Conversation
Notices
-
Embed this notice
If you support polygamy you are a nigger. No 'but it's based bro', you are spiritually African and you should go to Somalia to be with your fellow 'based' polygamists.
-
Embed this notice
@kf01 @CharlesSynyard @Omega_Variant @matty @synapsid @Escoffier @Frondeur @MeBigbrain @reloadedAK Just remember heterodoxy is just that. For example— sola scriptura is not a requirement for salvation. It is a heuristic that many churches use for their foundational beliefs, and, when genuinely and wholly adhered to, forms a solid foundation. It's hard to screw up when you're using The Bible as your instruction manual. But yet, it happens, or there's schisms because one group chooses to interpret the verse differently and it compounds with other things. There are real Christians in almost every church, and there are people who simply go through the motions in almost every church.
-
Embed this notice
@Escoffier @CharlesSynyard @Omega_Variant @matty @synapsid @Frondeur @MeBigbrain @reloadedAK Personally where I'd draw the line is if the religious discussion your introducing to me violates the Sanctity of the Gospel (Faith Alone, For the Whole World) and the nature of God (Godhead/Trinity, Divinity of Jesus Christ, Personhood of the Holy Ghost). I don't personally don't entertain discussions with people who are staunchly standing in that.
That being said Lord knows I'm not completely perfect, being raised Baptist I do have a strong anti Catholic bias that makes me speak rather strongly on trivial tiffs.
-
Embed this notice
@matty @CharlesSynyard @kf01 @Omega_Variant @synapsid @Frondeur @MeBigbrain @reloadedAK Matty I'm doing a pretty deep dive through Roman's atm and as to the question of whos right?
Romans 14 v5.
5 One person esteems one day above another; another esteems every day alike. Let each be fully convinced in his own mind. 6 He who observes the day, observes it to the Lord; [a]and he who does not observe the day, to the Lord he does not observe it. He who eats, eats to the Lord, for he gives God thanks; and he who does not eat, to the Lord he does not eat, and gives God thanks. 7 For none of us lives to himself, and no one dies to himself. 8 For if we live, we live to the Lord; and if we die, we die to the Lord. Therefore, whether we live or die, we are the Lord’s. 9 For to this end Christ died [b]and rose and lived again, that He might be Lord of both the dead and the living. 10 But why do you judge your brother? Or why do you show contempt for your brother? For we shall all stand before the judgment seat of [c]Christ. 11 For it is written
I think apart from those things that are salvific on some issues they may all be right?
-
Embed this notice
Furthermore, how do you know what is "doctrinally sound" other than sitting alone under the tree with your Bible? Are the Pentecostals right? Baptists? Presbyterians? 7th Day Adventists? Mormons? Jehova's Witnesses? It comes down to discernment, but if you do not have the Holy Spirit to guide you, you won't know. I agree communing with fellow church members is important, but the church is the body, not a building. Just as I can have a conversation with Billy Bob in my community, so I can have a conversation with you here. I do not believe the medium in which you use to have that conversation matters as much as the points being discussed. I would even say that those who are adamant about "going to church" are being a little performative because they heard it somewhere else and it sounds nice to say. It's not a requirement.
-
Embed this notice
@matty @CharlesSynyard @Omega_Variant @synapsid @Frondeur @MeBigbrain @reloadedAK I don't disagree, but on the other hand the Bible does call us to interact with a local body of believers (not just online anons). I do hope you find a local church that isn't tainted by filth, but remember, the people in church are human.
Honestly I think a lot of it comes down to (again not singling you out) that the lot of /ourguys/™® make a church not have the most hyperreactionary thing not be part of their doctrine or discussed. it's utterly foolish to abandon a church just because the pastor isn't preaching the greatness of Natsoc or Gas the Kikes Race War now yet otherwise doctrinally sound.
