Wednesday, March 6, 2013

The "morality" of serial monogamy

This is where the moral flexibility championed by the relativists and moderates was guaranteed to eventually result.  I don't say "end", because it isn't the end, it is merely a waypoint on the descent to complete pagan immorality.
In the past marriage was for life and this left serial monogamists in a moral bind.  However, now the rules have changed.  Under the new definition of marriage so long as she waits until it is “official” she is fully within the letter and spirit of marriage to jump to another man.  Those who are moral sticklers would of course insist that she marry this new man before having sex with him, and when she is ready for the next man after that divorce husband number two and then marry husband number three, etc.
This is why divorce laws must be eliminated in the interest of preserving Western civilization.  While it remains state-sanctioned, marriage is reduced to nothing more than an elevated, legally-recognized boyfriend status.  If women are worried about not being able to exit a marriage, then they should not get married in the first place.  Neither abuse nor unhappiness are justifications for divorce.

This also demonstrates why the state should not be involved in marriage at all.  Let it sanction legal civil unions for any two or more people of either sex who wish to establish one and leave marriage up to the church.  The legal sanction of the state has not strengthened marriage, it has drastically weakened it.

70 comments:

David F. said...

The state *must* be involved in marriage in order to prevent divorce, and to protect the rights of the spouse who is not at fault in the event that the other breaks the contract.

In order to do this, the state has to actually recognize marriage as we understand it, which it does not.

Alternately, our overlords might recognize us as a kind of "dhimmi" and let us handle family law in our own religious courts. I don't think the Federal Government would extend that kind of "tolerance," even if an state tried to implement it.

tz said...

Amen.

I've said we're doing the wrong thing on marriage. Ignore the gays who want to have a pretense, but have the state not discriminate or enforce any definition of marriage (Catholic employers and adoption agencies could use their definitions), and make marriage contracts fully enforceable - so the church can say 'you want a priest, sign this' which would say no divorce except under severe circumstances and compensating the victim, and no remarriage in the case of Catholics.

But making divorce illegal will change the hook-up culture.

I was also musing that except it is more of a bazaar, that for the burkah/brothel, we already have the brothel. Men are happy to pay often low rates, and women put out, though it is barter, not cash.

As many pointed out (Leo XIII's encyclical Arcanum talks about what happens when divorce is legal - written in 1880), Jesus said "What God had joined". No man, neither the church or state, has the authority to unjoin. God defines marriage. Render unto God what is God's. Do not give sacred things to dogs or cast pearls before swine.

Civil divorce changes the definition of marriage more profoundly than permitting 'gay marriage'. The latter is at best a weak parody. The former allows the profanation and desecration of one of the most holy things on this earth. They build an out-house and call it a church. We take a magnificent cathedral and raze it to the ground for trivial reasons. Which is the greater sacrilige?

Thomas More lost his head over this (literally) though Henry VIII married a woman each time (and he got one annulment, the second was denied). More refused a loyalty oath saying Henry's marriage was valid.

ARCANUM
17. Now, since the family and human society at large spring from marriage, these men will on no account allow matrimony to be the subject of the jurisdiction of the Church. Nay, they endeavor to deprive it of all holiness, and so bring it within the contracted sphere of those rights which, having been instituted by man, are ruled and administered by the civil jurisprudence of the community. Wherefore it necessarily follows that they attribute all power over marriage to civil rulers, and allow none whatever to the Church; and, when the Church exercises any such power, they think that she acts either by favor of the civil authority or to its injury. Now is the time, they say, for the heads of the State to vindicate their rights unflinchingly, and to do their best to settle all that relates to marriage according as to them seems good.

18. Hence are owing civil marriages, commonly so called; 'hence laws are framed which impose impediments to marriage; hence arise judicial sentences affecting the marriage contract, as to whether or not it have been rightly made. Lastly, all power of prescribing and passing judgment in this class of cases is, as we see, of set purpose denied to the Catholic Church, so that no regard is paid either to her divine power or to her prudent laws. Yet, under these, for so many centuries, have the nations lived on whom the light of civilization shone bright with the wisdom of Christ Jesus.

taterearl said...

"The legal sanction of the state has not strengthened marriage, it has drastically weakened it."

Hey, somebody has to give lawyers jobs to do. /sarc

Steve Canyon said...

I don't think it's enough just to outlaw it. The social shame that used to be attached to divorce must be reinstituted. I don't think women would have any more respect for the law and justice if divorce were legally outlawed than they do for drug laws, rape laws, et al. Being herd creatures themselves, if divorce results in social ostracism, they'll be more apt to comply.

tz said...

It isn't ostracism. Right now we have man-fault divorce and most don't realize it (see roissy's botm #1 candidate). If the woman wants to leave a marriage, but would have no state support - instant spinsterhood or basically a whore if she still wants sex since no remarriage, and she now has to use her money to pay for her living, that would usually suffice.

Right now even in the face of the disaster stories of women who divorce and end up with wrecked lives even with the legal system biased their way, they don't care.

Ostracism - shame - can only work if it can use or get around the rationalization hamsters.

Divorce was slow, constantly painful, and ugly when it was rare, so many would shrink back from going through it. Now that it is easy and the Dowd crowd is feeding the hamster about how wonderful things will be as soon as he is gone, she cannot be convinced.

