location: Montana Again (Whew)
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 21, 2007 9:12 pm Post subject: Congratulations... |
|
|
foc, you really are a good example of a person who uses debate tactics.
Logic dictates a method in debate for obtaining a win, a loss or a draw for a point of view. Tactics in a debate have to do with gaining the appearance of victory for the persons involved in a debate.
At this moment, you're only employing tactics. One is last wordism. This is an exhausting tactic because it is really true that many people see the last responder in a debate as the victor in a debate. So, when you repost your own admonition that all must make up their minds on their own, you're not advancing the discussion, but you are getting the last word. In the natural course of a real debate, the last word would go to the victor since the opposition would have no answer. The use of tactics though, tends to erase this natural identifier of the winning position.
You also desperately wish me to be viewed negatively, so you continue to try and manufacture a fight between us. So far you've tried to goad me with childish taunts by refering to me as fighting with myself. You employ the schoolyard tactic of repeating yourself verbatim and so on. Please, advance the argument or withdraw as you promised to do earlier. Perhaps someday someone will join this discussion who wishes to actually debate the issue for the purposes of edification. It is wrong for you to try to create a dust up merely to obscure a topic someone else may find important.
_________________
"Every word of God is tested; He is a shield to those who take refuge in Him. Do not add to His words Or He will reprove you, and you will be proved a liar." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
foc
Joined: 18 Jul 2007
Posts: 47
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 21, 2007 11:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Readers, this has nothing to do with the 'last word' as some believe.
I simply encourage you to NOT take the words of anyone HERE as fact but to be good students of scripture yourselves and search this matter out.
Only those presenting falsehood and error would not want you to do the same.
| foc wrote: | Dear READER
You will have to go thru the scriptures yourself and decide what YOU believe in this matter, not allowing anyone here to push you into believing anything one way or the other.
Since scripture as a WHOLE neither encourages nor outright prohibits polygamy, you will have to decide whether you believe that taking of multiple wives was mere 'tolerated' and permitted by God.
OR, if it was literally encouraged for men, even just 'some' men, to take as many wives as they could find.
My guess is that if you go thru ALL of Gods words that most of you will conclude the former, not the latter, but go and see for yourselves which is right in this matter. |
Readers, you can get a piece of software called E-Sword that is really good bible study software.
Get it and do a some searches to find the passages where men took more than one wife and also the words of God concerning the matter.
As I said in the quote above, Im VERY sure that when you finish your study that more than 90% of you will come away believing as I do.
That God did tolerate the taking of multiple wives, but that it was NOT His will for marriage from the beginning. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Hugh McBryde
Joined: 23 Nov 2005
Posts: 71
Location: Montana Again (Whew)
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 21, 2007 11:59 pm Post subject: Break out them Bibles |
|
|
Of course, foc, I would like to see your scripture reference for God "tolerating" something he also on occasion compelled. The notion that Polygyny was not established from the beginning is also not documented. If you say that the establishment of "monogamy only" is from the beginning, you also say that one cannot marry any other woman than one made of his own body.
Any encouragement you would make for someone to read scripture though, I would have to agree with as being a great idea.
_________________
"Every word of God is tested; He is a shield to those who take refuge in Him. Do not add to His words Or He will reprove you, and you will be proved a liar." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
foc
Joined: 18 Jul 2007
Posts: 47
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 22, 2007 8:27 am Post subject: |
|
|
Hugh, youre problem is youre just like every other legalist Ive ever met.
If it isnt spelled out in big, bold letters that scream out "I TOLERATE POLYGAMY BUT IT WAS NOT MY WILL FOR MARRIAGE" then you pretty much believe you can make it say whatever you want.
This is posted for the readers, btw, since I dont believe, nor care, that you are willing to concede a single point as we have been thru this before.
READER.
The scriptures do NOT have to express in words what is written above for it to be true.
"Trinity" is not found in scripture as such, but the concept IS in the texts.
