AOL Postmaster - Return Mail - User Unknown

The reply to this email is returned with the above message. I have no way of getting to the person concerned. So I decide to post the reply into the News & Talks Section in hope that he may see it if he returns to this site again. At the same time, it will also serve to answer those of similar dispositions.

POLYGYNY - A THING OF THE PAST

Emailer: I would like to say that I've read some of your web pages and would like to offer you an outsider's opinion; whether you agree or not. I would like to start by saying that most of your reasons for why polygyny is just, are unstable and weak arguments. First of all, if you are trying to convince yourself and others that what you practice is what God intended, then I think you're mistaken. You must already know that religion changes with the times, and I don't mean the main idea, simply the way ceremonies and other religious days are practiced. For example, it's now okay to eat an hour before receiving communion and now you can work on the Sabbath day , according to the Roman Catholic religion. If you practice certain parts of the Bible that benefit you, then shouldn't you practice all of them? Why select certain sections, when you should practice the whole thing? If I had more time I would further defend my argument I would, but I don't so I hope to have enlightened you and made you realize that your reasons are full of flaws and poorly represented.

My Reply:

Date: Fri, 14 May 1999 12:25:30 +0800

Hello,

Thank you for your response.

> I would like to say that I've read some of your web pages and would like to
> offer you an outsider's opinion; whether you agree or not. I would like to
> start by saying that most of your reasons for why polygyny is just, are
> unstable and weak arguments.

Much has been studied, researched and put in. I hope you can be more specific
about it.

> First of all, if you are trying to convince
> yourself and others that what you practice is what God intended, then I think
> you're mistaken.

I look forward for you to enlighten me further. But please be specific. Blanket
statements are of no value, they bring condemnation and not conviction.

> You must already know that religion changes with the times,
> and I don't mean the main idea, simply the way ceremonies and other religious
> days are practiced. For example, it's now okay to eat an hour before
> receiving communion and now you can work on the Sabbath day , according to
> the Roman Catholic religion.

I agree, religion should be more and more realistic and practiced from deep
within the heart and less ritualistic as the knowledge of God is revealed in
greater depths and measure. Rituals are to bring us to the deeper understanding
of God not the other way round. However, you are mistaken here. Marriage is not a
ritual nor merely a ceremony. It was instituted by God with laws and
stipulations, but men had over time changed portions of them (one of which is polygyny) and
blatantly declared them sin. You may want to read my article, Jerome on Marriage and Sex
and see how even these were so mistakably made sin by the Church fathers. When truth is
violated, men are put into bondage by men. God never changed the what (essence)
of Sabbath. Now the Rest that God gives is also in our heart and spirit. The
outward of how may change with time. That does not mean that the Sabbath has been
discarded. I have an article on the spirit of the law, I hope you look it up and
read in-depth. God's laws actually never change. If you use all such examples,
then you can only say that the what (practice) of polygyny cannot be discarded,
but the how (way) of polygyny may be reasonably changed somewhat over time. It's either you
use wrong examples, or there is actually no back up to your claim, which I think
is the case.

> If you practice certain parts of the Bible that
> benefit you, then shouldn't you practice all of them? Why select certain
> sections, when you should practice the whole thing?

Exactly, why do you select certain portion like polygyny and say it has changed?
Upon what scriptural authority do you say this? If God has not changed it, upon
what authority do you say it's changed?

You just said before this that we should be selective because certain things has
changed, now you say the whole thing should be practiced. I don't understand.
Please check your reasoning, it's one unreasonably sided. Instead, my writings state the
practice of the the whole thing (including polygyny) but with some changes of how
that comes with time, but not the what. Also, you so lightly equate the way of
marriage to the way you take communion. Your interpretation of God's way is
erroneous here. Do you change your forms and principles of marriage like
you change the timing of your communion? I do not agree, neither would the
Scripture. Not by my opinion, but by the Word, I have to say that you are grossly
mistaken here. You may say that you are just giving an example, but I must say that
your example does not justify your position that God's forms and principles of marriage
should be changed over time. It's because God's principles of marriage are violated and
taken lightly that we see an ever increasing number of divorces. The how may varies
with time, but the what which is the forms, like monogamy and polygyny should not
be changed with time. Or else, same-sex marriage would be deemed acceptable to
God soon, which we see in the Scriptures had never been and never will be.

> If I had more time I
> would further defend my argument I would, but I don't so I hope to have
> enlightened you and made you realize that your reasons are full of flaws and
> poorly represented.

If you have time, I implore that you read wider and deeper into what I
wrote, not just briefly. My ministry and I have researched into the Scriptures,
Church history and Church fathers and discover when the truths were discarded and
untruths brought in. You must dispute along this track and not merely use your
own human opinion and throw judgment. Who should I listen, what I see God says or
what I see you say? We are not here to argue on what you think or I think nor
personal experiences. They do not represent the Truth. We have to open up the
Scriptures, look into history to identify where we were, where we are and where
we should be.

I look forward for a fruitful discussion not argument.

God bless,
Israel