Also note back when Divorce was for serious cause, it was mostly men who caused it by abuse, abandonment, or adultery. There was not the kind of ostracism for women because they were usually the victims. Sort of virtual widows.

That shade remains but is wrong. Women have the power to destroy and can't resist using it. We'll put the snake and tree out back and see if Eve won't bite this time. Charlie Brown's problem is giving Lucy the football in the first place.

TLM said...

It's annoying how the term "single mom" now includes divorced women. This wasnt always the case and we shouldnt allow them to get away with this. They hide their shame by gloming on to the single versus divorced adjective. BS.

VD said...

The state *must* be involved in marriage in order to prevent divorce, and to protect the rights of the spouse who is not at fault in the event that the other breaks the contract. In order to do this, the state has to actually recognize marriage as we understand it, which it does not.

Yes, poor choice of words. I revised it to state: why divorce laws must be eliminated. There was never a legal ban on divorce per se, rather, divorce was positively enshrined in state law.

taterearl said...

"Charlie Brown's problem is giving Lucy the football in the first place."

And doing the same thing expecting a different result.

August said...

What church would actually do this? St. Valentine was a priest who married Christians, disregarding Roman law. Who would do so now, even though the stakes are so much lower? I am afraid that all the authority figures in my life are too compromised. It really sucks because I have a strong (probably genetic) impulse to look up to my elders. But my elders don't know anything. They are all hippies, even if they aren't the drugs and flowers type- something crept into that generation's mind and screwed them all up, regardless of how they identify.

Anonymous said...

And I agree that eliminating divorce as we understand it is the answer. IOW, divorce in limited circumstances; and eliminating no fault divorce.

I think covenant marriage is helpful so as to eliminate state involvement in deciding the terms of the contract. But even this is problematic in the U.S., at least as things are going now. If the trend is toward "covenant marriages", i.e. church-sanctioned marriages (but not state sanctioned legal marriages) then the state will get itself involved somehow to resolve disputes that arise. The state will assert an interest in resolving those disputes on two grounds: (1) to protect the children; and (2) to permit orderly, nonviolent dispute resolution.

It's bound to happen that even covenant marriages or "longtime companion" arrangements would come to an end. Perhaps parties can agree ahead of time to how covenant marriages will be dissolved or ended. But, the state will inevitably become involved because the church has only moral force and, in the end, cannot compel anyone to do anything except through moral pressure and threat of ostracism from the church community.

The state has the power of legal and lethal force. The state can, through its courts, assert jurisdiction over you because you live within its political boundaries and avail yourself of its benefits. Once jurisdiction is established and the relationship's nature and child paternity is established, the court may do literally anything it wishes: property seizure, wage garnishment, emptying bank accounts, ordering financial obligations extending decades into the future, deciding custody "in the best interests of the children".

If covenant marriage becomes the norm, you'll see a revival of the old common law marriage doctrines which were abolished around the country in the mid 20th century. If the man and woman are holding themselves out to the public as married, and live like they're married, then they're "married" as the STATE defines it.

The state wins. Because it declares itself to be the "winner".

deti

Jimmy said...

Serial monogamy, while a nice terminology, is doing well without marriage in the picture. Since marriage is on the decline, people are having serial monogamy while unmarried. It gets even worse for women who divorce their husbands. Typically, that marriage was the only chance she had.

If you want to justify the Christian reasons for remarriage, I did much soul searching myself before deciding to remarry after my divorce. My first wife wanted a divorce to pursue a new relationship. There was no indication of adultery. Therefore, any remarriage was never justifiable since a future marriage constitutes adultery. She and I were both in a bind, but she divorced me anyways.

10 years later, she is still single. Remarriage never happened for her. She is still living in her childhood home with her parents.

I decided to remarry nonetheless. It took a long time, but I realized why stay single just to be moral. What value is being unproductive? I may be wrong scripturally, but I decided that since my ex-wife wanted a divorce to seek a new relationship, she committed adultery in spirit. She was unfaithful, which was evident in her behavior. Now, I'm married and have a new kid. So it is.

Would no divorce save my marriage? I don't know. My ex-wife did all she can to alienate me and herself to justify her actions. Unless I want to be the punching bag, the divorce was a wakeup call that I made the mistake in marrying her. Once you went so far on ending the relationship, the only alternative is divorce, or just living separately forever while still married (this is unacceptable for legal reasons).

On other scenarios, my current wife has shared with me stories of her friends. For one couple, upon the birth of their daughter, the wife went berserk. She couldn't handle the baby and the husband anymore. She decided to move back overseas to where her family lives. She NEVER bothered to get a divorce. He waited and waited to get back together. Ten years later, he finally resolved to divorce her.

taterearl said...

"I may be wrong scripturally, but I decided that since my ex-wife wanted a divorce to seek a new relationship, she committed adultery in spirit."

All sexual sins occur outside marriage. Adultery is having sex with somebody who isn't your spouse. There is nothing in the Bible that states it is a sin for a man to marry more than one woman.

Women however...have to wait until their husband dies to marry again. That's why despite getting cash and prizes from forced government confiscation in the long run divorce destroys women.

Daniel said...

Serial monogamy is just as accurately termed as if they described it as sequential orgy. Neither term is even close to correct.

Heck, even infinity is temporary if you just cut it off at 10 or whatever.

How about we stop making up words for things that already exist, and only make up words for things that have not been previously defined?

asdf said...