-
Embed this notice
A preacher in Tennessee that I saw on YouTube, by the name of Charles Lawson is the one who led me to Christ in full. The hellfire and brimstone stuff is what gets me moving. He's also a dispensationalist, which I am not sure I entirely believe anymore. Regardless, he is a normal Republican type, yet I would still listen to his sermons. I don't care about every facet of every bit of media I consume to be National Socialist in nature. It is just a political ideology and I see it that way, not as a religion that others may see it as. I think you've got the wrong idea of me.
What you may consider me being flippant or uncaring is simply me not having enough information to make a decision one way or another. I have been wrong before - I try not to speak in absolutes because of this reason. One day one thing can *feel* right, and the next day, not. I don't want to be the guy that has to answer to God for leading someone down the wrong path with my words - I'd rather lead by example in that regard, and leave the decision up to those who wish to follow suit. I just prefer to listen, rather than speak, when I don't know the answer to a discussion. That's all.
-
Embed this notice
No offense taken. I don't hold a belief one way or another. It's not meant to be dismissive, it's just something I don't know enough about to say one way or another. But perhaps the Holy Spirit is why I don't expressly deny it, nor endorse it. Indeed I would be hesitant of consulting elders in the faith - you see what the "church" has brought us. Discernment is key.
-
Embed this notice
@matty @Omega_Variant @CharlesSynyard @kf01 @synapsid @Frondeur @MeBigbrain Matty you know what would be a great place to double check?
The Bible
-
Embed this notice
@reloadedAK @CharlesSynyard @Omega_Variant @matty @synapsid @Frondeur @MeBigbrain
I Agree, Matty with all due respect I think in spiritual matters leaving off with a shoulder shrug "whether it's right or wrong I don't know" mentality really isn't edifying to the spiritual person. Im not singling you out as I have seen similar sentiment on here alongside the whole "me and my Bible under a tree" thinking.
Look into God's word and ask those in your church community who are mature in the faith, but ultimately always pray to the Holy Ghost to illuminate you as you read the Word.
-
Embed this notice
I agree with you, that's why I added the stipulation that most men who think they could pull it off likely wouldn't be able to. But I'd rather see a man who is strong in the faith, and in principle, and in his beliefs with ten wives than a thousand weak, feeble losers with no direction. Those are my personal beliefs though. Whether they're right or wrong, I don't know.
-
Embed this notice
If having more than one wife would solve the aforementioned issues and all the strong willed "alpha/sigma" men could/would take them under their wings and lead them with all love and sincerity in Christ. I would have precisely zero issue with that.
Christians as a whole really need to critically examine what they believe because we frankly kick against some of the stuff our ancestors did and knew to be true and right all because pastor so and so down the road said it was bad/good.
And look at where it's got us.
The curses of in Deuteronomy are real and they are upon us almost word for word right this moment. Why?
-
Embed this notice
It is lust, indeed. I am not sure how one would quantify "needed" at this point though. You see what's happening in the world - women are working their lives away at dead end jobs making spreadsheets and PowerPoints for Mr. Shekelberg. What quantifies need? Is it time of war? One could argue we are already at "war", albeit not necessarily a kinetic one (yet).
Lust comes with responsibility. To have casual sex for the sake of wanting to bang the pretty lady is foolish. Men and women are very different. If you're going to cross that bridge, you need to make sure you have the resources to commit to them, otherwise you're just adding grease to the gears in the kike machine that grinds up any possibility of restoring our people.
-
Embed this notice
Most of it boils down to lust. They see pretty they want pretty, like King David.
Ultimately it's not needed ATM but may one day be needed.
Culture was different back then as well. If a woman was not married she was considered destitute (same today tbh), went into whoredom (look what's going on today), or sold into slavery (also look what's going on today).
A marriage to a man prevents this. He's a leader, they are not. He is leading his flock.
