Is Polygamy Wrong?

[lilpixieofterror]

What's your opinion on it?

On a personal note, you wouldn't catch me with the stuff even if it was legal and even if the military didn't care. I can't stand the smell of the stuff (and yes, I do know what pot smoke smells like). On an legal level, as long as you don't do something like get high and drive, smoke away. The government has wasted billions of dollars on fighting an endless drug war that seems to only be good at spending billions, producing lots of dead people, ensuring murderous criminals have lots of cash, and making drugs common across the country.

[Sea of red]

On a personal note, you wouldn't catch me with the stuff even if it was legal and even if the military didn't care. I can't stand the smell of the stuff (and yes, I do know what pot smoke smells like). On an legal level, as long as you don't do something like get high and drive, smoke away. The government has wasted billions of dollars on fighting an endless drug war that seems to only be good at spending billions, producing lots of dead people, ensuring murderous criminals have lots of cash, and making drugs common across the country.

I used to smoke when I was in my teens and early twenties.

My use of cocaine was pretty limited until I went on a holiday with the stuff for a good year. Was addicted? No doubt about it. Was it effecting my life negatively? Yes. But it was my choice to use the stuff to feel better, and it worked or a short period of time until the dependency started making me have mood swings. I don't blame the people that gave it to me at all. Nobody made me do anything and I was free to stop anytime I wanted to - which I thankfully did.

I also never harmed anybody, caused any public disruption, drive when I was high, or anything like that. I was smart enough to understand not to bring anybody else into the mess I had made for myself.

[JimL]

Professor of Theology Francesca Murphy points out in her commentary of 1 Samuel that Saul's sin wasn't necessarily in sparing animals, it was specifically sparing the best of the animals "and all that was good" which essentially turned what was supposed to be a war of remembrance for all of the atrocities the Amalekites routinely put the Israelites through, into "a human war of despoliation, a war for glory and gain".

Adrift, do you not recognize spin when you see it? That argument is just silly. You're not reading the bible, you're reading into it. The Bible clearly states what Saul's sin was. The sin was that he disobeyed the command of god. He didn't kill the animals, but kept them as booty. You should read it yourself sometime when you get the chance. Heck, anybody can just go read 1 Samuel 15 and see that it reads exactly how I said it reads. Its not confusing, its clear and specific. So, are you going to continue to fool yourself, arguing that the command to murder nursing infants was just human rhetoric, and that Sauls sin wasn't his disobedience to Gods command to kill everything? And while you're at it, can you please explain to me how exterminating a people for the crimes of their ancesters is morally right?

[Adrift]

Adrift, do you not recognize spin when you see it? That argument is just silly. You're not reading the bible, you're reading into it. The Bible clearly states what Saul's sin was. The sin was that he disobeyed the command of god. He didn't kill the animals, but kept them as booty. You should read it yourself sometime when you get the chance. Heck, anybody can just go read 1 Samuel 15 and see that it reads exactly how I said it reads. Its not confusing, its clear and specific. So, are you going to continue to fool yourself, arguing that the command to murder nursing infants was just human rhetoric, and that Sauls sin wasn't his disobedience to Gods command to kill everything? And while you're at it, can you please explain to me how exterminating a people for the crimes of their ancesters is morally right?

Jim: If it was only wartime rhetoric, why was god angry that Saul didn't kill the animals? If you can't answer that then you have to admit you're wrong!!!

Adrift: [Cites reputable OT scholar from University of Notre Dame with PhD from King's College]

Jim: It's spin! It's spin! A plain black and white reading in English with no appreciation for cultural context, and ignorance of literary analysis makes it totally obvious!!


Jim, when you get your degree at a prestigious university in the relevant fields, and get your rebuttal of the work of the Old Testament scholars I've cited for you published and peer reviewed, let me know. Till then, you got nothing.

[JimL]

Jim: If it was only wartime rhetoric, why was god angry that Saul didn't kill the animals? If you can't answer that then you have to admit you're wrong!!!

