One Flesh

[Magdlyn]

Basically, Abrahamic religions were designed at a time when the patriarchy was even more powerful than it is today (although the government seems to want to bring it back to those "good old days" presently). The Bible was composed at a time when women were chattel, and had no power to speak of. They were barely considered human. Their function was mainly to be breeding vessels. They certainly could not have more than one male sex partner. So, that's the bottom line.

However, the modern church also condemns men having more than one wife. And bigamy is illegal. So, having a wife and a gf is not allowed. Period. Some liberal Christians try to get around this by saying Jesus's message of love for all overrides the idea of monogamy, but that's a stretch, imo.

 

[MoPoly]

Suffice it to say, your lifestyle will not be accepted in the Fundamentalist Evangelical and Pentecostal Churches

In more moderate mainstream churches, Episcopalians especially, you are more likely to be welcomed without condemnation, but most likely would not be asked to participate in any leadership positions.

Unless you’re a politician that is!

 

[Al99]

Unless you’re a politician that is!

Yeah.... except that politicians are seldom ethically non-monogamous. Most just cheat, intimidate, and molest.

 

[cuckinlove]

As a Christian believer and a student of the Bible, I can tell you that there are a great many things which are believed by modern Christians which are not actually found in the Bible, and monogamy as a law is definitely one of them. Not only are there repeated instances of polygamy in the Bible which are never spoken against or punished by God, and are done by such heavyweights as Abraham, Jacob, David, and Solomon, among others, but God actually tells David that He was the one who gave David multiple wives and would have been happy to give David additional wives if he had only asked. This is in 2 Samuel 12:7-8 when God was rebuking David for committing adultery with Bathsheba and murdering her husband to cover it up. Note that David's sin was not taking multiple wives; it was adultery with someone else's wife. Similarly, God rebuked Solomon, but not for having multiple wives; He rebuked him for taking non-Israeli wives because they led him into idolatry and God had previously forbade taking non-Israeli wives for exactly that reason. In order to gain favor, Abraham famously gave his wife - who was very attractive - away to the king every time he entered a foreign city. It is recorded twice (Genesis chapters 12 & 20), and while chapter 20 specifically states that the king did not touch her yet, the king in chapter 12 admits that he took her as wife and she was brought into his house, which seems to imply that they had relations. Furthermore, it says in 20:13 that this was Abraham's custom wherever they went, so it might have happened on other occasions, as well, that Abraham gave his wife to other men. God never rebukes him for this.

Polygamy is never even mentioned in the New Testament, but there are hints that it existed and was allowed among Christians but not the elders of the church. 1 Timothy 3:2 says that the overseer (elder) "must be...the husband of one wife." Why would Paul state that requirement if every believer had to only have one wife? I would compare it with 3:3 where Paul says that the overseer must not be "an excessive drinker." That implies that drinking alcohol was permitted amongst the believers, including elders, but the elder must be strict with himself to exercise moderation and not be excessive in his drinking. Same with intersexual relations: elders should partake in sexual relations just like the rest of the saints, but he should act in moderation and only have one wife, whereas some saints may have more. There is no reason to mention excessive drinking unless drinking is allowed, and there is no reason to mention only having one wife unless more wives are allowed to the rest of the congregation.

This same criteria is mentioned (again by Paul) in Titus 1:6. The overseer must have believing children, not be drunken, not quick-tempered, not someone who strikes people...and "the husband of one wife." Again, each of the characteristics are in contrast to situations which existed among other believers and - although they may be undesirable traits - did not get them kicked out of the congregation. Not every believer has children who also believe in Jesus. Some are quick tempered. Some drink too much. Some might even strike people. And some might have more than one wife. It may be the case that the apostle Paul's opinion was that polygamy was not ideal, but he never said so. Instead, he only required that those taking the lead in each church were monogamous with one wife. Paul may even have desired, in general, that the other believers followed suit to be monogamous, since he considered the elders to be patterns for the flock. But again, an opinion, an encouragement, and a pattern are not a requirement and should not be applied as such. For example, Paul clearly states his opinion that it would be better for people not to marry at all, like him (the pattern), so that they could focus all of their attention on the Lord Jesus, but he does not make this a requirement on the believers, stating instead that "it is better to marry than to burn." 1 Corinthians 7:8-9.

