₦airaland Forum

nwamehn:
Hahahah. That ur almajiri part got me laughing.
Anyway, here ar my points:
1. My questions from the onset have been whether a new convert is a sinner and whether a Christian who cannot teach is a sinner. Since thhen, u haven't answered me "Yes, they ar sinners" or "No, they aren't sinners".

Not every questions have a yes or no answer. I have answered you to the best of my knowledge.

Look at ur answer to my first question: "A Christian who is a new convert is inexperienced and can easily fall back into sin. Paul the Apostle talked about babyhood, childhood and manhood as relating to our Christian growth".
This doesn't answer the question of whether a new convert is a sinner or not. It only tells me the dangers of being a new convert.

i gave an answer, you gave it a label, its not my fault you don't understand the answer i gave. Perhaps you should go amd read it up again

Loot at ur answer to my second question: "why would a Christian who have been in the faith for a while and understand doctrine not be able to teach? Evangelism is the great commission Jesus gave every saint.. Who will follow-up nd teach your converts?"
U were still giving me the advantages of being able to teach as a Christian, it still doesn't answer the question of whether a Christian who is not able to teach is a sinner or not.

when Jesus Christ said we should go into the world and preach.... Teaching, did he segregate on who was to do the job? Do u need a pulpit before you can be a teacher?

Why is it hard for u to say simply that a Christian who is a new convert or who is not able to teach is a sinner or is not a sinner same way u were able to say that a polygamous man is a sinner?

Paul the Apostle rebuked Peter for his pretense in the presence of Jewish brethren.. Does it mean that peter was a sinner?

i sincerely believe u can answer me simply and not give me the advantages or disadvantages of whichever one because I have already seen the advantages or disadvantages of them from ur write-ups already, what is missing there is whether they ar sins or not. Is a Christian who is a new convert or who is not able to teach a sinner? Yes or No.

i sincerely believe i have answered you

2. U ar talking about Nigeria and UK, but that command of being fruitful, multiplying and replenishing the whole earth wasn't given to Nigeria and UK, even if u want to bring countries, states, local governments into it u ar very free, but I believe u shouldn't also throw away man and wife that God gave the command to according to Genesis 1. So pls, what do u think is the meaning of multiplying and replenishing the whole earth as a command that God gave Adam and his wife, Eve?

i have to mention UK and Nigeria cos u do not seem to understand wat it means to replenish and multiply.. Ur understanding of the word is simple to increase in population. God gave the commandment to everyman so yes, uk and Nigeria inclusive

3. U know that God's made plan for getting a wife was that the man would be at rest and He would bring to a man his wife by himself as He did for Adam and not that a man would go and search for wife as we do these days. Bible also says that he who finds a wife finds a good thing and obtains favour from God, showing u that men had started looking for wives as far back as then instead of waiting for God to bring their wives to them yet God was still favouring them. But the bigger truth is that it wasn't so from the beginning that a man would go looking for a wife just as it wasn't so from the beginning that a man should divorce his wife but God still allowed it then for a reason and still blessed the Israelites then.
Resting in ur tent and God will bring a wife to u is very different from telling God to give u a wife and u now go to the church and pick a girl based on some revelations, because it wasn't so from the beginning, what was from the beginning was that u will be resting and God will bring ur wife to u, only for u to wake and see her, and that's exactly what He did to Adam.
Marriage is an institution ordained by God and there ar so many parts of God's made plans for marriage as He did to man before the fall of man but the two I want to highlight here ar: 
A. Give man only one wife who would be a helper fit for him. 
B. Let man be at rest while God brings his wife to him.
Man made way of finding a wife would now be to go in search of wife and not wait for God to bring her to him.
Now tell me, a man that doesn't wait in his apartment for God to bring his wife to him as it was done in the beginning but decides to go and search for his wife even in far away land which is now a man made way of finding a wife, is he a sinner?

to you, everything has to either be a sin or not wch is simplistic... In the case of the first marriage, God brought Eve to adam while he was at rest, there are a lot of men too in our days who have trusted God in the area of marriage and he gave them the bone of their bone and flesh of their flesh without much pressure or effort. You can still do it God's way or the way of the world

salvation101:
Not every questions have a yes or no answer. I have answered you to the best of my knowledge.

i gave an answer, you gave it a label, its not my fault you don't understand the answer i gave. Perhaps you should go amd read it up again

when Jesus Christ said we should go into the world and preach.... Teaching, did he segregate on who was to do the job? Do u need a pulpit before you can be a teacher?

 Paul the Apostle rebuked Peter for his pretense in the presence of Jewish brethren.. Does it mean that peter was a sinner?

i sincerely believe i have answered you

i have to mention UK and Nigeria cos u do not seem to understand wat it means to replenish and multiply.. Ur understanding of the word is simple to increase in population. God gave the commandment to everyman so yes, uk and Nigeria inclusive

to you, everything has to either be a sin or not wch is simplistic... In the case of the first marriage, God brought Eve to adam while he was at rest, there are a lot of men too in our days who have trusted God in the area of marriage and he gave them the bone of their bone and flesh of their flesh without much pressure or effort. You can still do it God's way or the way of the world

From ur responses it shows that u can’t boldly say that a Christian who is a new convert or who can’t teach is a sinner.
Why I required a Yes or No answer there is because u relied on the list Paul gave for bishops in 1 Tim 3 to say that polygamy is sin. Now the list has so many other things there aside polygamy. The list bears that a bishop must have one wife, it also bears that a bishop must not be a new convert and it also bears that a bishop must know how to teach. When I asked u to quote a verse that condemned polygamy in the Bible, u referred to that 1 Tim 3 and implied that for Paul to have listed having one wife as part of the requirements for a bishop, then it means polygamy is sin. I then asked, what about the other requirements listed in that same 1 Tim 3 like not being a new convert and knowing how to teach, does it mean being a new convert or not knowing how to teach also makes one a sinner? Up till now u have found it very difficult to say whether these other ones are also sins or not. If polygamy is actually a sin because it’s against the list there according to u, then every other thing against that list like being a new convert and not knowing how to teach should be sin too except if u ar just being selective.
But look at it now, u can’t boldly call them sins too because u know the truth that they are not sins, isn’t it clear that u ar being selective in ur judgement? U pick polygamy from the list and call it sin, then u leave others in that same list? Very funny!

For Ur Second to the Last Paragraph
2. U still didn’t answer that question. U ar only explaining to me why u included UK and Nigeria and I fully get u. U included UK and Nigeria, and I told u that u are free to bring in countries, states, local governments but u can’t forget the man and wife which were the actual people God gave the command then, UK and Nigeria came later. U confirmed here that I don’t seem to understand what it means to multiply and replenish, so pls answer me, what do u think Bible meant when God commanded the man and wife to multiply and replenish the whole earth?

