The biggest obstacles in Brazil (South America). Problems rooted in society.

[Euripi Dias]

I believe that in North America it's easier to live a polygamous life than in South America. I know you also face difficulties. But in South America it's even worse. Here there is a lot of moral and sexual degradation and a strong Roman influence on people's religion, which further aggravates the situation. The hardest thing to find in South America (Brazil) is wives. There are many women, but they are not good candidates; there is a lot of legalized prostitution in society and even in religions, and even when there are suitable candidates for marriage, the Roman pressure is very strong in their minds, which prevents the idea of the polygamous biblical family.

 

[frederick]

I believe that in North America it's easier to live a polygamous life than in South America. I know you also face difficulties. But in South America it's even worse. Here there is a lot of moral and sexual degradation and a strong Roman influence on people's religion, which further aggravates the situation. The hardest thing to find in South America (Brazil) is wives. There are many women, but they are not good candidates; there is a lot of legalized prostitution in society and even in religions, and even when there are suitable candidates for marriage, the Roman pressure is very strong in their minds, which prevents the idea of the polygamous biblical family.

Interesting observation. I would say it's pretty much the same here in the Philippines. Finding women for pleasure is not difficult, but they aren't the ones suitable to add as wives, and those who might be suitable won't take that step because of societal pressures.

 

[bigonlife1981]

Interesting observation. I would say it's pretty much the same here in the Philippines. Finding women for pleasure is not difficult, but they aren't the ones suitable to add as wives, and those who might be suitable won't take that step because of societal pressures.

Thats interesting about the Philippines, I assumed it may of been easier as I had heard polygyny was practised in parts of the Philippines?

 

[frederick]

Thats interesting about the Philippines, I assumed it may of been easier as I had heard polygyny was practised in parts of the Philippines?

Yes it is. Polygyny is legal and accepted amongst Muslims, mostly not even being questioned. Funny thing is, some people think I must be Muslim but when I tell them I'm a Christian, suddenly being polygynous is wrong.

 

[bigonlife1981]

Yes it is. Polygyny is legal and accepted amongst Muslims, mostly not even being questioned. Funny thing is, some people think I must be Muslim but when I tell them I'm a Christian, suddenly being polygynous is wrong.

That is what its like in Australia. We have strong laws against legal plural marriages but we open gates for Muslims to enter and now they have to adjust or fall back on family law to settle disputes in an existing plural marriage which they are ok with? But be a Christian wanting a plural marriage then watch out...

 

[frederick]

That is what its like in Australia. We have strong laws against legal plural marriages but we open gates for Muslims to enter and now they have to adjust or fall back on family law to settle disputes in an existing plural marriage which they are ok with? But be a Christian wanting a plural marriage then watch out...

Yeah, or be a promiscuous liberal lefty with a harem and all is good. But take responsibility for an additional wife and whooaaa...!!

 

[frederick]

I believe that in North America it's easier to live a polygamous life than in South America. I know you also face difficulties. But in South America it's even worse. Here there is a lot of moral and sexual degradation and a strong Roman influence on people's religion, which further aggravates the situation. The hardest thing to find in South America (Brazil) is wives. There are many women, but they are not good candidates; there is a lot of legalized prostitution in society and even in religions, and even when there are suitable candidates for marriage, the Roman pressure is very strong in their minds, which prevents the idea of the polygamous biblical family.

@Euripi Dias, I've been thinking more about your comments and pondering a few questions. What makes polygyny easier in North America? When you say, "there is a lot of moral and sexual degradation," from your perspective what is worse than anywhere else in the world?

I've seen recently from a couple of different sources references to women in the Philippines being the biggest consumers of porn on Pornhub. The Philippines has a reputation for sex tourism and particularly for those wanting gay and under-age activity. Religion permeates the culture in the Philippines but doesn't seem to make much of a positive change in daily moral practice. How do you see South America as being any worse? Cheers

 

[Tally]

Yes it is. Polygyny is legal and accepted amongst Muslims, mostly not even being questioned. Funny thing is, some people think I must be Muslim but when I tell them I'm a Christian, suddenly being polygynous is wrong.

Yes it is. Polygyny is legal and accepted amongst Muslims, mostly not even being questioned. Funny thing is, some people think I must be Muslim but when I tell them I'm a Christian, suddenly being polygynous is wrong.

I believe it's because most Christian believe and made other people to believe that as a Christian it's a sin for men to have more than one wife, when most Muslims believe and makes other people believe that as a Muslim it is right to have multiple wives.

 

[MemeFan]

I think South America is better than North provide you keep social status of "official wife" and keep calling rest mistresses.