I hope this helps anyone who is inclined toward scripture.

 

[Sisilisko]

By the way, you left out very important parts of Matthew 19, which is common.

Personal opinion: The most important part of this fragment are verses 8 and 9:

8 Jesus replied, “Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. 9 I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.”

One of the peculiarities of Jesus' s character is the impossibly hard moral standards, while simultaneously preaching God's love and forgiveness for the sinners. If I remember correctly, he'll also tell you that even a wantful look on another woman is adultery; and yet we may also remember how he stopped the stoning of an adulterous woman by saying "let the one without sin throw the first stone". Forget about being proud that you are any better than your neighbor and accept that in the eyes of God, we're all hopelessly imperfect, immature, unloving beings. And yet, know from the depth of your heart that God is expecting that to be the case and providing you with his grace nonetheless...

I believe these verses influenced Bert Hellinger, originally a pastor and missionary who later became the somewhat unorthodox founder/Inventor of the Family Constellations technique (a form of ritualized role-play displaying intergenerational forces with help of volunteers who don't know much about the family that is being displayed yet nonetheless tend to act in very revealing, sometimes archetypal ways). Based on his experience with family constellations, he says that every sexual relationship is binding, but every is binding less than the previous one: you are most tightly bound to your first sexual partner, a little less to the second one, ... by five or six, dissolving the bond is much much easier. In order for your seventh relationship to have any chance to be long-term successful, all of your previous partners have to have their own place in your heart, and you need to be able to "look upon them with love". A new relationship can thrive if, in your heart, you say to each of your exes: "I will keep all the Love and the good things you gave me; I accept responsibility for my part; I leave that which is/was your responsibility with you; I look upon you with love; I ask you to kindly look upon me and my new partner with love".

Notice that Hellinger makes the claim that every sexual relationship counts as binding (and without sex, a relationship is not as binding), emphasizing the importance of procreation. For Hellinger, the reason would be seen in strong psychological forces acting over multiple generations, between ancestors and descendants, i.e. through relationships defined by passing life itself. And notice that Jesus gives a single "valid" reason for divorce - adultery, i.e., the other partner has already broken the sexual bond.

 

[Tinwen]

I believe these verses influenced Bert Hellinger, originally a pastor and missionary who later became the somewhat unorthodox founder/Inventor of the Family Constellations technique (a form of ritualized role-play displaying intergenerational forces with help of volunteers who don't know much about the family that is being displayed yet nonetheless tend to act in very revealing, sometimes archetypal ways). Based on his experience with family constellations, he says that every sexual relationship is binding, but every is binding less than the previous one: you are most tightly bound to your first sexual partner, a little less to the second one, ... by five or six, dissolving the bond is much much easier. In order for your seventh relationship to have any chance to be long-term successful, all of your previous partners have to have their own place in your heart, and you need to be able to "look upon them with love". A new relationship can thrive if, in your heart, you say to each of your exes: "I will keep all the Love and the good things you gave me; I accept responsibility for my part; I leave that which is/was your responsibility with you; I look upon you with love; I ask you to kindly look upon me and my new partner with love".

Notice that Hellinger makes the claim that every sexual relationship counts as binding (and without sex, a relationship is not as binding), emphasizing the importance of procreation. For Hellinger, the reason would be seen in strong psychological forces acting over multiple generations, between ancestors and descendants, i.e. through relationships defined by passing life itself. And notice that Jesus gives a single "valid" reason for divorce - adultery, i.e., the other partner has already broken the sexual bond.

It's an interesting take, and I do find that physical intimacy creates a unique bond - something I wouldn't have believed or understood when I was 17. Some people I've only been intimate (not even sexual) with only a few times have stayed very close to my heart...
I'm pretty sure though the bond with Idealist (as my third partner) goes deeper than with my first boyfriend (although that was good sex! and not a short relationship). So I wouldn't bet on the "every [sexual relationship] is binding less than the previous one" part. There are gamechangers.