For Ur Last Paragraph
3. Everything has to be a sin or not since u said that polygamy is a sin because it wasn’t there in the beginning as part of the God made marriage institution, now what it means is that according to ur logic, every other thing that is not according to God made plan for marriage in the beginning has to be sin same as polygamy, otherwise it will amount to being selective. The way of God that I know here as it was in the beginning is only to wait for God to bring ur wife to u while u ar at rest (and not praying for God to show u who she is in ur church or workplace nor going out to search for a wife), then wake and see her, marry her and her alone without any bride price, every other way is man made because they came after the fall of man and were not so in the beginning.
U said that divorce was not there in the beginning so it’s a sin.
U also said that polygamy was not there in the beginning so it’s also a sin.
Now, going to search for a wife instead of waiting upon God wasn’t there in the beginning, is it also a sin according to ur logic?
In the beginning there was no bride price, God ordained the marriage to be done without any bride price just as He did for Adam and Eve, so Adam never paid any bride price. Bride price came after the fall of man, it’s paid to the parents of the girl or the girl herself in some areas.
Paying of bride price is a man made way of getting married and it wasn’t there in the beginning, is it also a sin according to ur logic?
See, if u will pick polygamy and call it sin just because it wasn’t there in the beginning, then paying of bride price and going out to search for wife would also be sins since they too weren’t there in the beginning, unless u just want to be selective in ur judgement.

nwamehn:
From ur responses it shows that u can’t boldly say that a Christian who is a new convert or who can’t teach is a sinner.
Why I required a Yes or No answer there is because u relied on the list Paul gave for bishops in 1 Tim 3 to say that polygamy is sin. Now the list has so many other things there aside polygamy. The list bears that a bishop must have one wife, it also bears that a bishop must not be a new convert and it also bears that a bishop must know how to teach. When I asked u to quote a verse that condemned polygamy in the Bible, u referred to that 1 Tim 3 and implied that for Paul to have listed having one wife as part of the requirements for a bishop, then it means polygamy is sin. I then asked, what about the other requirements listed in that same 1 Tim 3 like not being a new convert and knowing how to teach, does it mean being a new convert or not knowing how to teach also makes one a sinner? Up till now u have found it very difficult to say whether these other ones are also sins or not. If polygamy is actually a sin because it’s against the list there according to u, then every other thing against that list like being a new convert and not knowing how to teach should be sin too except if u ar just being selective.
But look at it now, u can’t boldly call them sins too because u know the truth that they are not sins, isn’t it clear that u ar being selective in ur judgement? U pick polygamy from the list and call it sin, then u leave others in that same list? Very funny!

suit yourself as far as i am concerned i have given you a sincere answer and if its not sufficient for you, i cant help you. I am not in a law court where i have to answer a yes or no. Infact most times Jesus never answered yes or no but either illustrates or answers with a question. It is unwise to look for a yes or no for every question.

For Ur Second to the Last Paragraph
2. U still didn’t answer that question. U ar only explaining to me why u included UK and Nigeria and I fully get u. U included UK and Nigeria, and I told u that u are free to bring in countries, states, local governments but u can’t forget the man and wife which were the actual people God gave the command then, UK and Nigeria came later. U confirmed here that I don’t seem to understand what it means to multiply and replenish, so pls answer me, what do u think Bible meant when God commanded the man and wife to multiply and replenish the whole earth?

To answer dis question, first of all, who is man? Gen 1:28 where God said man should be fruitful and multiply happened before Adam was formed, i hope you know

For Ur Last Paragraph
3. Everything has to be a sin or not since u said that polygamy is a sin because it wasn’t there in the beginning as part of the God made marriage institution, now what it means is that according to ur logic, every other thing that is not according to God made plan for marriage in the beginning has to be sin same as polygamy, otherwise it will amount to being selective. The way of God that I know here as it was in the beginning is only to wait for God to bring ur wife to u while u ar at rest (and not praying for God to show u who she is in ur church or workplace nor going out to search for a wife), then wake and see her, marry her and her alone without any bride price, every other way is man made because they came after the fall of man and were not so in the beginning.

that is how you choose to see it, i don't think i can help you. Was Peter a sinner for pretending to the Jews by leaving the midst of gentile believers when he saw them? Kindly answer

U said that divorce was not there in the beginning so it’s a sin.
U also said that polygamy was not there in the beginning so it’s also a sin.
Now, going to search for a wife instead of waiting upon God wasn’t there in the beginning, is it also a sin according to ur logic?

strawman fallacy.
Abraham who was the friend of God and a righteous man looked for a wife for Isaac his son. It is sufficient enough to show God is not against it.

In the beginning there was no bride price, God ordained the marriage to be done without any bride price just as He did for Adam and Eve, so Adam never paid any bride price. Bride price came after the fall of man, it’s paid to the parents of the girl or the girl herself in some areas.
Paying of bride price is a man made way of getting married and it wasn’t there in the beginning, is it also a sin according to ur logic?

in one breath you said God ordained bride price in another you said it was man made, u can see you are the one confusing ursefall in d name of logic

See, if u will pick polygamy and call it sin just because it wasn’t there in the beginning, then paying of bride price and going out to search for wife would also be sins since they too weren’t there in the beginning, unless u just want to be selective in ur judgement.

you can also tell that to Jesus who referred back to the beginning.

salvation101:
suit yourself as far as i am concerned i have given you a sincere answer and if its not sufficient for you, i cant help you. I am not in a law court where i have to answer a yes or no. Infact most times Jesus never answered yes or no but either illustrates or answers with a question. It is unwise to look for a yes or no for every question.


To answer dis question, first of all, who is man? Gen 1:28 where God said man should be fruitful and multiply happened before Adam was formed, i hope you know

that is how you choose to see it, i don't think i can help you. Was Peter a sinner for pretending to the Jews by leaving the midst of gentile believers when he saw them? Kindly answer

strawman fallacy.
Abraham who was the friend of God and a righteous man looked for a wife for Isaac his son. It is sufficient enough to show God is not against it.

in one breath you said God ordained bride price in another you said it was man made, u can see you are the one confusing ursefall in d name of logic

you can also tell that to Jesus who referred back to the beginning.

To ur first paragraph, it's even more unwise to say something and when u ar asked to defend it u won't have enough facts to defend it. U claim that polygamy is a sin because it appears in Paul's list, and now u ar asked whether other ones that appear in the list ar sins too, yet u can't answer. U can't prove that polygamy is a sin.

To ur second paragraph, that command of being fruitful and multiplying was given after Adam was formed. Read Genesis 1 vs 26 to 27, pls before u read down to 28. God even blessed them before he gave them such command. How can u be spewing this kind of fallacy, with all ur knowledge of the Bible? It's kind of shameful really. Who was God giving the command to be fruitful if not the man and woman He created? Read that Genesis 1 well from verse 26 to 28. 
To ur question about who was man, Adam was the man God created. 
And pls answer me, what do u think Bible meant when God commanded the man and the wife to multiply and replenish the whole earth?

Regarding ur question about Peter, Peter wasn't a sinner for doing that even though he was rebuked by Paul, same with the point I am making that something can be man made or something can be hated by some group of people but it doesn't make it a sin, just as polygamy isn't a sin but it's man made and it's generally frowned at by most Christians, but it doesn't make it a sin.

So, Abraham looking for a wife for his son Isaac after the fall of man shows God isn't against it? This flaws ur entire argument, because Jacob was a man of God, David was also a man after God's heart and they both were polygamous so it shows God isn't against polygamy too. 
If God isn't against searching for wife as u said because of Abraham, then God isn't against polygamy because of Jacob and David too.
U ar just contradicting urself.

Regarding ur second to the last paragraph, I can see that either u don't read well or u ar always in a hurry because this is the second time u ar quoting completely opposite of what I stated. Pls, always read well before u quote. Let me copy what I wrote there and paste here again for u to read, I never said God ordained bride price, I said God ordained marriage to be done without bride price, pls try to read well.

"In the beginning there was no bride price, God ordained the marriage to be done without any bride price just as He did for Adam and Eve, so Adam never paid any bride price. Bride price came after the fall of man, it’s paid to the parents of the girl or the girl herself in some areas.
Paying of bride price is a man made way of getting married and it wasn’t there in the beginning, is it also a sin according to ur logic?"

For ur last paragraph, Jesus never said that polygamy is a sin because it wasn't there in the beginning, u ar the person accusing him wrongly of what He didn't say and that's heresy.

Something may not be there in the beginning, it may be man made but it doesn't mean it's a sin. Bride price wasn't there in the beginning, searching for wife wasn't there in the beginning, and they ar not sins, so why single out polygamy?

U want to condemn polygamy but u don't want to condemn being a new convert, not knowing how to teach, paying bride price, searching for wife etc which ar all in the same category with polygamy. That's very interesting.

The two verses u quoted which ar 1 Tim 3 and Matthew 19 do not condemn polygamy for Christians, u ar only trying to rope polygamy into the whole thing by any means possible and u know that's heresy. Revelations 22 vs 18 says that if anyone adds to these words, God will add to the person's life the plagues given in the book.