-
Embed this notice
I'm of more or less the same belief. Women are a lot to handle, but I honestly don't really feel one way or another about polygamy. It's not outright forbidden in the Word but I'd wager that most men who think they'd be able to swing it, can't. If you're going to have multiple wives you better be damn sure you can provide for them, and love them. I think many men think they can handle it because they watch their harem isekais or other media and think it's always sunshine and rainbows. It wouldn't be, that's not real life. But if you can handle it and be a good provider, I honestly do not care/don't see a problem.
-
Embed this notice
I mean no one has to take my word for it but search the OT and NT. I can't think of a single example where God said "thou shalt not have more than one wife". He literally gave provisions for it.
Having a bunch of wives tends to lead one astray which is why it is a bad idea to horde a ton to yourself but I mean 🤷 it's not "wrong" if they are a wife and you provide.
Paul was wise when he said leaders of churches should be the husband of one wife. Make him more stable and not as prone to being lead astray by beguiling wives.
-
Embed this notice
This is an interesting thread.
-
Embed this notice
For the woman to be care for by a singular husband rather than whoring around as they do now.
My point was having multiple wives is permissable however not ideal nor is it really "needed" nowadays.
-
Embed this notice
@MeBigbrain @kf01 @Omega_Variant @CharlesSynyard @synapsid I just don't get it...we (most of us) live in a country where a huge percentage of women are sleeping with the same small percentage of men and being cared for by their boss...how is polygamy relevant...
-
Embed this notice
@kf01 @Omega_Variant @CharlesSynyard @synapsid I'm not as concerned with the letter of the law as much as I am the spirit of the law. Does Christ and the New Testament specifically ban polygamy? No. But He also doesn't say that a camel can't pass through the eye of needle or that a wealthy man can't enter the Kingdom of Heaven. Intentions and character matter to God, Who knows you in your heart. If your deepest motivation is "Muh dick, superior man need more wife," then you're a nigger, end of story. There's no reason to ever encourage polygamy, it's playing with fire even if it can be done without sin (unlikely).
-
Embed this notice
@Omega_Variant @CharlesSynyard @synapsid @MeBigbrain
>The same logic You are using for that verse than having money is bad as well
Well lookee what we have here:
"10 For the love of money is the root of all evil: which while some coveted after, they have erred from the faith, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows."
It's almost as if God has warnings and rules against excess... As if we are to wisely judge how much quantity of something we need before we indulge in it?
And God has dictated what is a sin/error based on secondary consequences with other items before.
"Do not intermarry with them. Do not give your daughters to their sons or take their daughters for your sons, 4 for they will turn your children away from following me to serve other gods, and the Lord’s anger will burn against you and will quickly destroy you."
>You gotta figure out what it means when it's says...
Just like with Divorce, God provides guidance for even the bad alternative. God gave Moses the guidance for divorce (put away your wife and DO NOT remarry), and Jesus puts more guidance to divorce in the above scripture I put.
Compare the following:
"If you are going to divorce, which I don't want you to because that was not my plan for marriage, here's how you do it..."
"If you are going to take another wife, which I don't want you to, here's how to do it..."
-
Embed this notice
>that his heart turns not away
The idea there is to not multiply wives to a degree that it turns you away as it did Solomon, the dude has like 700 and it specifically mentioned they turned him away. He put more attention and care into them than God. If we were to apply the same logic you are using for that verse then having money is bad as well.
Is polygyny is prohibited then you gotta figure out what it means when it says
Exodus 21:10 KJV
If he take him another wife ; her food, her raiment, and her duty of marriage, shall he not diminish.
-
Embed this notice
@Omega_Variant @CharlesSynyard @synapsid @MeBigbrain
The ideal has always been One Man One Woman since the creation:
"A man shall leave his father and mother and cleave to his Wife (singular)..."
Gen 2:24
To say the Bible doesn't condemn polygyny is just plain wrong, we see in Deuteronomy 17:17:
"17 Neither shall he multiply wives to himself, that his heart turn not away: neither shall he greatly multiply to himself silver and gold."