Serial Monogomy is worse then being a Slut.

Honesty:
A slut is pretty up front about what she wants.
A serial monogomist is not.

Damage:
A slut isn't going to divorce rape someone.
A serial monogomist is.

Sexual Market Effect:
Sluts reduce the price of pussy.
Serial monogomist put pussy on an undeserved pedestal.

In almost every way the serial monogomist is inferior to the slut.

tz said...

My first wife wanted a divorce to pursue a new relationship.

1. Was your promise "till death do us part" to your wife or to God himself?

2. If your wife asked instead that you commit suicide so it would resolve these religious complications (for her), would you have granted that wish as you did when she requested a divorce so aggreed to be a co-conspirator in the murder of the one flesh which God had put together? (Note if you are still one flesh with your ex, then you are in adultery, pick either grave sin).

The only case where I think divorce should happen is a scorched earth action by the husband at the first hint of divorce by the wife. This is defensive but necessary in this legal system. When she is tired of wanting to eat the swine's pods and runs back with true contrition, think about accepting her back.

An implicit threat of divorce should be treated as if she was holding a knife to your or your child's throat. Believeing she is 'just kidding' is likely to prove fatal in either case.

Testing you by wanting you to cook after an overtime day is to be shot down. Any divorce threats should be met with thermonukes.

tz said...

It works for rs-232 connectors. They too are made male and female

Athor Pel said...

I'm seeing a lot of injunctions against remarriage for various and sundry reasons.

Have you guys ever read your Bible, I mean what it actually says about divorce, not what your church says, what the book says?

I don't think you have.

I didn't post this to get into an argument over it. I posted this to motivate you lazy bums to do some studying and stop promulgating lies.

Rex Little said...

Neither abuse nor unhappiness are justifications for divorce.

Unhappiness isn't, sure, but abuse? If a woman (or a man, for that matter) is getting beaten up regularly, they're supposed to just stay there and take it?

And what if one spouse is sexually abusing the kids? (I know women allege that all the time for leverage in divorce cases, but sometimes it happens for real.) Isn't it incumbent upon the other spouse to get them away from the monster as quickly as a suitcase can be packed and thrown in the car?

Jimmy said...

@tz

"1. Was your promise "till death do us part" to your wife or to God himself?"

With respect, what difference does that make?

She wanted out. There was nothing that I can do, but continue with the divorce.

"2. If your wife asked instead that you commit suicide so it would resolve these religious complications (for her),"

Hmmm... This suggests that she wasn't the one committing her own suicide with her own culpability. The religious complications remain regardless. No argument there.

"The only case where I think divorce should happen is a scorched earth action by the husband at the first hint of divorce by the wife."

Thank you for showing how much of an idiot you are. As bad as it is with the divorce that she initiates, you can't possibly make it worse by showing how much she is justified in divorcing you by acting like a total jerk. Men are still blamed for the divorce even when women insist on it for trivial reason. Men need to protect themselves from further damage like restraining orders and child custody visitations. Please, act like an adult.

tz said...

There is separation without divorce. I forget the technical legal term.

Unfortunately the terms are used interchangably.

But divorce is a revocation or cancelling of the marriage - with the intent to make remarriage possible. A separation keeps the obligation (support or alimony).

tz said...

@Jimmy

You said she wanted a divorce. I am an idiot in that I didn't catch that she "divorced you anyway". I was also uncharitable so I ask for forgiveness for my uncharity.

Your wife can release you from your promise to her, however if you make an oath to God himself, you cannot break that oath and remain in a state of grace. That is the essence of both the question and the nature of marriage.



Dalrock said...

@Jimmy
If you want to justify the Christian reasons for remarriage, I did much soul searching myself before deciding to remarry after my divorce. My first wife wanted a divorce to pursue a new relationship. There was no indication of adultery. Therefore, any remarriage was never justifiable since a future marriage constitutes adultery. She and I were both in a bind, but she divorced me anyways.

10 years later, she is still single. Remarriage never happened for her. She is still living in her childhood home with her parents.

I decided to remarry nonetheless. It took a long time, but I realized why stay single just to be moral.


Are you saying she abstained from sex the entire time following her initiating divorce and prior to you remarrying? If not, wouldn't this be no less adultery than if she divorced you to marry another man?

Dalrock said...

Thanks for the kind linkage Vox.

Cail Corishev said...

If covenant marriage becomes the norm, you'll see a revival of the old common law marriage doctrines which were abolished around the country in the mid 20th century. If the man and woman are holding themselves out to the public as married, and live like they're married, then they're "married" as the STATE defines it.

Yes, some states still have common law marriage to some extent, and I think it's already seeing a comeback as it's becoming more common for people to shack up for 5-10 years before moving on. If alimony makes sense in marriage, it makes just as much sense in that situation.

As you say, the state is needed to resolve conflict, especially when there are children or joint property involved. The problem now isn't that the state is involved in divorce, but that the state decides the terms of the marriage and then decides the terms of the divorce after the fact. It would make far more sense if the terms of the marriage were determined up-front by the participants, as with any other contractual partnership. Pre-nups should actually have force, in other words.

If a couple filled out a contract that stated, in the case of divorce, who got any kids (boys to the father and girls to the mother, for instance), what pre-marriage property would be retained by each person, and what percentage of during-marriage property each one gets, with a couple of notes on any real estate, then the state's only involvement would be seeing that the contract is followed. It wouldn't have the moral task of deciding who will be the best parent or how much of the man's income his ex-wife "deserves." The state is pretty good at seeing that the letter of the law is followed; it's when it gets into the spirit of the law that we get a mess.