Maybe u have a personal problem with polygamy but ur personal problem with something isn't enough to make it a sin.

nwamehn:
To ur first paragraph, it's even more unwise to say something and when u ar asked to defend it u won't have enough facts to defend it. U claim that polygamy is a sin because it appears in Paul's list, and now u ar asked whether other ones that appear in the list ar sins too, yet u can't answer. U can't prove that polygamy is a sin.

while you couldn't show me a single verse in New testament scripture to justify polygamy.

To ur second paragraph, that command of being fruitful and multiplying was given after Adam was formed. Read Genesis 1 vs 26 to 27, pls before u read down to 28. God even blessed them before he gave them such command. How can u be spewing this kind of fallacy, with all ur knowledge of the Bible? It's kind of shameful really. Who was God giving the command to be fruitful if not the man and woman He created? Read that Genesis 1 well from verse 26 to 28.

It shows your level of ignorance of the scripture.. When was Adam formed? He was formed after God rested from creation in chapter 2. After God had created Eden. Genesis chapter 1 u just read talked about God creating man, male and female in his image. God is Spirit, man is spirit. Adam only happened to be the first man to walk on the earth as God gave him a body. If u pay close attention enough, mankind was created on the 6th day. Every man that has lived and would ever live were created on that day. Male and female created he "Them".. I won't go further than that

To ur question about who was man, Adam was the man God created. 
And pls answer me, what do u think Bible meant when God commanded the man and the wife to multiply and replenish the whole earth?

you can help yourself a little more by going to reread Gen 1 and 2

Regarding ur question about Peter, Peter wasn't a sinner for doing that even though he was rebuked by Paul, same with the point I am making that something can be man made or something can be hated by some group of people but it doesn't make it a sin, just as polygamy isn't a sin but it's man made and it's generally frowned at by most Christians, but it doesn't make it a sin.

but you said one can either be a Christian or a sinner. U do not take into cognizance "a disobedient Christian"

So, Abraham looking for a wife for his son Isaac after the fall of man shows God isn't against it? This flaws ur entire argument, because Jacob was a man of God, David was also a man after God's heart and they both were polygamous so it shows God isn't against polygamy too.

flaws my entire argument? Well for the sake of others who would be reading i would go on a little more. Its obvious you are only after winning an argument

If God isn't against searching for wife as u said because of Abraham, then God isn't against polygamy because of Jacob and David too.
U ar just contradicting urself.

so let me also ask, is God against you marrying your sibling? If yes, why do you think so?

Regarding ur second to the last paragraph, I can see that either u don't read well or u ar always in a hurry because this is the second time u ar quoting completely opposite of what I stated. Pls, always read well before u quote. Let me copy what I wrote there and paste here again for u to read, I never said God ordained bride price, I said God ordained marriage to be done without bride price, pls try to read well.

oh, i see. My bad

"In the beginning there was no bride price, God ordained the marriage to be done without any bride price just as He did for Adam and Eve, so Adam never paid any bride price. Bride price came after the fall of man, it’s paid to the parents of the girl or the girl herself in some areas.
Paying of bride price is a man made way of getting married and it wasn’t there in the beginning, is it also a sin according to ur logic?"

True payment of bride price is man made and hence it varies from one culture to another the importance thing is the consent from both parents. In some cultures there is no bride price Infact in some it is the lady that pays groomprice so it is completely man made. It is a sin to carry another person's daughter and keep in ur house without the consent of her parents.

For ur last paragraph, Jesus never said that polygamy is a sin because it wasn't there in the beginning, u ar the person accusing him wrongly of what He didn't say and that's heresy.

Even when he said they twain shall become one flesh? Nawa oo.

Something may not be there in the beginning, it may be man made but it doesn't mean it's a sin. Bride price wasn't there in the beginning, searching for wife wasn't there in the beginning, and they ar not sins, so why single out polygamy?

Sometimes its not about beginning but in this case Jesus referred to the beginning

U want to condemn polygamy but u don't want to condemn being a new convert, not knowing how to teach, paying bride price, searching for wife etc which ar all in the same category with polygamy. That's very interesting.

all those ones where the logic you cooked up to justify polygamy.. Same way drunk cook up logics to justify their addiction et al

The two verses u quoted which ar 1 Tim 3 and Matthew 19 do not condemn polygamy for Christians, u ar only trying to rope polygamy into the whole thing by any means possible and u know that's heresy. Revelations 22 vs 18 says that if anyone adds to these words, God will add to the person's life the plagues given in the book.

you are the one so far that is adding to the word of God. Polygamy is against Christianity and the new covenant. Can you site example of any of the Apostles or any of tge early church father in history who was polygamous? Many were jews and in their custom it wasn't forbidden but non of them was polygamous why do you think they weren't?

Maybe u have a personal problem with polygamy but ur personal problem with something isn't enough to make it a sin.

on the contrary i would say i think you have a problem with the idea of monogamy.

salvation101:
while you couldn't show me a single verse in New testament scripture to justify polygamy.


It shows your level of ignorance of the scripture.. When was Adam formed? He was formed after God rested from creation in chapter 2. After God had created Eden. Genesis chapter 1 u just read talked about God creating man, male and female in his image. God is Spirit, man is spirit. Adam only happened to be the first man to walk on the earth as God gave him a body. If u pay close attention enough, mankind was created on the 6th day. Every man that has lived and would ever live were created on that day. Male and female created he "Them".. I won't go further than that

you can help yourself a little more by going to reread Gen 1 and 2

but you said one can either be a Christian or a sinner. U do not take into cognizance "a disobedient Christian"

flaws my entire argument? Well for the sake of others who would be reading i would go on a little more. Its obvious you are only after winning an argument

so let me also ask, is God against you marrying your sibling? If yes, why do you think so?

oh, i see. My bad


True payment of bride price is man made and hence it varies from one culture to another the importance thing is the consent from both parents. In some cultures there is no bride price Infact in some it is the lady that pays groomprice so it is completely man made. It is a sin to carry another person's daughter and keep in ur house without the consent of her parents.


Even when he said they twain shall become one flesh? Nawa oo.


Sometimes its not about beginning but in this case Jesus referred to the beginning

all those ones where the logic you cooked up to justify polygamy.. Same way drunk cook up logics to justify their addiction et al

you are the one so far that is adding to the word of God. Polygamy is against Christianity and the new covenant. Can you site example of any of the Apostles or any of tge early church father in history who was polygamous? Many were jews and in their custom it wasn't forbidden but non of them was polygamous why do you think they weren't?

on the contrary i would say i think you have a problem with the idea of monogamy.

For ur first sentence, I have said it earlier, no single verse in the new testament condemns or advocates for polygamy. So it doesn't mean that polygamy is a sin, neither is it sanctioned by Jesus. It's just like tithing, there is no single verse in the new testament that shows how to pay tithe, it doesn't mean that if someone pays his tithe anyhow that the person has committed sin. U ar the person trying to prove that polygamy is a sin, so the onus is on u to back it up with scriptures, me, I am not trying to prove that polygamy is in the Bible, so I don't need any Bible quotation to support it. If u say that polygamy is sin, bring up one verse u know that condemns it.

Man was created on the sixth day in Genesis 1 vs 26 to 28 and that's where God gave the man and the wife the charge to multiply and replenish the earth. Genesis 2 talks about how God created both the man and woman. It talks about how God formed the man from dust and placed him in charge of the garden and then formed the woman  to be a helper fit for the man. Genesis 2 just describes what happened on that sixth day which is recorded in Genesis 1. Maybe u ar mistaking things there. Go and read those two chapters well and u will see it. Do u believe that God gave man a command to multiply and replenish the whole earth where he has not formed the man himself? So, He was giving the command to dust abi?