"Toleration" of polygamy doesnt come in EXPRESSED statements in scripture, but it is VERY easily gleaned from those scriptures, as is the concept of the Trinity, that while God DID tolerate and permit polygamy, His original will for marriage was ONE woman for ONE man for LIFE.
But as the other nitpicking legalist I debate on a daily basis, Hugh thinks he can set up this false dilemma where I have two choices ..either produce a scripture that expresses word for word what HUGH demands it say; or, admit to being in error.
Sorry chap, but NEITHER of those needs to be chosen any more than having a Jesus Only type demand me to present scripture that says 'TRINITY' in it.
We learn from contexts and concepts in scripture MORESO than what is or isnt stated expressly in one or two passages.
We do NOT need any scripture to say "GOD IS A TRINITY" to know our God is triune in nature.
And we do NOT need any scripture to say "I TOLERATE POLYGAMY BUT IT WAS NOT MY WILL FOR MARRIAGE"
BOTH of these are gleaned from ALL of the scriptures relating to this matter.
So again, and finally, I will tell the READERS to simply spend some time in Gods word in the matter.
Start in Genesis then read everything you can about marriage paying close attention to areas where multiple wives comes into the picture, such as Exodus 21 where this wife is given permission to LEAVE her marriage by God and Moses if this man takes a second wife and fails even in his duty of marriage to this first wife.
That is but one of MANY passages you can find that is evidence that will help you understand the WHOLE picture, just as we all do to understand the concept of the Trinity.
I fully expect Hugh here to handwave away and dismiss any and all evidence provided against his views, but he is not the one Im concerned about since he has made his choice about what he believes.
You, dear reader, just break into your bibles and study the matter out. With the E-Sword software it is VERY easy to find all the relevant passages to fully understand this issue.
Now, Hugh, you asked me to step out of this thread.
Why is it that you keep posting towards me if you know Im not going to answer in the manner you want me to and thereby insisting that I return and respond ?
This will be my last post in this thread if Hugh can decide that we're done.
Last edited by foc on Mon Dec 24, 2007 11:46 pm; edited 2 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Hugh McBryde
Joined: 23 Nov 2005
Posts: 71
Location: Montana Again (Whew)
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 22, 2007 11:45 am Post subject: I do claim to be a "Modern Pharisee" |
|
|
| foc wrote: | | "Hugh, your problem is you're just like every other legalist I've ever met." |
I don't think "legalism" amounts to a contradiction of God's will foc, I think legalism is an incomplete expression of God's will, namely a skeleton as opposed to a living breathing creature, or an outline, as opposed to the book. That which is expressed in the law is not wrong, it is not legalism to be following the law. It is legalism to think that all God wants of us is to follow the law to the letter, no more, no less.
I also use as my signature in every post in this forum, a passage from Proverbs. It forbids you to do, what you do, and names you for what you are, when you add to the word of God. There are passages that state similar things before this one, and those that come after it that also express the same thought. I like the example best in Proverbs so I use it. "Every word of God is tested; He is a shield to those who take refuge in Him. Do not add to His words Or He will reprove you, and you will be proved a liar." It is not legalism to say that God does not want you to add a concept to scripture that does not exist in it. It has been my constant point in all my posts anywhere on the internet, that in the face of a huge number of examples throughout the history of God's people, God never says one word to condemn or even discourage Polygyny as a practice. He compels it as a regular side effect of two of his laws, and in one of those laws, no wrong is committed by any party to the situation the law addresses. I don't think you can make a credible case that God merely "tolerates" a practice he sometimes forces as the result of a law he asks the entirely righteous to obey. Levirate Law (also a NAME not found in scripture) refers to the law in Deuteronomy that demands of three people that they enter a Polygyny. A man, his wife, and the widow of that man's dead brother must all enter into a marriage relationship with one another, provided that man is already married. None do anything wrong, yet they all end up in a marriage. | foc wrote: | | "If it isnt spelled out in big, bold letters that scream out "I TOLERATE POLYGAMY BUT IT WAS NOT MY WILL FOR MARRIAGE" then you pretty much believe you can make it say whatever you want." |