Jimmy said...

@Dalrock: "Are you saying she abstained from sex the entire time following her initiating divorce and prior to you remarrying? If not, wouldn't this be no less adultery than if she divorced you to marry another man?"

No. How can you come to that interpretation when I was saying there was no adultery during the marriage (she didn't admit to adultery, and I had no evidence that she committed adultery). I said she wanted to pursue a new relationship after the divorce, thus showing intent.

As for after the divorce and my remarrying, I do not have any knowledge of her sexual activities. Since she has not remarried, I assume not, but I cannot be certain. My argument was still about the intent to commit adultery rather than the actual sexual activity.

You can make your own mind about whether she committed adultery.

@tz:

"Your wife can release you from your promise to her, however if you make an oath to God himself, you cannot break that oath and remain in a state of grace."

Well, I understand the former and I have to ask for forgiveness on the later.

Stickwick said...

Adultery is having sex with somebody who isn't your spouse. There is nothing in the Bible that states it is a sin for a man to marry more than one woman.

It's rather misleading to state it that way. Matthew 19:9 and Luke 16:18 clearly state it's adultery to marry another woman after divorcing your wife. Whether that technically applies when the woman leaves the man against his will is debatable, I guess. Are there any passages in scripture that deal with such a circumstance?

whatever said...


Divorce was slow, constantly painful, and ugly when it was rare, so many would shrink back from going through it.


Them Greatest Bitches were super whores. They loved being whores, and just couldn't stop being whores. 1 in 6 marriages ended in divorce for the "Greatest Generation". This ignores the "my husband has a limp, so I'm nexting the useless animal" spike in 1945-1946. 1 in 5, or even 1 in 4 marriages by Greatest Whores ending in divorce is way closer.

Now, totally nuking your family, when you have kids, and the necessary financial devastation from such behavior, did keep it down a little. Till the "no-fault" divorce laws shifted most costs onto men.

But there was never a social stigma in America to being a lunatic whore. It was admired by the other whores.

I say whore, not slut, cause them bitches thought a lot about the value of their p*ssy, and did everything in their power to ratchet up the price.

Anonymous said...

@ Jimmy,

I think what Dalrock is alluding to is that neither spouse is allowed to deny the other sex, unless they both agree to it per the bible. so if she withheld sex from you without your agreement, then i believe his argument is that she was in sin for doing so, and thus, to deny the other spouse sex is not much different from committing adultery because that spouse is breaking the marriage vow.

does the bible call denying the other spouse sex adultery? no. but does it call it sin? yes, because it says not to do it.

well, at least that's what i thought he meant.

frenchy

Cail Corishev said...

My first wife wanted a divorce to pursue a new relationship. There was no indication of adultery. Therefore, any remarriage was never justifiable since a future marriage constitutes adultery.

No, sex while she's still married to you constitutes adultery. In the eyes of the church (at least the Catholic Church), civil divorce doesn't change the fact that you're still married as far as God's concerned. So unless this other relationship she had planned was a chaste one, she committed adultery against your marriage as soon as she went and slept with the guy, even if she waited until after the civil divorce.

So if you believe that adultery constitutes grounds for divorce, I can't see why this wouldn't qualify.

Jimmy said...

@Cail Corishev:

Since I don't know if she slept with anyone prior to my current marriage, I am not in the clear.

It seems like what my ex-wife is doing is causing me commit adultery by having the extra-marital sex with someone else while being a divorced man. Or my current wife to commit adultery to a divorced man. Reference: Matt 5:32.

I arrived at the conclusion that my divorce was caused by an unfaithful wife, but this adultery is not physical. It is intent based on Matt: 5:28 (But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.) I had to make the leap to justify remarriage. Otherwise, it would have been difficult to proceed.

I hope we exhausted this topic. Don't mean to hog up the thread.

redlegben said...

Jimmy, just go the polygamy route and you are fine. You can't be an elder of your church but you aren't in sin by taking a second wife. The state is not God. If you didn't want her to leave, then you are just acquiring another wife.

Johnycomelately said...

It's time for Christians to stop fooling themselves about controlling or influencing the state paradigm and to admit to themselves that they are a minority and seek religous freedom rights seperate of the state like the Jewish Beth Din or Islamic Sharia courts.

A corollary would be that it would create a hierarchy of commitment and marginalize civil unions in addition to allowing men to plan their lives knowing their betrothed wanted a civil union with a get out of jail free card.

"In the world but not of the world....And be not conformed to this world."

Daniel said...

It's rather misleading to state it that way. Matthew 19:9 and Luke 16:18 clearly state it's adultery to marry another woman after divorcing your wife. Whether that technically applies when the woman leaves the man against his will is debatable, I guess. Are there any passages in scripture that deal with such a circumstance?

I think people miss something in the two schools of divorce vs. Jesus debate of Matthew 19 if they don't notice that the children of divorce come to him at the end of it, to be blessed.

Divorce is sin. Man sins. God's grace is sufficient.

This what Jesus called a hard teaching and good news. Hard teaching is we can't undestroy. Good news is He restores. Forget one and you've lost them both.