Who was the first man God created? Adam. Now u ar saying that Adam was formed after the seventh day? So, who was created on the sixth day? Buhari? Lol. I don't know why u said I am ignorant but I know that this thing u ar saying about creation of man contradicts the Bible, it's heresy, a false teaching. Check those two chapters of Genesis and u see it.

Regarding Peter and being disobedient, who exactly was Peter disobedient to? Was Peter disobedient to God, because that would have made him a sinner? No, he only left the gentiles when the Jews approached because he was afraid that the Jews would fall into temptation because of his association with uncircumcised gentiles because he still believed in some of those laws of Moses, but Paul understood far better than him and rebuked him. It didn't make him a sinner. I can do something that u don't like and both of us ar running the Christian race, so u rebuke me but it doesn't make what I am doing a sin.
So, Peter wasn't a sinner but if u choose to call him an adamant Christian as u said, it's up to u, but to me he was still a Christian then, a true Christian at that and not a sinner. But assuming he was indulging in adultery even while posing as one of the apostles, then I would have boldly said he was a sinner, cos to me, u can't be in the middle, it's either u ar a Christian or u ar a sinner no matter the post u like occupy in the house of God.

I said before that u flawed ur argument with a previous statement, but u misunderstood it. It seems u didn't refer to all the dictionary meanings of argument. Whenever u ar making a statement or series of statements for or against something, it's called argument. And u have made several statements here supporting that polygamy is a sin, so I don't see anything wrong if I refer to ur statements as argument. U can check ur dictionary if u think I am not correct. But, if u think I am only after winning an argument, then don't even go on a little more as u said. U can choose to ignore. I have even learnt some important things from u already.

Regarding incest, it's a sin because the law condemned it in so many verses and Paul also condemned people having sex with their relations in 1 Cor and also condemned it in Gal 5.
Whether it was allowed for some people or not is not very important once Bible later condemns it, if the Bible both the old and the new testament anywhere condemned searching for wife or condemned polygamy just as it condemned divorce and incest, I would easily admit that polygamy and searching for a wife ar both sins. But as it is, it didn't, so to me none of them is sin.

Regarding bride price, the point I want u to get there is not whether it's a sin to marry without bride price, but that even though bride price wasn't so in the beginning, it is still not a sin if u pay bride price, same way that polygamy wasn't so in the beginning but it is not a sin to practise it.
U can't condemn polygamy and say it's a sin just because it wasn't so in the beginning, if u do that, then u have to condemn payment of bride price and searching for wife too because they were not so in the beginning, otherwise u will be selective in ur judgement.

Concerning being one flesh, I have given u a verse where Paul made it clear that someone can be one flesh with more than one person including a harlot. So a polygamous man can be one flesh with his two wives too. It doesn't mean that the first one flesh is dissolved once the second happens if not how would a married man be one flesh with his wife and still be one flesh with a harlot as Paul said. They only cease to be one flesh when they divorce, which Bible condemns wella.

Concerning Jesus' reference to the beginning, that's why u need to see that Jesus only referred to the beginning because He wanted to prove to them that Moses only allowed them divorce for a reason not because it was God's original plan. It's not the fact that it was absent in the beginning that makes it sin, that's where u ar getting it wrong. What makes divorce sin is the fact that u will now have sex with someone else which Jesus called adultery in that Matthew 19 and Paul also condemned. Paul even said that if u divorce, u should stay alone or go back to ur partner, to avoid committing adultery. Divorcing ur wife is same as having sex with a harlot while married to ur wife, they ar both adultery.
It's not being absent in the beginning that makes something sin, but whether God hates it, once God hates it, then it's a sin, whether it's present or absent in the beginning.
Look at searching for wife and paying bride price, u agree that these two guys weren't there in the beginning but they ar now accepted and they ar not sins, that goes to show u that it's not whether something is absent in the beginning that makes it sin, it's same with polygamy. That's the only point I am making. What would now make polygamy sin is whether God hates it or condemned it in any of the verses of the scriptures.

Now, regarding apostles being polygamous. That apostles didn't have more than one wife doesn't mean that having more than one wife is sin. Apostles aren't the ones that make us holy but God, what is God's view about this, did he condemn it anywhere in the Bible, what did Jesus say about it? I believe these ar things that should guide us and not how the apostles lived. Can u sight one apostle u know that built a residential house? None. Does it mean that building residential houses is a sin? No naah.

I have no issue with polygamy, monogamy or even polyandry because Bible never condemned any of them, u ar the one trying to prove two of them as sins, not me.

JMAN05:
It is a sin.

How?

nwamehn:
For ur first sentence, I have said it earlier, no single verse in the new testament condemns or advocates for polygamy. So it doesn't mean that polygamy is a sin, neither is it sanctioned by Jesus. It's just like tithing, there is no single verse in the new testament that shows how to pay tithe, it doesn't mean that if someone pays his tithe anyhow that the person has committed sin. U ar the person trying to prove that polygamy is a sin, so the onus is on u to back it up with scriptures, me, I am not trying to prove that polygamy is in the Bible, so I don't need any Bible quotation to support it. If u say that polygamy is sin, bring up one verse u know that condemns it

nope you have been trying to prove to me that polygamy is permitted in Christianity. Our standard is the Bible, we also have records of some early church fathers. Please tell me one of them who was polygamous and why it is now you realize it is permissible

Man was created on the sixth day in Genesis 1 vs 26 to 28 and that's where God gave the man and the wife the charge to multiply and replenish the earth. Genesis 2 talks about how God created both the man and woman. It talks about how God formed the man from dust and placed him in charge of the garden and then formed the woman  to be a helper fit for the man. Genesis 2 just describes what happened on that sixth day which is recorded in Genesis 1. Maybe u ar mistaking things there. Go and read those two chapters well and u will see it. Do u believe that God gave man a command to multiply and replenish the whole earth where he has not formed the man himself? So, He was giving the command to dust abi?

Who was the first man God created? Adam. Now u ar saying that Adam was formed after the seventh day? So, who was created on the sixth day? Buhari? Lol. I don't know why u said I am ignorant but I know that this thing u ar saying about creation of man contradicts the Bible, it's heresy, a false teaching. Check those two chapters of Genesis and u see it.

this is what you get when you are bent on arguing and wont read scripturs refered to u.Another thing, who is man and who is God.. Is God also dust like u r trying to prove or u r saying God is buhari? Wat do you understand when God said let us make man in our own image? Is man flesh or spirit? Who is man?

Regarding Peter and being disobedient, who exactly was Peter disobedient to? Was Peter disobedient to God, because that would have made him a sinner? No, he only left the gentiles when the Jews approached because he was afraid that the Jews would fall into temptation because of his association with uncircumcised gentiles because he still believed in some of those laws of Moses, but Paul understood far better than him and rebuked him. It didn't make him a sinner. I can do something that u don't like and both of us ar running the Christian race, so u rebuke me but it doesn't make what I am doing a sin.

according to your explanation, can the works of the flesh be present in the life of a Christian?

So, Peter wasn't a sinner but if u choose to call him an adamant Christian as u said, it's up to u, but to me he was still a Christian then, a true Christian at that and not a sinner. But assuming he was indulging in adultery even while posing as one of the apostles, then I would have boldly said he was a sinner, cos to me, u can't be in the middle, it's either u ar a Christian or u ar a sinner no matter the post u like occupy in the house of God.

i still take u to my former question.. Can the works of the flesh be present in the life of a Christian? If not, then why did Paul the Apostle write the galatian church and asked them to shun the works of the flesh? Were they sinners?

I said before that u flawed ur argument with a previous statement, but u misunderstood it. It seems u didn't refer to all the dictionary meanings of argument. Whenever u ar making a statement or series of statements for or against something, it's called argument. And u have made several statements here supporting that polygamy is a sin, so I don't see anything wrong if I refer to ur statements as argument. U can check ur dictionary if u think I am not correct. But, if u think I am only after winning an argument, then don't even go on a little more as u said. U can choose to ignore. I have even learnt some important things from u already.