Only in Western civilization:

 

[MemeFan]

I've seen recently from a couple of different sources references to women in the Philippines being the biggest consumers of porn on Pornhub. The Philippines has a reputation for sex tourism and particularly for those wanting gay and under-age activity. Religion permeates the culture in the Philippines but doesn't seem to make much of a positive change in daily moral practice. How do you see South America as being any worse? Cheers

Well, thanks to Internet degeneracy can spread everywhere now.

 

[Bartato]

Roman Catholicism has some seriously anti marriage beliefs and practices. I refer not only to polygynous marriage, but also marriage in general.

Rome prohibits various individuals from marrying when the Bible does not. In doing this she sins greatly by adding to God's Law.

Rome also views celibacy as superior to marriage.

I am not surprised that Rome treats polygyny as an abomination, but also perhaps seems to treat fornication and whoredom less seriously than she should.

Martin Madan discussed many of these issues in volume 3 of his excellent work Thelyphthora.

Roman Catholicism is the primary religion in both South America and the Philippines.

God, and His Bible have authority over the Church. Church leaders and institutions have no authority over the Bible.

Yes...I am Protestant, and an American

 

[Otto]

Roman Catholicism has some seriously anti marriage beliefs and practices. I refer not only to polygynous marriage, but also marriage in general.

Rome prohibits various individuals from marrying when the Bible does not. In doing this she sins greatly by adding to God's Law.

Rome also views celibacy as superior to marriage.

I am not surprised that Rome treats polygyny as an abomination, but also perhaps seems to treat fornication and whoredom less seriously than she should.

Martin Madan discussed many of these issues in volume 3 of his excellent work Thelyphthora.

Roman Catholicism is the primary religion in both South America and the Philippines.

God, and His Bible have authority over the Church. Church leaders and institutions have no authority over the Bible.

Yes...I am Protestant, and an American

If people took him at his word in Luke 16:17 and Matthew 5:18, then things would be a whole lot different. Rome uses Peter. Protestants use Paul. But who is clinging to the Rock?

 

[Bartato]

If people took him at his word in Luke 16:17 and Matthew 5:18, then things would be a whole lot different. Rome uses Peter. Protestants use Paul. But who clinging to the Rock?

How precisely does Rome use Peter to undermine the rest of the Bible, or patriarchy and polygyny in particular?

Yes, they misinterpret something Christ once said to Peter, to try to give undue authority to their organization and leaders. I understand that.

Is there some particular teaching of Peter that is used when undermining the Biblical understanding of marriage? Is it something Peter said in the book of Acts, or something he wrote in his Epistles?

I understand that Protestants sometimes use some of Paul's teachings when opposing patriarchy and polygyny. They are however mistaken when they do so. There is much in the teachings of Paul that very clearly affirm and re-state the same doctrine of marriage found in the Old Testament.

Sometimes Protestants sadly fail to live up to their own doctrine of Sola Scriptura. Unlike Rome, at least they profess that God's written Word is authoritative.

 

[Otto]

How precisely does Rome use Peter to undermine the rest of the Bible, or patriarchy and polygyny in particular?

Yes, they misinterpret something Christ once said to Peter, to try to give undue authority to their organization and leaders. I understand that.

Is there some particular teaching of Peter that is used when undermining the Biblical understanding of marriage? Is it something Peter said in the book of Acts, or something he wrote in his Epistles?

I understand that Protestants sometimes use some of Paul's teachings when opposing patriarchy and polygyny. They are however mistaken when they do so. There is much in the teachings of Paul that very clearly affirm and re-state the same doctrine of marriage found in the Old Testament.

Sometimes Protestants sadly fail to live up to their own doctrine of Sola Scriptura. Unlike Rome, at least they profess that God's written Word is authoritative.

They use Peter because they believe Peter was given the keys, and with those keys they can add or take away whatever they like (through Apostolic Succession). Of course, Peter quoted the prophet Isaiah in his own letters, which said that the word of YAH remains firm forever.

Protestants twist Paul’s letter to state that we are not under the law, but grace. But they fail to realize that Paul is referring to a “law of sin”, and not “God’s law.” Through this mis-understanding they teach that we are no longer under God’s law (Old Testament), which opens the door for deception.

Quick example - adultery. They don’t have to go to God’s eternal law for the definition of adultery - they just have to be crafty and twist the (mis-translated) words of Messiah. By doing this they can still claim to be “Sola Scriptura” and this works very well against the children in the faith. But those that have studied themselves approved - we see right through these false teachings.

 

[Bartato]

They use Peter because they believe Peter was given the keys, and with those keys they can add or take away whatever they like (through Apostolic Succession). Of course, Peter quoted the prophet Isaiah in his own letters, which said that the word of YAH remains firm forever.

That's what I figured you meant. They aren't really using Peter. They are using their misinterpretation of Christ's word to Peter.

Protestants twist Paul’s letter to state that we are not under the law, but grace. But they fail to realize that Paul is referring to a “law of sin”, and not “God’s law.” Through this mis-understanding they teach that we are no longer under God’s law (Old Testament), which opens the door for deception.