Stop trying to perform theological gymnastics to justify your marital state, whatever it is. Once-married people sin all the time. Twice-married people sin all the time. Does this mean you should compound sin for sin? No.

Some people are eunuchs and can handle it. Some can't.

Does this mean you should get hung up on sins of the past you can't do anything about? Hell no.

It means, stop trying to run the big things through the rules of man, or modifying the rules of God to justify yourself, and just come to Him, do not be hindered, because the Kingdom of Heaven belongs to such as you.

realmatt said...

When you start looking for loopholes "We're just in love with one another and hold hands and cuddle. It isn't sex, so it's not adultery", etc..

You've already committed adultery in your heart.

I wonder what these so-called believers imagine what they'll say to whomever it is they meet on the other side and they're asked how they believe their actions will be judged in the eyes of the God they claim to believe in. If he smirked when seeing their juggling and loop-jumping.

tz said...

Matt 19:
7 “Why then,” they asked, “did Moses command that a man give his wife a certificate of divorce and send her away?”

8 Jesus replied, “Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery.”

10 The disciples said to him, “If this is the situation between a husband and wife, it is better not to marry.”

11 Jesus replied, “Not everyone can accept this word, but only those to whom it has been given. For some are eunuchs because they were born that way; others were made that way by men; and others have renounced marriagec because of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it.”


I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery.”

As it is frequently, that which is red is not read.

Yet I should point out that Jesus is the Divine Mercy (see St. Faustina and her diary, and Divine Mercy Sunday, a week after Easter as instituted by John Paul II).

Even if things are completely broken, things seem completely wrong, there is both hope and forgiveness. But neither can exist without first submission, repentance, and contrition.

grady said...

Jimmy:

I'm not a man of faith, but I have several buddies who are strong in their faith. A friend had gotten a divorce with the mental frame of "she is not acting in the way a Christian would act" and was able to convince himself that this was allowable in scripture. I wish I could quote the scripture, but I don't remember where he had said the readings were.

If the above is true, I cannot think that wanting to pursue a relationship outside of the marriage would allow herself to consider the action that of a Christian. I apologize for not being able to convey the actual verse, but as Athol Pel had indicated .. time for some reading.

If she was committed to ostracizing you and your marriage, I cannot imagine how you could continue. Can anyone please indicate how someone should move forward in such a situation? Counsel with your priest and Church may re-direct her, but what do you do if she wants no part of the marriage?

theman said...

The parallel verse in Mark can't be read as allowing remarriage. And you only get one wife, were not muslims. The entire patrimony of christianity says one man one woman.

redlegben said...

Where exactly do you see only one wife in the Bible?

theman said...

Christianity is all about the next life and the Lord being our satisfaction. He went through life with no sex and without the pleasure of a good wife. If he gives that cross to you too you should carry it like the Lord did or like the apostles or the chaste saints in history. Christianity isn't easy its meant to be the difficult narrow path. Anyway that's the Christian answer but talk is cheap I know very well myself

redlegben said...

So, your answer is you can't find one.

At the risk of derailing this conversation, VD feel free to stop me or delete this, polygamy reintroduced to our Christian churches is an excellent first step to fixing our feminist obsessed culture.

There are valid reasons such as retaking male leadership in the church and properly establishing the moral high ground for the husband that was frivorced. In order to shorten this post I will just link to a previous discussion about this issue I had on SD's blog. Polygamy isn't ideal, but it is better than what we have now.

http://sarahsdaughterblog.blogspot.com/2013/01/polygamy-christianity.html

theman said...

In its historical Christian context. Where do you see polygamy? Are you a Jew? I was also thinking of the verse that says a man will be united to his wife and the two will be one flesh. I don't like parsing scripture though. I'm sure you have an answer for that objection. I appeal to the patrimony of the Faith. You're in conflict with the entire history of christianity.

theman said...

Sorry I didn't reply right away I'm working and typing on a blackberry

theman said...

Are you a Mormon?

redlegben said...

So, the Bible doesn't matter to you? Polygamy is specifically addressed by the NT as not allowed for elders; that's it. It is not sin. Remarriage of a women without her husband dying is sin. Pretty straight forward.

redlegben said...

Not a mormon. A Christian that actually reads the Bible.

theman said...

Its strange that something so obvious has never ever been accepted among Christians. You've discovered something that went over the head of every great bible scholar in history. You must be a very great man. You could also read that verse as requiring an elder just to have at least one wife, there being no upper limit.

redlegben said...

Perhaps I am a great man, but apparently it has been addressed before by Christians (I'm shocked). It only takes a little digging to find it (Google and the Bible would be your friend here). Like reading the NT. Your limited view of what has been accepted does not define all of history, nor does the Catholic Church define all of Christianity. Shall we all call the leaders of the church "father" despite that very admonition in the Bible? After all the CC has always believed this. If you don't care about what the Bible actually says, that's fine. Just admit it.

theman said...

You should spend some time with mark 10 spefically the passage about divorce

redlegben said...

I'm the one mentioning scripture. Do you really think I haven't read it? It says nothing...I repeat, nothing...about polygamy. A woman demanding divorce from a man, who has no influence over the state's decision to legally divorce them, is not a man divorcing his wife according to scripture. The state is not God. I think I said that before. Try reading the discussion that I posted before you keep throwing up silly arguments.

redlegben said...

Our host's view:

http://www.wnd.com/2005/10/32878/

theman said...