Regarding incest, it's a sin because the law condemned it in so many verses and Paul also condemned people having sex with their relations in 1 Cor and also condemned it in Gal 5
Whether it was allowed for some people or not is not very important once Bible later condemns it, if the Bible both the old and the new testament anywhere condemned searching for wife or condemned polygamy just as it condemned divorce and incest, I would easily admit that polygamy and searching for a wife ar both sins. But as it is, it didn't, so to me none of them is sin.

i would like to know where Paul condemned incest inthose places u mentioned. I know he condemned a man marrying/committing immortality his father's wife, how is that incest? It was clear that it wasn't is mother. It was another wife of his father. Absalom did something similar to his fathers concubines

Regarding bride price, the point I want u to get there is not whether it's a sin to marry without bride price, but that even though bride price wasn't so in the beginning, it is still not a sin if u pay bride price, same way that polygamy wasn't so in the beginning but it is not a sin to practise it.

polygamy is not found in the life of any of our Christian leader who were even from Jewish extraction, it speaks volumes

U can't condemn polygamy and say it's a sin just because it wasn't so in the beginning, if u do that, then u have to condemn payment of bride price and searching for wife too because they were not so in the beginning, otherwise u will be selective in ur judgement.

how about incest?

Concerning being one flesh, I have given u a verse where Paul made it clear that someone can be one flesh with more than one person including a harlot. So a polygamous man can be one flesh with his two wives too. It doesn't mean that the first one flesh is dissolved once the second happens if not how would a married man be one flesh with his wife and still be one flesh with a harlot as Paul said. They only cease to be one flesh when they divorce, which Bible condemns wella.

if you will justify

Concerning Jesus' reference to the beginning, that's why u need to see that Jesus only referred to the beginning because He wanted to prove to them that Moses only allowed them divorce for a reason not because it was God's original plan. It's not the fact that it was absent in the beginning that makes it sin, that's where u ar getting it wrong. What makes divorce sin is the fact that u will now have sex with someone else which Jesus called adultery in that Matthew 19 and Paul also condemned. Paul even said that if u divorce, u should stay alone or go back to ur partner, to avoid committing adultery. Divorcing ur wife is same as having sex with a harlot while married to ur wife, they ar both adultery.
It's not being absent in the beginning that makes something sin, but whether God hates it, once God hates it, then it's a sin, whether it's present or absent in the beginning.
Look at searching for wife and paying bride price, u agree that these two guys weren't there in the beginning but they ar now accepted and they ar not sins, that goes to show u that it's not whether something is absent in the beginning that makes it sin, it's same with polygamy. That's the only point I am making. What would now make polygamy sin is whether God hates it or condemned it in any of the verses of the scriptures.

when it comes to issues regarding marriage, Genesis 2 is where you should go, every other things here and there are man made.

Now, regarding apostles being polygamous. That apostles didn't have more than one wife doesn't mean that having more than one wife is sin. Apostles aren't the ones that make us holy but God, what is God's view about this, did he condemn it anywhere in the Bible, what did Jesus say about it? I believe these ar things that should guide us and not how the apostles lived. Can u sight one apostle u know that built a residential house? None. Does it mean that building residential houses is a sin? No naah.

Peter has a house, Jesus visited his home to heal his wife Matt8:14, zaccheus hosted Jesus in his house too where he declared he was gonna restitute all he stole.. God made the Apostles our examples, many times Paul urged the church to follow his examples Philippians 4:9.. There was Even a place he said "follow me as i follow christ".. I referred you to Apostles and early church fathers luke Ignatius cos if anyone would know what Christianity ought to be and would practice it, then they ought to because they either studied under Jesus as disciples or studied under one of the disciples. Polygamy is a Jewish practice and prevalent in Aramaic cultures, how come its so conspicuously missing in the early church?

I have no issue with polygamy, monogamy or even polyandry because Bible never condemned any of them, u ar the one trying to prove two of them as sins, not me.

so what den av you been arguing about?

Lol the guys argument isn't really weighty as the lady's .....

First ,,,,what is sin....??
Even if we say That it's not sin( although it depends on the situation) it certainly isn't righteousness...

salvation101:
nope you have been trying to prove to me that polygamy is permitted in Christianity. Our standard is the Bible, we also have records of some early church fathers. Please tell me one of them who was polygamous and why it is now you realize it is permissible

this is what you get when you are bent on arguing and wont read scripturs refered to u.Another thing, who is man and who is God.. Is God also dust like u r trying to prove or u r saying God is buhari? Wat do you understand when God said let us make man in our own image? Is man flesh or spirit? Who is man?

according to your explanation, can the works of the flesh be present in the life of a Christian?

i still take u to my former question.. Can the works of the flesh be present in the life of a Christian? If not, then why did Paul the Apostle write the galatian church and asked them to shun the works of the flesh? Were they sinners?



i would like to know where Paul condemned incest inthose places u mentioned. I know he condemned a man marrying/committing immortality his father's wife, how is that incest? It was clear that it wasn't is mother. It was another wife of his father. Absalom did something similar to his fathers concubines

polygamy is not found in the life of any of our Christian leader who were even from Jewish extraction, it speaks volumes

how about incest?

if you will justify

when it comes to issues regarding marriage, Genesis 2 is where you should go, every other things here and there are man made.

Peter has a house, Jesus visited his home to heal his wife Matt8:14, zaccheus hosted Jesus in his house too where he declared he was gonna restitute all he stole.. God made the Apostles our examples, many times Paul urged the church to follow his examples Philippians 4:9.. There was Even a place he said "follow me as i follow christ".. I referred you to Apostles and early church fathers luke Ignatius cos if anyone would know what Christianity ought to be and would practice it, then they ought to because they either studied under Jesus as disciples or studied under one of the disciples. Polygamy is a Jewish practice and prevalent in Aramaic cultures, how come its so conspicuously missing in the early church?

so what den av you been arguing about?

To ur first point, go over my posts for u to see. I stand with the fact that polygamy is not a sin just like how to tithe and every other thing that the Bible didn't condemn. Whether u choose to understand it anyhow is entirely up to u. Besides, there ar so many things that we do today that ar permitted in Christianity but they ar not encouraged nor condemned in the Bible, they ar just normal activities of our lives like polygamy which u can't call sin.
See, u can't prove to me that polygamy is a sin, and u are asking me to show u where Bible encouraged polygamy, I never said Bible did, but I told u plainly more than once that Bible never condemned nor encouraged it so I don't see it as sin. I can only call something a sin if Bible condemns it. If u don't understand that, then na u sabi.

For ur second paragraph, madam, reduce ur insults, we no de fight, besides, I want to believe u ar a Christian.
God commanded the man and the wife to multiply and replenish the earth, I asked u, if u say that it wasn't Adam and Eve that He created in Genesis 1 vs 26 to 28, then who exactly did He create? U haven't answered it. It's a simple question that u can answer. If u can't answer it but would prefer to throw insults, then let it slide, no point quarreling or receiving insults over nothing, pls.

Regarding the incest thing, in Gal 5 vs 19 to 21, some translations show it as different things, some show it as all forms of sexual perversions which incest is among but that's not the main verse I rely on to condemn incest because we all know that particular verse is too vague and didn't condemn it directly, so I can't rely on that, but I also told u that there ar so many verses in the old testament that condemn incest, so that's why I said that once the Bible whether the old or new testament condemns something, whether it was allowed before is no more relevant to me, it becomes a sin to me.

Regarding ur assertion that we should rely on Genesis 2 when it comes to marriage, we ar saying the same thing regarding other things being man made, polygamy, searching for wife, bride price etc, they ar all man made, so why single out polygamy to call it sin whereas searching for wife and paying bride price aren't sins too? It shows being selective in one's judgement.