Unfortunately Protestantism is so broad, that the word has become virtually meaningless. You can always find some Protestant somewhere who teaches anything.

Paul very clearly teaches that we are not under the Law, and the Law he is talking about is not simply the traditions of the elders which were added to the Law. It is the actual Law given through Moses.

We have died to that Law, and everything else, and have been personally united to the Risen Lord Jesus Himself. We are under the Man Himself who is the Word of God.

That said, the Law still obviously informs, instructs, guides, corrects, and directs the Christian. After all, the pre incarnate Son seems to be the One who gave the Law to Moses on Sinai. It is His Law, and He fulfilled it. The Law reflects His Character and Will. The Law is good.

Jude taught us that Jesus led the Israelites out of Egypt, but later put to death those who did not believe.

Quick example - adultery. They don’t have to go to God’s eternal law for the definition of adultery - they just have to be crafty and twist the (mis-translated) words of Messiah. By doing this they can still claim to be “Sola Scriptura” and this works very well against the children in the faith. But those that have studied themselves approved - we see right through these false teachings.

A bunch of us here are Protestants, and hold to the Biblical definition of adultery, but I understand that most don't. It is a sad failure. The "Reformed" are sadly not as Reformed as they ought to be.

 

[Tally]

If people took him at his word in Luke 16:17 and Matthew 5:18, then things would be a whole lot different. Rome uses Peter. Protestants use Paul. But who is clinging to the Rock?

I had always believed that the law Jesus was talking about is the ten commandments, and that the other laws give to the children of Israel was only to govern them for a time or season, due to a few things.

1) Following Mathew 5:18, verse 19 say (whosoever therefore shall break one of these least "COMMANDMENTS")

2)The ten commandments was God law written in stone, and the only law in which God spoke not to Moses or Jushua alone, but called all Israel to the Mount so that they can hear the law of God for themselves, Exodus 19:9-11 (And the Lord said unto Moses, Lo, I come unto thee in a thick cloud, [that the people may hear when I speak with thee] and believe thee for ever. And Moses told the words of the people unto the Lord. And the Lord said unto Moses, God unto the people, and sanctify them to day and to morrow, and let them wash their clothes, And be ready against the third day: for the third day the Lord will come down [in the sight of all the people] upon mount Sinai).

3) Hebrews 7:12 (For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law)

4) Hebrews 10:28 ( He that despised MOSES LAW died without mercy under two or three witnesses). What is the difference between Moses law and God law?

If all laws given in the old testament still stand today, how do we Adress the following that was done in accordance to the law.

1) confession to the priest.
2) building altars to give offering to the Lord .
3) A man was punished for gathering sticks on the Sabbath day. Numbers 15:32-36.

 

[frederick]

Protestants twist Paul’s letter to state that we are not under the law, but grace. But they fail to realize that Paul is referring to a “law of sin”, and not “God’s law.” Through this mis-understanding they teach that we are no longer under God’s law (Old Testament), which opens the door for deception.

Quick example - adultery. They don’t have to go to God’s eternal law for the definition of adultery - they just have to be crafty and twist the (mis-translated) words of Messiah. By doing this they can still claim to be “Sola Scriptura” and this works very well against the children in the faith. But those that have studied themselves approved - we see right through these false teachings.

Mistranslations and the move to dynamic equivalence in translations has led many people unwittingly into a faulty understanding of what was originally communicated by God in His Word. Yes, there are those who knowingly and deliberately have led people astray, but there are many who, like me in the past, have a wrong understanding of biblical texts out of genuine ignorance.

When a matter, like marriage, is regarded as a well established and settled issue, it comes as a big shock to most to discover they have been led astray. None of us will have everything 100% correct, so we must be gracious to those who we genuinely believe misunderstand a particular doctrine, whether that's marriage or something else. It is written, Behold, how good and how pleasant it is For brethren to dwell together in unity! (Psalm 133:1). Shalom

 

[Tally]

That's what I figured you meant. They aren't really using Peter. They are using their misinterpretation of Christ's word to Peter.

Unfortunately Protestantism is so broad, that the word has become virtually meaningless. You can always find some Protestant somewhere who teaches anything.

Paul very clearly teaches that we are not under the Law, and the Law he is talking about is not simply the traditions of the elders which were added to the Law. It is the actual Law given through Moses.

We have died to that Law, and everything else, and have been personally united to the Risen Lord Jesus Himself. We are under the Man Himself who is the Word of God.

That said, the Law still obviously informs, instructs, guides, corrects, and directs the Christian. After all, the pre incarnate Son seems to be the One who gave the Law to Moses on Sinai. It is His Law, and He fulfilled it. The Law reflects His Character and Will. The Law is good.