These aren't links and I'm not typing them in with this piece of crap. I typed a response but it apparently disappeared. I'm unconcerned with Vox's perspective whatever it is. That mark 10 reference was referring to your mistaken idea that it is a sin for a woman to remarry but not a man, not to polygamy try to keep up. Why are you obsessed with your opinions of what the Biblesays? The Bible isn't in the Bible.

redlegben said...

Carry on ignorant theman. I'm done entertaining this particular troll. Someone else can have fun beating you up now.

theman said...

And right when we get to brass tacks you bail. It was because I didn't show due veneration to your alpha wasn't it. Sycophant.

Rabin Ban said...

LOL! That was really funny! YcDress and DressesForBest

Brad Andrews said...

God made Adam and Eve; not Adam, Eve and Susan.

That is the standard. Other things may be allowed, but that doesn't make them God's intent.

Can anyone note a situation of multiple wives covered in the Bible didn't have problems? I don't see how it would cover Jimmy's situation either way since he did get divorced and the Scripture noted above would seem to apply.


What is the Biblical command for those who have remarried? Should they get divorce again? (This is a honest question.)

the league of baldheaded men said...

It's good to see marriage and Christianity being reclaimed for the patriarchs, from the Ned Flanders Christians.

Daniel said...

God made Adam and Eve; not Adam, Eve and Susan.

That is the standard. Other things may be allowed, but that doesn't make them God's intent.


This is an excellent picture of God's intent and model for relationships, but don't you think he should have found righteous monogamists to build his nation, instead of relying on Abraham, Isaac and David? Don't you think, if polygamy was a sin, that it might have been banned by Jesus?

The Bible (and my own brain) are quite clear: celibacy is the ideal, monogamy is second, polygamy is third, divorce is sin as is remarriage.

This is why the disciples were all "screw it. Don't get married."

But Jesus is more clear: you people are sinners. Sinning is what you do. All this construction of divorce rules and is the more conservative one better than the liberal is stupid in light of my grace.

We are in bondage to divorce. We are in bondage to remarriage. Avoiding those particular sins doesn't make you washed clean. Engaging in those sins does not make you uniquely damned. Everybody is divorced from God. Everybody is remarried to false gods. No one is holy.

Does that mean go off and sin wittingly and unwittingly and not worry about it? Sure, go do that. While you are at it, go step in front of a bus just for fun. I'm sure their brakes work.

Does that mean judge people who are divorced or remarried? Or to waste your life coming up with justifications for your marital status? Or wallowing in guilt over stuff you can't and shouldn't change now? Fine - as long as you understand that your pennance isn't worth a hill of beans when you've already been washed clean with the rest of all mankind by the sacrifice of Christ. And it has an opportunity cost: when you could have been enjoying the kingdom of heaven in this life, sharing its joy with others, welcoming in the lost and occupying the world for God, you were caught up in a dingy basement of your own making, selfishly working out your own salvation.

But I think that's just dumb. The news is good, remember? The news is God's grace, our substitute rules (about which flavor of divorce is better) are pointless, and the gulf between Holy and the hell of our daily lives is bridged, and the hell is washed away.

It's like those people in the Great Divorce who didn't have to go back to hell, but did anyway, because heaven was too big for them.

Jimmy said...

@grady:

"If she was committed to ostracizing you and your marriage, I cannot imagine how you could continue. Can anyone please indicate how someone should move forward in such a situation? Counsel with your priest and Church may re-direct her, but what do you do if she wants no part of the marriage?"

With my experience, it is best to deal with the practical than the divine. You should move forward as quickly as possible. You don't drag your priest into the discussion if she refuses. Everyone who marries deserves better; however, this doesn't stop someone from acting like jerks. The one who wants out could feel especially aggrieved like my ex-wife, but she had to justify her actions by doubling down. Instead of being cordial, she had to play the part of the nasty bitch so I deserved to divorce her. Then she can respond in a most nasty way to justify my perfectly normal legal response.

In simple terms, get a legal divorce. Then cut off all contact. I refuse to communicate with her anymore as it is impossible and impractical.

As God is my witness, it happened.

Your question is most interesting as it tries to find reconciliation or healing. Perhaps in your dreams. Heal yourself. Don't worry about your ex-spouse.

Brad Andrews said...

Daniel, celibacy is only the ideal for some. It certainly was not for Adam. The NT context is only for those fully devoted to spreading the Word of God.

Daniel said...

Daniel, celibacy is only the ideal for some. It certainly was not for Adam. The NT context is only for those fully devoted to spreading the Word of God.

Right. We are talking about the Christian ideal. After all, Adam's marriage was the source of a world of sin. You hold it up as some sort of ironclad ideal without evidence. The only ideal that is expressly spoken is Jesus' advocacy of not marrying, and Paul's confirmation of that.

God does not create Adam and Eve from the beginning. He creates Adam, then changes his mind about leaving him alone to commune privately with God. He creates Eve from Adam. So, monogamy is clearly not the plan from the beginning, it is a later adaptation when God looks at the evidence and decides that it isn't good for man to be alone.

Now, could he have created two women that day, or three, thereby confirming polygamy? Sure. But 1 and 2 are much less different from each other than they are from zero. Who knows? Would a sinless Adam have been able and allowed to marry his descendant females?

No one knows, because sin came flying into the picture, not much after the institution of marriage was implemented.