Adrift: [Cites reputable OT scholar from University of Notre Dame with PhD from King's College]

Jim: It's spin! It's spin! A plain black and white reading in English with no appreciation for cultural context, and ignorance of literary analysis makes it totally obvious!!

Sorry Adrift, there is nothing in that passage that needs scholarly interpretation in order to be understood, you can't see it for what it is because of the virus metastasizing through your brain. Nor btw did you provide a scholarly or reasonable answer to that question. Lets see if you can answer it all by yourself. Go read the passage. 1 Samuel 15, God says to kill everything, to exterminate them. Yes, I know, this is what you claim to be nothing but wartime rhetoric, not the actual command from god. Apparently, according to you, god only wanted to kill some of the Amalekites for the sins of their ancestors. That btw is immoral by itself. But after the battle is over, Saul is reproved for not killing the animals as god had commanded him to do. So how can you, with a straight face, deny that the details of the command, i.e. to kill everything, including infants and animals, didn't come from god? Its right there staring you in the face Adrift. Btw, I think you picked the perfect name for yourself, Adrift.

Jim, when you get your degree at a prestigious university in the relevant fields, and get your rebuttal of the work of the Old Testament scholars I've cited for you published and peer reviewed, let me know. Till then, you got nothing.

The funny thing about that statement is the fact that you think that you need a degree from a prestigious university in order to understand a perfectly understandable story. The truth is that you only need a scholarly degree in order that you might find a rational argument against it, even though the one you came up with is inane. Personally I don't care if you personally choose, yes choose, to ignore the truth, to believe the nonsensical gibberish that you call scholarship. I just don't want people like you, you may be in the lost cause category, passing on their infection to others.

[lilpixieofterror]

Sorry Adrift, there is nothing in that passage that needs scholarly interpretati... blah blah blah...

Wash, rinse, repeat because Jimmy is not capable of admitting he's wrong on this issue and very wrong at that.

[lilpixieofterror]

I used to smoke when I was in my teens and early twenties.

My use of cocaine was pretty limited until I went on a holiday with the stuff for a good year. Was addicted? No doubt about it. Was it effecting my life negatively? Yes. But it was my choice to use the stuff to feel better, and it worked or a short period of time until the dependency started making me have mood swings. I don't blame the people that gave it to me at all. Nobody made me do anything and I was free to stop anytime I wanted to - which I thankfully did.

I also never harmed anybody, caused any public disruption, drive when I was high, or anything like that. I was smart enough to understand not to bring anybody else into the mess I had made for myself.

So what? You wouldn't catch me with the stuff just like I rarely drink. I don't like the feeling drunkness produces and I doubt I'd like the feeling being high produces either. Of course, my personal preferences doesn't mean I really care if others do it or not.

[Adam]

Though it was over fifty years ago, I will never forget the effect MJ had on me to look at the world entirely differently and to contemplate just how I would need to place my fingers on the guitar to obtain the perfect chord--never could find the courage to actually pluck it. In contrast alcohol is just a pure downer to me, just makes me purposelessly sleepy.
Now COFFEE, there's my drug. I could never be a Mormon.
Is this the Fraternity sub-forum. Can't be, there's females here!

[JimL]

Wash, rinse, repeat because Jimmy is not capable of admitting he's wrong on this issue and very wrong at that.

Nope, as usual you are wrong lilpix, and as usual you can't bring yourself to admit it. But like Adrift, you are a lost cause, unable even to discern objective facts when they interfere with your subjective beliefs.

[lilpixieofterror]

Nope, as usual you are wrong lilpix, and as usual you can't bring yourself to admit it. But like Adrift, you are a lost cause, unable even to discern objective facts when they interfere with your subjective beliefs.

And Jimmy repeats his same claims over and over again because he can't refute things. Classic fundy atheism:

1. If God actually ordered them to kill everybody. God is a big mennie!
2. If God didn't and it was a figure of speech of the time. God is unclear!

No matter what, Jimmy and his fundy atheist gang have a ready made excuse to support their unbelief and no amount of evidence and scholarship will convince him. Sorry Jimmy, but I'm not wrong at all. You're just a fundy atheist who will do anything to support his unbelief even if that means flat out ignoring anything and everything that proves him wrong. if you want to believe that you're right, go ahead. We both know that you will find anything to support your unbelief.