For ur second to last paragraph, first, what I was trying to say was for the apostles, I meant the 12, not Zacchaeus or Nicodemus. I told u that there was no apostle that built a residential house, maybe u didn't read it well, I didn't say none of the apostles lived in a house. Go back to my post. Show me one apostle u know that built a residential house, that was my request, not one that lived in a house, of course they must live in a house naah, were they living in the bush before? But fact remains that Bible didn't record that any of them built a residential house and it still doesn't mean that building residential house is a sin, just because the apostles didn't build it. 
U know some of the apostles married, now tell me, which among the 13 apostles including Matthias the new guy did Bible record that went in search of a wife? None. Since the Bible didn't record that they went in search of a wife, does it mean that going in search of a wife is a sin? So, if the Bible didn't record that they were polygamous, it doesn't in anyway mean that polygamy is a sin.
U ar free to follow the apostles or even a pastor, I am not arguing that, while I follow Jesus. If Jesus didn't condemn something, the mere fact that Peter and his brothers didn't do it isn't enough for me to condemn such act.

Regarding the works of the flesh, a Christian cannot have works of the flesh in him, otherwise he is sinning. See what I mean, a Christian can sin, at that point, he is a sinner. At any point in time, one is either a sinner or a Christian to me, it can be different to u. For example, if I tell u an abusive word now, I have sinned and I am a sinner now till I repent and plead for God's forgiveness, then I am a Christian again. U can't be a christian and be sinning. U might just be termed as ordinary church goer but not a Christian. Christianity is a lifestyle and not an association where u belong to and do anyhow. That's to me. 
So, what Paul said was actually right that they should shun the works of the flesh, he even outlined the works of the flesh for them there, maybe not all the Galatian believers where indulging in these supposed works of the flesh but any number of people among them that were still keeping malice, fornicating, being drunk, worshiping idols etc could not be termed Christians there but sinners. U can't claim to be a Christian yet u indulge in idolatry.
Besides, the questions I asked u before u never answered them, about whether a Christian being a new convert or not knowing how to teach is a sin, about what God meant by multiply and replenish the earth, and so on, so many of my questions which u didn't answer, so why don't u answer those ones first before u now demand any answers from me on any of these?

For ur last paragraph, I never knew u were still arguing.
The three points u raised here as to why polygamy is a sin have all been disproved.
First, u said that polygamy is a sin because Paul listed it among the things bishops should avoid, I now asked u three times, other things that Paul listed there ar they also sin like u claim that polygamy is, u couldn't answer.
Second, u said that in the beginning polygamy wasn't there so for that it's a sin, yet u admitted that searching for wife and paying bride price weren't there in the beginning just like polygamy, I now asked u whether they ar also sins, u said no they ar not, so how then is polygamy sin based on this point?
Third, u said that the early apostles didn't do polygamy so for that polygamy is a sin, I now asked u, is it anything that the early apostles didn't do that is a sin? Did the Bible record that the early apostles built residential houses? No. Did the Bible record that the early apostles went in search of wives? No. Did they watch TV or play football? No. Does it mean that building residential houses or going in search of wife or watching TV is a sin?

The moment u couldn't boldly say that a Christian being a new convert or not knowing how to teach is sin after I asked u the questions three good times and then u admitted that searching for wife was not in the beginning yet God isn't against it because of Abraham, that was when ur argument ended to me. All these other ones u ar doing now ar just jara.

If u accept that searching for wife isn't a sin even though it wasn't in the beginning, then u can never condemn polygamy for the same reason. I don't even see any more argument here.

Besides, I thought u were implying then that u will just go a little further and then shut it, how far? Has the little further not elapsed?

Ferisidowu:
Lol the guys argument isn't really weighty as the lady's .....

First ,,,,what is sin....??
Even if we say That it's not sin( although it depends on the situation) it certainly isn't righteousness...

Lol. Boss, I am not in for a weighty argument or not. My only point is that the Bible didn't condemn polygamy as sin and the new testament still didn't encourage polygamy, so there is no how someone can call polygamy a sin or holiness, it's just a normal thing like so many other practices that weren't condemned nor encouraged in the Bible. That's my point. Bible condemned divorce on so many occasions and not polygamy. Calling polygamy a sin amounts to heresy, and calling it a form of holiness is also a false teaching cos Bible never stated such anywhere. It's funny how Christians make laws for themselves that have no root in the Bible.

nwamehn:
To ur first point, go over my posts for u to see. I stand with the fact that polygamy is not a sin just like how to tithe and every other thing that the Bible didn't condemn. Whether u choose to understand it anyhow is entirely up to u. See, u can't prove to me that polygamy is a sin, and u are asking me to show u where Bible encouraged polygamy, I never said Bible did, but I told u plainly more than once that Bible never condemned nor encouraged it so I don't see it as sin. I can only call something a sin if Bible condemns it. If u don't understand that, then na u sabi.

Same way you can't prove to me that incest is a sin. Can u marry your sister? If not why not?
.

For ur second paragraph, madam, reduce ur insults, we no de fight, besides, I want to believe u ar a Christian.
God commanded the man and the wife to multiply and replenish the earth, I asked u, if u say that it wasn't Adam and Eve that He created in Genesis 1 vs 26 to 28, then who exactly did He create? U haven't answered it. It's a simple question that u can answer. If u can't answer it but would prefer to throw insults, then let it slide, no point quarreling or receiving insults over nothing, pls.

Am still trying to look for the insult but i will just end it at this. I will pretend to not see all ur rude comments cos dats not my purpose here

Regarding the incest thing, in Gal 5 vs 19 to 21, some translations show it as different things, some show it as all forms of sexual perversions which incest is among but that's not the main verse I rely on to condemn incest because we all know that particular verse is too vague and didn't condemn it directly, so I can't rely on that, but I also told u that there ar so many verses in the old testament that condemn incest, so that's why I said that once the Bible whether the old or new testament condemns something, whether it was allowed before is no more relevant to me, it becomes a sin to me.

if we are going to take the old testament authority on sin then there is no need for cherry picking. You also shouldn't put on a garment that is made from more than one material as it is a sin in the old testament, you also mustn't go into mixed cropping a farmer and so many other laws in the old testament. U can go through the book of deuteronomy to know the many other old testament laws.. If u r guilty of one u r guilty of all

Regarding ur assertion that we should rely on Genesis 2 when it comes to marriage, we ar saying the same thing regarding other things being man made, polygamy, searching for wife, bride price etc, they ar all man made, so why single out polygamy to call it sin whereas searching for wife and paying bride price aren't sins too? It shows being selective in one's judgement.

you should also say the same thing about incest..

For ur second to last paragraph, first, what I was trying to say was for the apostles, I meant the 12, not Zacchaeus or Nicodemus. I told u that there was no apostle that built a residential house, maybe u didn't read it well, I didn't say none of the apostles lived in a house. Go back to my post. Show me one apostle u know that built a residential house, that was my request, not one that lived in a house, of course they must live in a house naah, were they living in the bush before? But fact remains that Bible didn't record that any of them built a residential house and it still doesn't mean that building residential house is a sin, just because the apostles didn't build it.

i pointed out where Jesus Christ visited Peter in "his house"
... I wonder how you didn't see that or isn't peter an Apostle?

U know some of the apostles married, now tell me, which among the 13 apostles including Matthias the new guy did Bible record that went in search of a wife? None. Since the Bible didn't record that they went in search of a wife, does it mean that going in search of a wife is a sin? So, if the Bible didn't record that they were polygamous, it doesn't in anyway mean that polygamy is a sin.

Very illogical. Doesn't make any sense. Polygamy is found in Judaism, Islam, budaism nd many other religions and it is evident in the life of the proponents..you don't need to read d koran too much to realize that Mohammed and his servants were polygamous.. How can something so glaringly missen in Christendom become permissible?