Despite this being a warning from God himself to kings/rulers, we see the disastrous effects of Polygyny in the common man (Elkanah) not just in kings (Solomon being the prime example). We know that disobedience to God is a sin and of itself
Now the question is, did God have more tolerance over it? Sure? His reasons for it may have been as you stated, since in them real olden days women really had no shot to get by on their own. God has shown such "tolerance" before with, not surprisingly, another topic related to marriage: Divorce
We see the following in Matthew 19:
"6Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder. 7They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away? 8He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so."
Not only do we see Jesus Christ's affirmation that marriage was always supposed to be 1 Man 1 Woman, but deviations were either tolerated (despite being in error and sinful for divorce and polygyny), or downright forbidden and worth of Death (homos, fornication, adultery)
-
Embed this notice
Prolly catch heat for this but w/e
Bible doesn't condemn polygyny but does condemn polyandry. OT specifically gives guidelines for polygyny.
Quite a few people in the OT had multiple wives and not a peep was said of it.
What do I make of this? Multiple wives is permissable as long as the man provides for them and does not diminish his duty to any one of them. Perhaps the idea it was better for a man to take on multiple women rather than the women being destitute, turn to whoredom or be subject to slavery.
That said I think the family unit is ideally a single man and woman and God's "preferred" amount as church leadership are to be "the husband of one wife". However if one can meet the OT requirements for multiple wives it is not a sin.
-
Embed this notice
@MeBigbrain @synapsid No, if you can become one flesh with a prostitute too, then a husband can easily be one flesh with several wives in turn. Jesus would have said clearly that polygamy was no longer okay if that was what He meant.
-
Embed this notice
@synapsid Jesus Christ described marriage as two made one flesh, and that's good enough for me.
-
Embed this notice
@BowsacNoodle @kf01 @CharlesSynyard @Omega_Variant @matty @synapsid @Frondeur @MeBigbrain @reloadedAK Agreed and agreed. Something I've noticed every time I read through Roman's is by just how much Paul hammers on unity even in the face of disagreement?
-
Embed this notice
Agreed. The root of the behavior of purity testing / ego-surfing is that people misunderstand the parameter of "the Body of Christ."
They infer the term means something along the line of:
>all churches
or more narrowly
>my denomination
or maybe half-way between those two extremes, as
>my denomination and those adjacent that share at least xyz belief(s)
But the Body of Christ is not a church, and it does not rest on *any belief.* (Compare that to the "calling out", the ek-kaleo, the "ecclessia", the church, which *does* rest on belief --namely, that the belief that he is the Christ (Matthew 16).)
The Body of Christ contains even non-believers. (Consider when Paul speaks of marriage between believers and non-believers in 1 Corinthians 7.)
We are to contend with one another (not making enemies of one another) to understand him as best as we can. We may even disagree and peacefully part ways till one is proved.
That has nothing to do with being of the Body of Christ.
We--non-believers, believers, faithful, unfaithful--all descendants of Adam, the wheat, planted by the Father--are joined to Christ (the head of the Body) by the Spirit (he is the head of the Body). You belong to that.
It is a statis, not a dynamic.
We are his by the Spirit--not by any church. The Spirit is not a belief. Ha claims us. We are sons.
We can reject that, but that doesn't make one not of Christ nor not of the Body. (However, it would make one not with the "calling out", the church. And that's all. It would naturally have effect on how one treats others--including how one treats the Body--and therefore affect our own judgment. The sheep will be judged by how they treated the least of the sheep.)
People forget that. And then they mistreat members of the Body.
synapsid
BowserNoodle ☦️
KushanaFan01
Escoffier Gab refugee
Matty
reloadedAK :ak:
Omega Variant
Frondeur
Coon Appreciater
Charles Synyard
Ash Kvetchum
All GNU social JP content and data are available under the