[JimL]

And Jimmy repeats his same claims over and over again because he can't refute things. Classic fundy atheism:

No, I repeat myself over and over again because you can't refute them.

1. If God actually ordered them to kill everybody. God is a big mennie!

A big meanie, really lilpix, a big meanie? The dispute in this case is whether the command to murder innocent women and children came from god and whether that command should be considered immoral, which in turn would make your god immoral.

2. If God didn't and it was a figure of speech of the time. God is unclear!

I never said it was unclear, its very clear. The idea that the passage is unclear comes from those of you that can't accept its clarity. You have to make stuff up in order to be able to accept what text clearly states to have been done. "God commanded the extemination of the Amalekites and their animals, and Saul was reproved by god for not following through on that command". If god rebuked Saul for disobeying his command, then obviously, and this doesn't take scholarly interpretation to figure out, the command to kill women and children came from god.

No matter what, Lilpix and her fundy atheist gang have a ready made excuse to support their unbelief and no amount of evidence and scholarship will convince him. Sorry Jimmy, but I'm not wrong at all. You're just a fundy atheist who will do anything to support his unbelief even if that means flat out ignoring anything and everything that proves him wrong. if you want to believe that you're right, go ahead. We both know that you will find anything to support your unbelief.

No matter what, Lilpix and her fellow believers have a ready made excuse to support their belief and no amount of evidence and scholarship will, can, convince them otherwise. Sorry Lilpix, but you are oh so obviously wrong that if it weren't so sad, it would be funny. Unlike you Lilpix, what I believe isn't based on what I want to believe, I don't make stuff up in order that I can continue to believe what i want. Look in the mirror, that would be you and Adrift.

[Secular Liberation]

You mean beyond calling them savages? Do tell Circular Balloonist, is it racist to call a bunch of brown people savages? Yes or no?

Referring to them as what they were is not racism. I never called them savages because they were brown-skinned, only that in their time there was no modern science or medicine. You're just in denial of that basic fact.

[lilpixieofterror]

Referring to them as what they were is not racism. I never called them savages because they were brown-skinned, only that in their time there was no modern science or medicine. You're just in denial of that basic fact.

Sorry circular balloonist, but many Europeans called groups savages for using the same term; however; they get called racist. It is truly amazing how many passes fundy atheist will give themselves while attacking others for doing the same thing. I'm just holding you up to your own standards. What's the problem, don't like it when others hold you to the same standards that you hold Christians to?

[lilpixieofterror]

No, I repeat myself over and over again because you can't refute them.

No Jimmy, you repeat yourself over and over again because you lack the basic education, in this topic, to understand what you've been given. In many ways, you're like the John Martin of theology around here. You both are totally clueless about topics you try to talk about, but it doesn't stop you two from talking about them anyway because your extreme ignorance makes you over-rate your own aptitude. AKA the Dunning-Kruger effect, in action.

A big meanie, really lilpix, a big meanie? The dispute in this case is whether the command to murder innocent women and children came from god and whether that command should be considered immoral, which in turn would make your god immoral.

That's because you're not smart enough to understand that I am making fun of you by using child terms. We've already refuted you on this Jimmy, but you're simply too inept to understand the answer you are given, so you pretend you were not given an answer. Again, you're a classic case of Dunning Kruger effect, in action. The reality is quite simple Jimmy, the Bible is using classic exaggeration techniques of the time and we know this because the Bible mentions these people later on. Likewise, you keep using the term 'innocent', but I don't think that term means what you think it means. What does the term 'innocent' mean Jimmy? Does it mean that Jimmy is pretending that the world of the Bible is the same as the world of today and trying to pretend as though ancient people understood the separation between military and civilian, as we do today? You are aware that the separation between military and civilian is a modern invention, right? Just one of the many many errors you make that show how inept you truly are.