U ar free to follow the apostles or even a pastor, I am not arguing that, while I follow Jesus. If Jesus didn't condemn something, the mere fact that Peter and his brothers didn't do it isn't enough for me to condemn such act.

the church was built on the foundation of Ephesians 2:20..God is not the God of confusion. I guess u are more a follower of Jesus than the Apostles. Since the Apostles are not enough authority for you to follow, u can as well wear away their letters from your bible

Regarding the works of the flesh, a Christian cannot have works of the flesh in him, otherwise he is sinning. See what I mean, a Christian can sin, at that point, he is a sinner. At any point in time, one is either a sinner or a Christian to me, it can be different to u. For example, if I tell u an abusive word now, I have sinned and I am a sinner now till I repent and plead for God's forgiveness, then I am a Christian again. U can't be a christian and be sinning. U might just be termed as ordinary church goer but not a Christian. Christianity is a lifestyle and not an association where u belong to and do anyhow. That's to me.why would Paul the Apostle write to
So, what Paul said was actually right that they should shun the works of the flesh, he even outlined the works of the flesh for them there, maybe not all the Galatian believers where indulging in these supposed works of the flesh but any number of people among them that were still keeping malice, fornicating, being drunk, worshiping idols etc could not be termed Christians there but sinners. U can't claim to be a Christian yet u indulge in idolatry.

what is your definition of idolatry? You think its only bowing down to graven image that is idolatry? According to the Bible, Stubbornness is idolatry. Anything you hold on to against the will of God is idolatry. When you have an already made answer before seeking God, that answer in ur heart is called idolatry. Same with fornication, in the new testament, Jesus said lust is same as fornication, hatred is the same as murder. Are u telling me you don't find those things in the lives of Christians? When the Bible said we should lay aside the sin that easily beset us, was it talking to sinners or believers? You once inferred that Eve had more than one genital, that was heretic. Does it mean u are a sinner?

Besides, the questions I asked u before u never answered them, about whether a Christian being a new convert or not knowing how to teach is a sin, about what God meant by multiply and replenish the earth, and so on, so many of my questions which u didn't answer, so why don't u answer those ones first before u now demand any answers from me on any of these?

i have answered those questions to the best of my ability. If you arw tired of this discussion then have a nice day nd thanks for wasting my precious time.

For ur last paragraph, I never knew u were still arguing.
The three points u raised here as to why polygamy is a sin have all been disproved.
First, u said that polygamy is a sin because Paul listed it among the things bishops should avoid, I now asked u three times, other things that Paul listed there ar they also sin like u claim that polygamy is, u couldn't answer.
Second, u said that in the beginning polygamy wasn't there so for that it's a sin, yet u admitted that searching for wife and paying bride price weren't there in the beginning just like polygamy, I now asked u whether they ar also sins, u said no they ar not, so how then is polygamy sin based on this point?
Third, u said that the early apostles didn't do polygamy so for that polygamy is a sin, I now asked u, is it anything that the early apostles didn't do that is a sin? Did the Bible record that the early apostles built residential houses? No. Did the Bible record that the early apostles went in search of wives? No. Did they watch TV or play football? No. Does it mean that building residential houses or going in search of wife or watching TV is a sin?

i provided answers already.. U keep building ur strawman fallacious logic.

The moment u couldn't boldly say that a Christian being a new convert or not knowing how to teach is sin after I asked u the questions three good times and then u admitted that searching for wife was not in the beginning yet God isn't against it because of Abraham, that was when ur argument ended to me. All these other ones u ar doing now ar just jara.

and you could also boldly say dat you knew the new testament didn't support polygamy, so wat was the whole essence of your argument? To waste my time? I guess u succeeded in dat

If u accept that searching for wife isn't a sin even though it wasn't in the beginning, then u can never condemn polygamy for the same reason. I don't even see any more argument here.

you should also be ready to go into incest too

Besides, I thought u were implying then that u will just go a little further and then shut it, how far? Has the little further not elapsed?

i think it obviously has. Dis is my last reply to you (i can still reply another poster though) on this thread. Enjoy your day

salvation101:
Same way you can't prove to me that incest is a sin. Can u marry your sister? If not why not?
.

Am still trying to look for the insult but i will just end it at this. I will pretend to not see all ur rude comments cos dats not my purpose here

if we are going to take the old testament authority on sin then there is no need for cherry picking. You also shouldn't put on a garment that is made from more than one material as it is a sin in the old testament, you also mustn't go into mixed cropping a farmer and so many other laws in the old testament. U can go through the book of deuteronomy to know the many other old testament laws.. If u r guilty of one u r guilty of all

you should also say the same thing about incest..

i pointed out where Jesus Christ visited Peter in "his house"
... I wonder how you didn't see that or isn't peter an Apostle?


Very illogical. Doesn't make any sense. Polygamy is found in Judaism, Islam, budaism nd many other religions and it is evident in the life of the proponents..you don't need to read d koran too much to realize that Mohammed and his servants were polygamous.. How can something so glaringly missen in Christendom become permissible?

the church was built on the foundation of Ephesians 2:20..God is not the God of confusion. I guess u are more a follower of Jesus than the Apostles. Since the Apostles are not enough authority for you to follow, u can as well wear away their letters from your bible


what is your definition of idolatry? You think its only bowing down to graven image that is idolatry? According to the Bible, Stubbornness is idolatry. Anything you hold on to against the will of God is idolatry. When you have an already made answer before seeking God, that answer in ur heart is called idolatry. Same with fornication, in the new testament, Jesus said lust is same as fornication, hatred is the same as murder. Are u telling me you don't find those things in the lives of Christians? When the Bible said we should lay aside the sin that easily beset us, was it talking to sinners or believers? You once inferred that Eve had more than one genital, that was heretic. Does it mean u are a sinner?

i have answered those questions to the best of my ability. If you arw tired of this discussion then have a nice day nd thanks for wasting my precious time.

i provided answers already.. U keep building ur strawman fallacious logic.

and you could also boldly say dat you knew the new testament didn't support polygamy, so wat was the whole essence of your argument? To waste my time? I guess u succeeded in dat

you should also be ready to go into incest too

i think it obviously has. Dis is my last reply to you (i can still reply another poster though) on this thread. Enjoy your day

For ur first and third paragraphs implying that the old testament laws should be discarded, if u say that all old testament laws ar not valid again but only the new testament things, and u want to maintain that incest is no sin, then it's up to u. 
My point is that polygamy isn't a sin because not even the old testament that u ar discarding nor the new testament that u believe in condemns it. At least the old testament condemns incest and Jesus said He didn't come to abolish the law but to fulfil it. And u here ar trying to abolish the law and say that only the new testament should be followed, good for u as u show u ar wiser than Jesus Himself.

For Jesus visiting Peter in Peter's home, I knew all that, but u still don't have any evidence to prove that Peter built that house. Jesus himself had a house where he lived with his mother and siblings before his ministry began, would u say Jesus built that house? U can't point out one place in the new testament that said that Peter or Jesus or any of the 12 built any house, even though all of them all lived in houses then, unless u don't understand the difference between building and living in.

Regarding Eve and having multiple genitals, I said earlier that it's either u don't read well or u ar always in a rush. I said that Eve could have had one sex organ or multiple sex organs but let's choose that she had only one sex organ because that's our belief, so what about the people born these days with multiple sex organs, does it mean God is against them? I also said that God didn't create twins but these days people give birth to twins, does it mean that God is against twins too?
Please, always read and understand well. I am showing u that Eve had only one sex organ but people ar born these days with multiple sex organs but it doesn't mean God is against them.

Regarding the sins u listed there, hatred, stubbornness, murder, idolatry, lust etc ar all sins, and everyone knows that. But whoever that has any of these sins in him is a sinner but can become a Christian only by repenting. Christianity is not a status that once u ar a Christian, u ar always a Christian. U can't be a Christian with sins in u. Christian means Christ-like, would u be like Christ and have hatred, idolatry etc in u? No way! So, it's either u ar a Christian or a sinner.

