Proof non-monogamy is not a sin

I

Isaiah990

Member
1 Cor. 7:2 "But because of sexual immoralities, each man is to have his own (heautou) wife, and each woman is to have her own (Idion) husband."

Modern Christians use this verse to condemn non monogamy but when you look at the original Greek, it supports non monogamy. The word for "own" or heautou describes exclusive ownership, but the word "Idion" describes non exclusive ownership. There's no difference in the singular or plural form for wife in Greek so it could mean "wife" or "wives."
 
kdt26417 said:
An excellent take on an old idea. Nonmonogamy is not a sin.
Click to expand...
"Bible teachers" use various tactics to distort the truth of the Bible and manipulate you into accepting their interpretations. They'll ignore the original languages of the Bible and rely only on flawed translations, take verses out of context, give half-truths, fake analogies, and fake claims about the Scriptures. They'll try to scare you with warnings about hellfire for "sinning." They're already telling you what to believe at that point lol. They'll also try to force interpretations into the Scriptures. For example, since they can't find specific commandments against polygamy - they'll quote other verses that don't have anything to do with polygamy to try to say it's a sin.
 
Fuck Bible teachers. I don't for a moment believe that there's any such thing as hellfire.
 
Isaiah, were you raised in this kind of Bible culture? Perhaps it's important for you to break free of your own indoctrination? Not everyone even believes that "sin" is a thing. For example, I am Jewish and "sin" is just not part of the general non-orthodox Jewish mindset. I'm wondering what draws you to have such passion about proving or disproving other people's views of polyamory.
 
FallenAngelina said:
I'm wondering what draws you to have such passion about proving or disproving other people's views of polyamory.
Click to expand...
I know, right? Nothing in the bible "proves" or "disproves" *anything*. It's just a bunch of words written by humans. Just because *some* humans "believe" that the bible contains "truth", does not make the words in it any "truer" than a collection of Mother Goose's Nursery Rhymes.
 
Right on, ref.

And as for sin, the only kind of sin I believe in is actions that hurt other people, or that violate someone's right to consent. Poly/ENM does neither, so case closed.
 
I often look to the animal kingdom. The animals of the world, best I can tell, do not carry the burden of original sin. And if I understand correctly, are viewed as relatively without sin. And most animals lack the social complexity we have. Anyhow long story short, animals have polyamorous relationships all the time. Unless someone has a justification for animals being sinful somehow?
 
Good point, Ductcha.
 
Ductcha said:
I often look to the animal kingdom. The animals of the world, best I can tell, do not carry the burden of original sin. And if I understand correctly, are viewed as relatively without sin. And most animals lack the social complexity we have. Anyhow long story short, animals have polyamorous relationships all the time. Unless someone has a justification for animals being sinful somehow?
Click to expand...
Right, biblical fundamentalists say "polyamory is unnatural. YHWH made one man and wife.." but animals are naturally polyamorous. There were numerous polygamous relationships in the Bible. It doesn't make sense to declare monogamy as the only natural way of having relationships from a biblical view.
 
Alternatively, we can look at our own histories, including the biblical ones, and immediately see that polyamory was as much of a foundation of the system of identity within cultural narratives on both sides as anything else. Reading the bible, I’m immediately struck… “How many wives did this guy have?!” Most of the NT writings, other than the gospel books and Revelation, were written by Paulian writers. I struggle so much with viewing them as authoritative, and see them more so as examples of how to set population control via religion during the first few centuries AD. Writings on ethics and morality that litter the Paulian texts are relevant only to a time that is ancient to us now, both in civil and cultural terms. If we are looking to find authority within an orthodoxy, and not from inner sanctuary, then we shouldn’t be looking at what is equivalent to Roman era laws for civil practices. We should be looking at what in our time is being brought to the forefront for the sake of service and contribution to others, while being inclusively Christian. Mandates that prop up authority by means of orthodoxy are ancient artifacts of some other time.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top