Funny that.

Don't get me wrong. I'm a fan of good marriage. I enjoy it - even remarriage. I back monogamy for reasons both personal and scriptural. But this principle of monogamy somehow being demonstrated as the ideal for non-Christians in Genesis is tenuous. I know it is very popular, but I don't buy it.

tz said...

Divorce is sin. Man sins. God's grace is sufficient.

Only if we are both contrite and have a firm purpose of amendment. God will not be mocked. Or how many divorces are allowed?

Stop trying to perform theological gymnastics to justify your marital state, whatever it is. Once-married people sin all the time. Twice-married people sin all the time. Does this mean you should compound sin for sin? No.
...
Does this mean you should get hung up on sins of the past you can't do anything about? Hell no.

It means, stop trying to run the big things through the rules of man, or modifying the rules of God to justify yourself, and just come to Him, do not be hindered, because the Kingdom of Heaven belongs to such as you.


Come to him. Then as he said after forgiving sins on many occasions in the Gospel, "Go and sin no more" (lest something worse befall you).

For any sin in the past, be contrite, confess it as your church teaches, do penance and restitution THEN move on.

I already noted separation is not sin but it is used interchangeably with "divorce".

That does not address things in the different tense - in the greek it is "do and continually do". Things past are past, but sins which are ongoing including situations are still sins and you are prima facie not contrite, not asking forgiveness, not doing reparation, or even repentant if you continue.

As to polygamy, God forms "one flesh" from husband and wife. If there is what is called a "second wife", is she incorporated into the "one flesh"? Or are they two fleshes? If the husband dies, do both wives have to remarry the same man? What if he only wants one, can the other wife remarry? Genesis 2:24 is in the singular. That is what Jesus quotes. God tolerated Divorce (as Jesus noted because the people were evil), he tolerated polygamy.

Can you find even one church father who approved or even mentioned polygamy as acceptable? There is no example in the NT - in Acts or in the epistles. None in the second generation or just after (Ignatius, Irenius, Polycarp, etc.).

Just because there is no big flashing neon-sign verse in scripture doesn't mean the understanding is wrong.

tz said...

On the theological divide, Luther said HIMSELF that Marriage was not a sacrament but a civil union and divorce not a sin. Henry VIII's whole reason to create the Anglican church was because he could not get a SECOND annulment so needed a divorce. Leo 13's Arcanum points out the evils which were so glaringly obvious that divorce was made difficult. (And I've ranted against the bunch of Crooks - Bishops (it is one of the symbols of their office) who run the annulment factory).

But the other part of the nature of marriage is also important and the backslide was more recent. Luther, Wesley, Calvin, and all others before 1900 said Contraception was a grave evil. What changed? If the bible is so fuzzy on that, why not on divorce or homosexuality, or even more gross perversion?

In a different thread I've pointed out that the nature of marriage and the family is very different. Families with 4 or more children WILL HAVE DIFFERENT FATHERS. Being shit-tested by your wife is bad enough. By your one toddler is bad too. If you haven't alpha-ed up before, there will be a terrible and miraculous transformation if you have four children plus wife trying to do that at a bad moment. Something from grace but like out of the Incredible Hulk. Mr wimpy Beta will suddenly be seized, his eyes will change, and 15 minutes later, the (now admiring) spouse and the (now cowering in fear) kids will not want a repeat, and for the man there will be that alpha glare that will remain. Or he will remain beta be a total failure as a father.

(Shrek Forever After gets this backwards, but that is Hollywood that gave us Craven and Firebombed).

You can be a gamma/beta (the terms vary between here and the other sites) if you have one or two kids, or three sufficiently spaced. "Cheaper by the Dozen" (1950) doesn't work with the father as Beta. (Note the wife is smart and strong too!). There is a scene from the movie (I can't find!) when a woman from planned parenthood comes in and the father whistles and uses a stopwatch to time how long it takes the 12 children to assemble.

I would also add the military - WW2, Korea, etc. with basic training tended to add a non-beta mode to most males. Men were men and women were much happier. I wonder if hippie males caused feminism.

By themselves, either Divorce or Contraception will corrode society. Together they are sure to destroy it. But it took feminism to introduce both synergistic poisons.

SarahsDaughter said...

Martin Luther:
"I confess that I cannot forbid a person to marry several wives, for it does not contradict the Scripture. If a man wishes to marry more than one wife he should be asked whether he is satisfied in his conscience that he may do so in accordance with the word of God. In such a case the civil authority has nothing to do in the matter." (De Wette II, 459, ibid., pp. 329-330.)

Saint Augustine:
That the holy fathers of olden times after Abraham, and before him, to whom God gave His testimony that "they pleased Him," [Heb. 11:4-6] thus used their wives, no one who is a Christian ought to doubt, since it was permitted to certain individuals amongst them to have a plurality of wives, where the reason was for the multiplication of their offspring, not the desire of varying gratification.. . . In the advance, however, of the human race, it came to pass that to certain good men were united a plurality of good wives, --- many to each; and from this it would seem that moderation sought rather unity on one side for dignity, while nature permitted plurality on the other side for fecundity. For on natural principles it is more feasible for one to have dominion over many, than for many to have dominion over one (A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of The Christian Church, Volume 5, page 267).

tz said...