Jude taught us that Jesus led the Israelites out of Egypt, but later put to death those who did not believe.

A bunch of us here are Protestants, and hold to the Biblical definition of adultery, but I understand that most don't. It is a sad failure. The "Reformed" are sadly not as Reformed as they ought to be.

I understand that Paul said we are not under the law, but please provide the Scripture where he made it clear that he was talking about the traditions of the elders, because I was made to believe that traditions and laws are two completely different things.

 

[Otto]

We have died to that Law, and everything else, and have been personally united to the Risen Lord Jesus Himself. We are under the Man Himself who is the Word of God.

I understand that Paul said we are not under the law, but please provide the Scripture where he made it clear that he was talking about the traditions of the elders, because I was made to believe that traditions and laws are two completely different things.

The opposite of God's law is lawlessness and darkness. Paul didn't preach lawlessness:

Romans 6:14
14 For sin shall no longer be your master, because you are not under the law, but under grace.

Romans 7:22
For in my inner being I delight in God’s law 23 but I see another law at work in me, waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner of the law of sin at work within me. 24 What a wretched man I am! Who will rescue me from this body that is subject to death? 25 Thanks be to God, who delivers me through Jesus Christ our Lord! So then, I myself in my mind am a slave to God’s law, but in my sinful nature a slave to the law of sin.

Romans 8:1 (these chapter breaks are terrible)
Therefore, there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus, 2 because through Christ Jesus the law of the Spirit who gives life has set you free from the law of sin and death.
7 The mind governed by the flesh is hostile to God; it does not submit to God’s law, nor can it do so. 8 Those who are in the realm of the flesh cannot please God. 9 You, however, are not in the realm of the flesh but are in the realm of the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God lives in you. And if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, they do not belong to Christ.

------------------------------------------------------
Paul is saying that through the Messiah we're no longer under the law of sin and death. This 'law of sin' is not the same as the law of the mind/spirit, which Paul confirms is God's law. Paul's ministry does not contradict John's:

1 John 3:4
Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.

24: Now he who keeps His commandments abides in Him, and He in him. And by this we know that He abides in us, by the Spirit whom he has given us.

I had always believed that the law Jesus was talking about is the ten commandments,

So ten commandments only? What about the Sabbath? The apostles continued to teach and observe the Sabbath.

And if it's ten commandments only, then where did the prohibition about drinking blood come from? That's not part of the ten commandments. What about oaths? Judging others fairly? Divorce? Taking care of the needy? Where is that in the ten commandments? So does the flesh of Messiah encompass just the ten commandments, or is there more truth we're to be sanctified by?

2 Timothy 3:16
All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness

 

[Tally]

The opposite of God's law is lawlessness and darkness. Paul didn't preach lawlessness:

Romans 6:14
14 For sin shall no longer be your master, because you are not under the law, but under grace.

Romans 7:22
For in my inner being I delight in God’s law 23 but I see another law at work in me, waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner of the law of sin at work within me. 24 What a wretched man I am! Who will rescue me from this body that is subject to death? 25 Thanks be to God, who delivers me through Jesus Christ our Lord! So then, I myself in my mind am a slave to God’s law, but in my sinful nature a slave to the law of sin.

Romans 8:1 (these chapter breaks are terrible)
Therefore, there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus, 2 because through Christ Jesus the law of the Spirit who gives life has set you free from the law of sin and death.
7 The mind governed by the flesh is hostile to God; it does not submit to God’s law, nor can it do so. 8 Those who are in the realm of the flesh cannot please God. 9 You, however, are not in the realm of the flesh but are in the realm of the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God lives in you. And if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, they do not belong to Christ.

------------------------------------------------------
Paul is saying that through the Messiah we're no longer under the law of sin and death. This 'law of sin' is not the same as the law of the mind/spirit, which Paul confirms is God's law. Paul's ministry does not contradict John's:

1 John 3:4
Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.

24: Now he who keeps His commandments abides in Him, and He in him. And by this we know that He abides in us, by the Spirit whom he has given us.


So ten commandments only? What about the Sabbath? The apostles continued to teach and observe the Sabbath.

And if it's ten commandments only, then where did the prohibition about drinking blood come from? That's not part of the ten commandments. What about oaths? Judging others fairly? Divorce? Taking care of the needy? Where is that in the ten commandments? So does the flesh of Messiah encompass just the ten commandments, or is there more truth we're to be sanctified by?

2 Timothy 3:16
All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness

Matthew 22:40 kjv (On these two commandments hang all the law and the Prophets) I believe this to mean that all law should reference or line up with the ten commandments, all laws that does not, was only given for a time and season.

Remember the Sabbath day is listed in the ten commandments in Exodus 20:8.
And the marriage law Exodus 20:14 Thou shalt not commit adultery.