Regarding the new testament supporting polygamy, it's clear u don't read well. I said in my very first post that the Bible doesn't condemn nor encourage polygamy. That was the very first sentence I made in my first post. U just didn't read it, or u read it but didn't understand. Let me repost it again here: 
"Yea, u ar right, there is no portion of the new testament that makes polygamy permissible same also there is no portion there that condemns polygamy".

Forget about argument or whatever, there is need for everyone to be good readers, maybe if u had read that first sentence, u wouldn't have wasted ur time like this as u claimed u did.

The two points u made earlier to show that polygamy is a sin have both been ruled out because u couldn't defend them. When u couldn't prove those points u then turned round to say I should show u a verse that supports polygamy, whereas it has been my view from the onset that polygamy is neither supported nor condemned in the Bible.
Now, u have turned round again and ar now just hinging ur view that polygamy is a sin on what the apostles did and what they didn't do. Hahaha.
U can say that the Bible didn't record that the apostles were polygamous, yes, but that polygamy is a sin because of that? That's fallacy!!
Is it anything that the early apostles didn't do that is a sin? Did the Bible record that the early apostles built residential houses even though they lived in houses? No. Did the Bible record that the early apostles went in search of wives? No. Did they watch TV or play football? No. Does it mean that building residential houses or going in search of wife or watching TV is a sin? 
Once u can boldly say that building residential houses or going in search of wife or watching TV which the Bible didn't record that the apostles did is a sin, then polygamy would be sin based on only this point.
But, since u cannot, then it means u cannot condemn polygamy, so just take a break.

There is really no point saying what the Bible didn't say in the name of proving ur point.

I understand that u ar paranoid because u thought u could just say whatever and everyone would accept it without subjecting it to biblical scrutiny, but u were astonished. It's one of those things, people ar becoming more knowledgeable of the Bible these days and they can't easily be confused anymore.

No need for all these ur arguments!

Thanks for ur time.

I'm with salvation101 on this one....

Goshen360:
I'm with salvation101 on this one....

.. Good to know we can agree on a subject matter

salvation101:
.. Good to know we can agree on a subject matter

Na so o. There's acceptable, permissive and perfect will of God. Christ said, he that made them from the beginning (originally) made them male and female but Moses "permitted" it for a reason.... their heart was hardened to the ("perfect" ) will of God.

Goshen360:
Na so o. There's acceptable, permissive and perfect will of God. Christ said, he that made them from the beginning (originally) made them male and female but Moses "permitted" it for a reason.... their heart was hardened to the ("perfect" ) will of God.

exactly. Roman 12:2 comes to mind

nwamehn

Lol. Boss, I am not in for a weighty argument or not.

Alright, if you say so although you have been trying to convince her....

Myonly point is that the Bible didn't condemn polygamy as sin and the new testament still didn't encourage polygamy, so there is no how someone can call polygamy a sin or holiness, it's just a normal thing like so many other practices that weren't condemned nor encouraged in the Bible.

Back to the questions I asked which you didn't answer, I said what is sin?? Even if we say it's not a sin, is it righteousness?? Definitely not...
Will a well taught believer be led by the scriptures to marry a new wife?

Is the Christian to live to himself!? Or to live to Christ? Aren't they blood bought?

Please can you relate Romans 14 to this?

That's my point. Bible condemned divorce on so many occasions and not polygamy. Calling polygamy a sin amounts to heresy, and calling it a form of holiness is also a false teaching cos Bible never stated such anywhere. It's funny how Christians make laws for themselves that have no root in the Bible.

I must still say thanks for your time, and sincerity in showing us your views God bless

Calling a sin doesn't amount to heresy...
Thanks again bro really appreciate you

Goshen360:
I'm with salvation101 on this one....

yeah she stood for the faith.... May God bless her too

Ferisidowu:
Alright, if you say so although you have been trying to convince her....


Back to the questions I asked which you didn't answer, I said what is sin?? Even if we say it's not a sin, is it righteousness?? Definitely not...
Will a well taught believer be led by the scriptures to marry a new wife?

Is the Christian to live to himself!? Or to live to Christ? Aren't they blood bought?

Please can you relate Romans 14 to this?



I must still say thanks for your time, and sincerity in showing us your views God bless

Calling a sin doesn't amount to heresy...
Thanks again bro really appreciate you

Regarding ur question about what is sin? Pardon me, I thought it was a rhetoric.
But haba boss, u sound like I refused to answer a question u asked, remember that u didn't ask me any question, u only made a post which I quoted to express my own view.

Sin is described in the Bible as transgression of the law of God - 1 John 3 vs 4. Now, which particular law of God forbids polygamy? None!

For Romans 14, I believe it's vs 7-8 where Paul said we live and die to the Lord that u were making reference to except if I am mistaking. Since we live and die to the Lord and not to ourselves, the questions I believe we should ask are these: Did the Lord condemn or encourage polygamy? Has He ever condemned or encouraged polygamy? I believe those should be the questions and if we would be truthful to ourselves, we would know that the Lord whom we live and die for didn't condemn or encourage polygamy, so we would be wrong to call polygamy a sin or element of holiness.
It's just a normal thing like other parts of our every day life that Bible doesn't condemn, like watching football matches, reading news, going to swim, all these ar normal things that the Bible didn't anywhere condemn. Polygamy is not more than that, polygamy is no form of sin nor is it needed to make someone holy.

A well taught believer in the doctrines of Christian churches wouldn't go into polygamy or polyandry because of indoctrination not because what he or she is avoiding is actually sin. We have been indoctrinated for so long with so many laws which some ar man made and never shown in the Bible as laws of God. Just as a well taught Deeper Life Bible church member of old wouldn't buy TV for his children for any reason, but it never made TV a sin because Bible never condemned it. A well taught Anglican would baptise the child when he or she is young, but that doesn't mean that it's the way baptism was done in the Bible.
So, it's a matter of indoctrination, u know, indoctrination is a terrible disease, sir, if we want to examine an issue critically, then we refer to the Bible not to Christian doctrines because it's now clear that not all Christian doctrines stem from the Bible. But, we can still choose to be stubborn to how the Bible sees things and hold on to our various Christian doctrines because we have been so indoctrinated that we wouldn't even be able to differentiate between our left and right, it's a personal decision for every one. No one forces any person to marry more than one wife.

For ur last paragraph, na una be chairmen naah, we de follow una for back.

Ferisidowu:
How?

Gods arrangement has always been one man one wife. Matthew 19:5,6; 1Tim 3:2

jamescross:
was there sex prefall?

as we know it Jesus told them no sex in God's Kingdom

anyway christianity is a religion not founded by Christ Jesus but by gentile men

yes there was sex prefall, be fruitful and multiply, what do you think that means

Ubenedictus:
yes there was sex prefall, be fruitful and multiply, what do you think that means

Really?

JMAN05:
Gods arrangement has always been one man one wife. Matthew 19:5,6; 1Tim 3:2

I'd like to hear more from you

Ferisidowu:
Really?

yes

Ubenedictus:
yes

how?

Ferisidowu:
how?

how do you think they were suppose to fulfill the command of been fruitful without sex

Ubenedictus:
yes there was sex prefall, be fruitful and multiply, what do you think that means

I don't think there was sex prefall because if there was, eve would have convinced children in Adams state innocence and when they are born, they will be sinless, possibly there wasn't sex prefall

How many wives did Abraham (AS), Jacob (AS), David (AS) have?

bahaushe1:
How many wives did Abraham (AS), Jacob (AS), David (AS) have?

lolz you know Don't you?

Ferisidowu:
I don't think there was sex prefall because if there was, eve would have convinced children in Adams state innocence and when they are born, they will be sinless, possibly there wasn't sex prefall

not every sexual embrace ends in conception

Ubenedictus:
not every sexual embrace ends in conception

lolz they might have sent years or a day?