@Sarahsdaughter, and @redlegben:

Assuming fertility - fruitfulness - is a goal, and that Marriage is NOT a sacrament the reasons to not accept polygamy are sufficiently weak as not to be binding if not completely invalid.

Luther did not consider Marriage a sacrament so approved of Divorce too. A civil institution can be whatever the civil authorities designate.

Augustine was talking about the Patriarchs and they - as well as the Kings of Israel practiced polygamy. Worse, David committed Adultery and added Bathsheba to his many wives after he arranged for her husband to be killed.

(Personally I have no desire to outlaw polygamy - civilly, but then again, I don't think Caesar - or Nero, Otho, Diocletian, or even Marcus Aurelius have the authority over Marriage).

Anonymous said...

Ӏ'm not sure exactly why but this website is loading extremely slow for me. Is anyone else having this problem or is it a problem on my end? I'll checκ baсk lateг and see if the prοblеm still eхіѕtѕ.


My homepage - Megasuert.com

Anonymous said...

Aw, this was a really nice post. Taking the time and actual effort to generate a very good article… but what can I say… I put things off a lot and never seem to
get nearly anything done.

Check out my webpage - exercises to improve vertical

Gilda Perez said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Gilda Perez said...

My name is Gilda Perez, am from UK. i want to use this opportunity to thank my great doctor who really made my life a pleasurable one today. This great man DR.EDOSA brought my husband back to me, i had three lovely kids for my husband, about four years ago i and my husband has been into one quarrel or the other until he finally left me for one lady. i felt my life was over and my kids thought they would never see their father again. i tried to be strong just for the kids but i could not control the pains that torments my heart, my heart was filled with sorrows and pains because i was really in love with my husband. Every day and night i think of him and always wish he would come back to me, until one day i met a good friend of mine that was also in a situation like me but her problem was her ex-boyfriend who she had an unwanted pregnancy for and he refused to take responsibility and dumped her. she told me that mine was a small case and that i should not worry about it at all, so i asked her what was the solution to my problems and she gave me this great man email address. i was doubting if this man was the solution, so i contacted this great man and he told me what to do and i deed them all, he told me to wait for just two day and that my husband will come crawling on his kneels just for forgiveness so i faithfully deed what this great man asked me to do and for sure after two days i heard a knock on the door, in a great surprise i saw him on his kneels and i was speechless, when he saw me, all he did was crying and asking me for forgiveness, from that day, all the pains and sorrows in my heart flew away,since then i and my husband and our lovely kids are happy.that's why i want to say a big thank you to DR.EDOSA. This great man made me to understand that there is no problem on earth that has no solution so please if you know that you have this same problem or any problem that is similar, i will advise you to come straight to this great man. you can email him at: (edosaspelltemple@gmail.com)...

nancy Alfred said...

HELLO to my friends out there i am testifying about the good work of a man who help me it has been hell from the day my husband left me i am a woman with two kids my problem stated when the father of my kids travel i never help he was living but as at two weeks i did not set my eye on my husband i try calling but he was not taken my call some week he call me telling me that he has found love some where easy at first i never take to be serous but day after he came to the house to pick his things that was the time i notice that things is going bad i help he will come back but things was going bad day by day i needed to talk to someone about it so i went to his friend but there was no help so i give it up on him month later i met on the the internet a spell caster i never believe on this but i needed my men back so i gave the spell caster my problem at first i never trusted him so i was just doing it for doing sake but after three day my husband called me telling me that he his coming home i still do not believe but as at the six day the father to my kids came to the house asking me to for give him the spell work to said to my self from that day i was happy with my family thanks to the esango priest of (abamieghe)esango priest he his a great man you need to try him you can as well to tell him your problem so that he can be of help to you his content email is this esangopriest@gmail.com indeed you are a priest thank you for making my home a happy home again. remember his email is esangopriest@gmail.com

Pussy-ManiaGirls: http://goo.gl/w9Oepq said...

watching my collection, we have upload more video at here:

Collection Part 1:

Doggy Style and In Missionary Position

Hot Sex Anal With Amazing Girl Friend

Sex Under Hot Lights Bad Girls

Give Me The Cum

Cum In My Panties

Nude Amateur Teen Girls

Sexy Brunette Girls

Young Kinky Sluts

Busty Tattoo Chick On Car

Young Asian fucked anal

Latina Havana Ginger gets

Teen Threesome Porn

Hot Blowjob

Amateur Pulls Down Tanga

Sweet girl amazing hot

Sexy japanese babes getting their tight

TEEN BLONDE ANAL SEX ORGY




Collection Part 2:


Hot asian blowjob and pussy creampie

Sucking dick, Audrey put vegetables in all holes

Blonde love fuck

Naomi Russell And Her Royal Ass

Sexy blonde gives blowjob in the car

ASIAN XXX PORN VIDEO

JAPANESE XXX PORN VIDEO

ARABIC XXX PORN VIDEO

HARDCORE PORN VIDEO

GAY XXX PORN VIDEO

WATCH STREAMING PORN VIDEO

USA CELEBS XXX PORN

LATINA XXX PORN

LESBIAN XXX PORN

Hardcore Porn Celebrity

HOT TURKEY PORN MOVIE

INDIAN NUDES CELEBRITIES VIDEOS

UZBEKS Fuck PORN VIDEOS

HOT RASTA GIRL


100% MAKE you satisfy......








































Reply Delete

Post a Comment

NO ANONYMOUS COMMENTS.