Once again, I have never been an advocate of Polygamy. I make this ongoing distinction for a reason. Polygamy is the practice of having more than one spouse and certain forms of Polygamy (namely Polyandry) are condemned as adultery in scripture. Polygyny is the practice of having more than wife. Only two forms of Polygyny are prohibited. Marrying a mother and her daughter. Once you marry one, you can never marry the other. Also marrying sisters while one of them remains alive. I can marry a woman, then she dies, and then I can marry her sister. I cannot marry both while they are both still alive. | foc wrote: | | "(The word)'Trinity' is not found in scripture as such, but the concept IS in the texts." |
This is a subtle equivocation. Yes, the word Trinity does not appear in scripture, and yes the concept is there. However, this assertion of yours, that the "toleration" of polygyny is gleaned from the scriptures, is still what I have claimed it is before, it is false. Nowhere. NOT ONE PLACE is there an expressed idea that Polygyny itself is wrong. In it's place are restrictions on the practice, just as there are on any marriage practice. A monogamist for instance, may not marry a woman, and then later, marry her daughter, neither can a Polygynist. Is this a condemnation of marriage? Polygyny has limits, just as monogamy does. Thus God MENTIONS the concept of Polygyny and regulates it and occasionally compels it, but never the concept of Polygyny. Solomon is judged for his FOREIGN wives, and perhaps he is also judged for his sheer number of wives. The large number of wives a King might acquire is said to be wrong. The foreign/unbelieving/"strange" wives of Solomon are said to be in the last chapter of Nehemiah to be his sin. I defy you, and throw down the gauntlet, that you SHOW Me where the CONCEPT of mere "toleration" of Polygyny is taught. | foc wrote: | | "Start in Genesis then read everything you can about marriage paying close attention to areas where multiple wives comes into the picture, such as Exodus 21 where this wife is given permission to LEAVE her marriage by God and Moses if this man takes a second wife and fails even in his duty of marriage to this first wife." |
Actually, it is a wife of SLAVERY that is given that permission, a woman that would be known as a "concubine". You also engage in yet another subtle misleading here foc, you omit the reasons that God gives, that the woman could leave that man. Exodus 21:10 & 11: | Quote: | | "If he take him another wife; her food, her raiment, and her duty of marriage, shall he not diminish. And if he do not these three unto her, then shall she go out free without money." |
This is a conditional law. First, the man must take to himself another wife. Namely, we cannot say that if a man fails to provide his wife in this case, with food, clothing and sexual congress and has not taken another wife to cause the problem, that she may leave him. All monogamists are shielded from this provision and in fact all existing polygynists are as well. Let us say that I have five wives. I am able to provide them with all they need in these three areas and this goes on for many years. Later, a great famine strikes or I cannot get a prescription in my dotage, to Viagra. None of my wives may leave me, for the cause of their deprivation is not the addition of another wife.
Let us say, however, that I am providing perfectly well for all five wives, and I seek another. I get that wife and find that as a result, I am unable to support any one or all of the first five because I have spread myself too thin. It is then, and only then, that the wives I have acquired through slavery (for this passage refers to wives bought as maidservants verse 7) may go free, without money. | foc wrote: | "Now, Hugh, you asked me to step out of this thread.
Why is it that you keep posting towards me if you know Im not going to answer in the manner you want me to and thereby insisting that I return and respond ?" |
You said you would leave, you did not, you continue to raise points, I respond to those points. Sometimes I respond to the effort you make to appear to be making a point, when you in fact, are not. | foc wrote: | | "This will be my last post in this thread if Hugh can decide that we're done." |
As long as you try to wedge in the last word, and I am a member in good standing, and this thread is open, you should expect that I will respond.