I never said it was unclear, its very clear. The idea that the passage is unclear comes from those of you that can't accept its clarity. You have to make stuff up in order to be able to accept what text clearly states to have been done. "God commanded the extemination of the Amalekites and their animals, and Saul was reproved by god for not following through on that command". If god rebuked Saul for disobeying his command, then obviously, and this doesn't take scholarly interpretation to figure out, the command to kill women and children came from god.

Sorry Jimmy, but this has already been refuted and you're just too dumb to understand the answer given. What you seem to ignore about the animals is that the animals of the era were among the most important economic resources that a group had. If you can kill their animals, you can do real damage to their ability to make war on you. Of course, you don't know this because you are inept on this topic and too clueless to understand your own failures. Again, like John Martin on physics, you're simply not educated enough to know that you're just embarrassing yourself.

No matter what, Lilpix and her fellow believers have a ready made excuse to support their belief and no amount of evidence and scholarship will, can, convince them otherwise. Sorry Lilpix, but you are oh so obviously wrong that if it weren't so sad, it would be funny. Unlike you Lilpix, what I believe isn't based on what I want to believe, I don't make stuff up in order that I can continue to believe what i want. Look in the mirror, that would be you and Adrift.

Nope, no matter what. You're just not educated enough to understand your own obvious failures and you totally refuse to educate yourself because you're not interested in bridging your own ignorance. I'm not wrong at all, you're just a classic case of Dunning Kruger Effect, in action.

Dunning and Kruger proposed that, for a given skill, incompetent people will:[4]

fail to recognize their own lack of skill
fail to recognize the extent of their inadequacy
fail to accurately gauge skill in others
recognize and acknowledge their own lack of skill only after they are exposed to training for that skill
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunnin...3Kruger_effect

You, in a nutshell.

[JimL]

No Jimmy, you repeat yourself over and over again because you lack the basic education, in this topic, to understand what you've been given. In many ways, you're like the John Martin of theology around here. You both are totally clueless about topics you try to talk about, but it doesn't stop you two from talking about them anyway because your extreme ignorance makes you over-rate your own aptitude. AKA the Dunning-Kruger effect, in action.



That's because you're not smart enough to understand that I am making fun of you by using child terms. We've already refuted you on this Jimmy, but you're simply too inept to understand the answer you are given, so you pretend you were not given an answer. Again, you're a classic case of Dunning Kruger effect, in action. The reality is quite simple Jimmy, the Bible is using classic exaggeration techniques of the time and we know this because the Bible mentions these people later on. Likewise, you keep using the term 'innocent', but I don't think that term means what you think it means. What does the term 'innocent' mean Jimmy? Does it mean that Jimmy is pretending that the world of the Bible is the same as the world of today and trying to pretend as though ancient people understood the separation between military and civilian, as we do today? You are aware that the separation between military and civilian is a modern invention, right? Just one of the many many errors you make that show how inept you truly are.



Sorry Jimmy, but this has already been refuted and you're just too dumb to understand the answer given. What you seem to ignore about the animals is that the animals of the era were among the most important economic resources that a group had. If you can kill their animals, you can do real damage to their ability to make war on you. Of course, you don't know this because you are inept on this topic and too clueless to understand your own failures. Again, like John Martin on physics, you're simply not educated enough to know that you're just embarrassing yourself.



Nope, no matter what. You're just not educated enough to understand your own obvious failures and you totally refuse to educate yourself because you're not interested in bridging your own ignorance. I'm not wrong at all, you're just a classic case of Dunning Kruger Effect, in action.

Dunning and Kruger proposed that, for a given skill, incompetent people will:[4]

fail to recognize their own lack of skill
fail to recognize the extent of their inadequacy
fail to accurately gauge skill in others
recognize and acknowledge their own lack of skill only after they are exposed to training for that skill
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunnin...3Kruger_effect

You, in a nutshell.

The only reason to dispute this issue with you lilpix, being that i understand you yourself to be a lost cause, is to urge others who unlike yourself may still have the ability to think for themselves, instead of blabbering the same pre-programmed nonsense like a robot as you can't help but to do. You're going to believe what you are already programed to believe, so you, it seems, are pretty much a lost cause, but not everyone here is an automaton masquarading as a thinking human being.