Dear Dr. Sophronia,
You wrote, "Quite a leap" Re: "...it was better a man marry more than one wife than to be aflame with passion for a woman
he wasn't married to. " From your viewpoint, living in the West in the 21st century, it may seem like a leap, however as a sociologist you should
be able to imagine yourself living in a completely different culture: 1st century Judaism.
Remember polygamy had been the norm in Judaism for
thousands of years from its beginning. You would have been taught to respect the polygamous patriarchs of Israel, King
Solomon with his 700 wives, etc. Quite possibly your father was polygamous and you were raised by your mother and her
sister-wives. In Paul's
day, it would have been assumed polygamy was preferable to fornication. Polygamy would have been seen as the biblical
path. This would not be a leap, but a norm. You can still see that among some Mormons and Muslims today.
You wrote, "IF IT WERE SO CLEAR, then the Judeo-Christian tradition would not have been monogamous in their rituals
and admonitions for the past 2000 years, since the birth of Christ." Easily refuted: Monogamy was an ancient Roman
pagan idea. Christmas trees were an ancient Celtic Yule pagan tradition. Christians still put up Christmas trees, and
practice monogomy, but neither is a Judeo-Christian tradition. People follow traditions without understanding why,
simply because they are traditions. Among Mormons, Branch Davidians, etc. you see Christians following the polygamous
Judeo-Christian tradition.
Read 1 Timothy 4:1-4 again. It is absolutely clear Paul regards enforced celibacy as a "doctrine of devils."
Never-the-less the Catholic Church has required celibacy of priests "for the past 2000 years." Surely you've realized
no church actually follows the Bible? The lack of bloodstains on most Judeo-Christian alters today proves that almost all
ignore the eleventh commandment, requiring animal sacrifice (Exodus 20:24). Indeed it would be impossible for any
church to literally follow the Bible, because the Bible contains so many contradictions.
You wrote, "Please elaborate your observations regarding the underlined phrase: you yourself haven't accepted Jesus as your 'Lord,'" You have said you regard Jesus as a
"mortal," not a "deity." The word "Lord," in this biblical context means "deity." Because you do not regard Jesus as your
"deity," you do not regard Him as your "Lord," rather you regard Jehovah as your "Lord," denying the trinity. You ignore this just as all Christians ignore the parts of the Bible they're uncomfortable with. If you
really want to avoid being "unequally yoked," it appears you'd have to stick to Unitarians. Fortunately Unitarian
theology is liberal enough they'd probably agree to a polyandrous church wedding.
You wrote, "I have yet to find ONE man with whom I would share a roof!" This simply means attempting to live together
with any of your husbands is a bad idea. Each spouse having their own home seems ideal. Seeing your husbands only when
you want to is one secret for finding happiness with them. Given your training as a sociologist, I believe you could
make polyandry work for you, if you give it a chance to overcome your fear of marriage, and take advantage of the
"safety in numbers" it affords you.
Polyandrously yours,
Flash
|