_________________
"Every word of God is tested; He is a shield to those who take refuge in Him. Do not add to His words Or He will reprove you, and you will be proved a liar." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Hugh McBryde
Joined: 23 Nov 2005
Posts: 71
Location: Montana Again (Whew)
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 24, 2007 12:46 pm Post subject: And we have a reply... |
|
|
The reply foc makes is this: | Quote: | | "Last edited by foc on Sun Dec 23, 2007 8:59 pm; edited 1 time in total." |
Yesterday, as near as I can figure, all foc did was change the color of the font, of his whole post, to red.
This is the equivalent of saying "Oh Yeah?"
I invite anyone who has a better response to come forward and speak for the monogamy only side of the argument.
_________________
"Every word of God is tested; He is a shield to those who take refuge in Him. Do not add to His words Or He will reprove you, and you will be proved a liar." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
foc
Joined: 18 Jul 2007
Posts: 47
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 24, 2007 11:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| foc wrote: | Hugh, youre problem is youre just like every other legalist Ive ever met.
If it isnt spelled out in big, bold letters that scream out "I TOLERATE POLYGAMY BUT IT WAS NOT MY WILL FOR MARRIAGE" then you pretty much believe you can make it say whatever you want.
This is posted for the readers, btw, since I dont believe, nor care, that you are willing to concede a single point as we have been thru this before.
READER.
The scriptures do NOT have to express in words what is written above for it to be true.
"Trinity" is not found in scripture as such, but the concept IS in the texts.
"Toleration" of polygamy doesnt come in EXPRESSED statements in scripture, but it is VERY easily gleaned from those scriptures, as is the concept of the Trinity, that while God DID tolerate and permit polygamy, His original will for marriage was ONE woman for ONE man for LIFE.
But as the other nitpicking legalist I debate on a daily basis, Hugh thinks he can set up this false dilemma where I have two choices ..either produce a scripture that expresses word for word what HUGH demands it say; or, admit to being in error.
Sorry chap, but NEITHER of those needs to be chosen any more than having a Jesus Only type demand me to present scripture that says 'TRINITY' in it.
We learn from contexts and concepts in scripture MORESO than what is or isnt stated expressly in one or two passages.
We do NOT need any scripture to say "GOD IS A TRINITY" to know our God is triune in nature.
And we do NOT need any scripture to say "I TOLERATE POLYGAMY BUT IT WAS NOT MY WILL FOR MARRIAGE"
BOTH of these are gleaned from ALL of the scriptures relating to this matter.
So again, and finally, I will tell the READERS to simply spend some time in Gods word in the matter.
Start in Genesis then read everything you can about marriage paying close attention to areas where multiple wives comes into the picture, such as Exodus 21 where this wife is given permission to LEAVE her marriage by God and Moses if this man takes a second wife and fails even in his duty of marriage to this first wife.
That is but one of MANY passages you can find that is evidence that will help you understand the WHOLE picture, just as we all do to understand the concept of the Trinity.
I fully expect Hugh here to handwave away and dismiss any and all evidence provided against his views, but he is not the one Im concerned about since he has made his choice about what he believes.
You, dear reader, just break into your bibles and study the matter out. With the E-Sword software it is VERY easy to find all the relevant passages to fully understand this issue.
Now, Hugh, you asked me to step out of this thread.
Why is it that you keep posting towards me if you know Im not going to answer in the manner you want me to and thereby insisting that I return and respond ?
This will be my last post in this thread if Hugh can decide that we're done. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Hugh McBryde
Joined: 23 Nov 2005
Posts: 71
Location: Montana Again (Whew)
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 26, 2007 11:09 am Post subject: And now, from RED to BLUE.... |
|
|
| foc wrote: | | "Last edited by foc on Mon Dec 24, 2007 10:46 pm; edited 2 times in total." |
I guess the proof becomes conclusive, when it is in blue, and quoted, verbatim, by the author, and reposted.
_________________
"Every word of God is tested; He is a shield to those who take refuge in Him. Do not add to His words Or He will reprove you, and you will be proved a liar." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
In Search Of Truth
FAQ
Search
Register
Log in