Polygamy makes a mockery of many things: Polyglots, Polly Annas, actress Sarah Polly.

"Since Christians inevitably are selective in what they follow in a sometimes contradicting Bible"

Hey syako! I just want to clarify what I meant with that sentence you pointed out.

I was referring to the many layers of the Bible. For example, you learn "eye for an eye" in the Hebrew Scripture; but, Jesus says in the New Testament "turn the other cheek."

I'm not a biblical scholar, of course. I was just noting that sometimes religious people must weigh different messages. Perhaps the importance of keeping together a family (a very Christian thing to do) might be more crucial than following monogamy rules, in certain situations (like the one in this story). Now, whether that is true is up for debate. But, it's something that I was thinking about.

I think the vast majority of followers of any religion are selective about what they choose to put into practice. Most Jewish women don't follow the laws of family purity, use the ritual bath, etc., and so on; lots of Muslims drink; lots of Buddhists eat meat.

In this case, I think the question is more down to the church. They seem to be saying that the integrity of the teachings is more important than their number of followers (since I'd imagine that would drop following such a decree), or, perhaps, keeping together the families of their followers.

Thanks for clarifying. The way it was worded was a little offensive, but now I see what you mean.

And a lot of Christians seem to forget that part about entering heaven for a rich man is as hard as a camel passing through the eye of a needle.

Who also skis, apparently. I need an intern.

Well it's really easy to point out the things that "a lot of" Christians forget to follow. It's also interesting how quickly we are to judge...

Anywho, about the topic, this is a really complicated situation. Especially for a church with 17 million people I agree with the archbishop that polygamy does make a mockery out of Christianity. I also think that Jesus was pretty clear about his feelings of the family... that it's not always the most important thing, especially when it hinders you from being closer to God. Jesus stressed the importance of the family in the Christian sense (i.e. the like-minded believers, not always biological)

Mark 3: 33"Who are my mother and my brothers?" he asked. 34Then he looked at those seated in a circle around him and said, "Here are my mother and my brothers! 35Whoever does God's will is my brother and sister and mother."

This isn't in the article, but does anyone know why polygamy is so common to the point that it requires this response?

From my understanding, polygamy in Islam is justified when necessary to support someone else. In a lot of places where women can't work/drive etc...(gov't/cultural restrictions) or in times of war where a widow is left with children she can't support a man is permitted to marry multiple wives (up to 4) so that he can serve as a father; husband; etc...instead of letting these families starve to death or fall victims to prostitution or crime.

I think another reason it's permitted is in the case of health problems where the wife cannot bear children but does not want to divorce.

I can't imagine all of these people having multiple wives within these situations? I mean, are there that many war widows, single moms, and infertile yet committed women?

And one more thing. I think it is not our place to judge. The Church is supposed to lead believers and help them make it through this world, but it is not ultimately the end-all be-all. So I think believers should focus more on how their actions/thoughts/beliefs make them feel closer to God. If being a polygamist hinders that relationship, then there's your answer. I believe it's possible to be different for different people.

That's what, I think, is the most interesting part of Christianity. Jesus did not come to tell us do this, do that, don't do this, don't do that, he really came and shook everything up and said, look, all I need you to do is believe, and I'll do the rest. And on an individual basis believing will make you do some things and not do others.

(Does that even make sense?)

I do think it is our place to judge. If a church's tenets are such that they promote a harmful approach to a problem ... say bombing abortion clinics ... than I do very much believe that should be judged. Just because you're a church (of any denomination) doesn't give you the right to do anything you want. You can't separate the herd from the shepherd that easily.

Um, that's totally not what I meant. I meant that ultimately (I believe) God is the only judge that counts.

Oh. Well then let's just sit back and enjoy some emoticons.

sounds like a plan!

Syako, that makes sense and I completely agree. Raciccarone, I get where you're coming from; but most religious denominations and/or sects have a central belief from the faith. If a religious house is going against their base religion then it is not a true follower of the religion. For an example, some Muslims do not believe or acknowledge the Nation of Islam as a denomination/sect of the Muslim faith. Now the followers of this religion believe that they are but some Muslim faiths do not acknowledge and some actually denounce the followers and their teachings.

I agree bella, I think Syako and I, once again, crossed signals. In the land of the emoticons, there is no such confusion.

Rac, I still love you. I love that you are using emoticons.

It's hard to say what they should do, because the newly converted Christians could sight the Old Testament for them keep up their polygamists lifestyle (i.e. King Solomon).....Personally I don't believe in polygamy but I do believe in keeping families together....

Well since polygamy revolves around the male I would imagine women would not have to leave their husbands because as long as they’re true to their husbands they are having a monogamous relationship.

Men on the other hand would have to pick one.

"And a lot of Christians seem to forget that part about entering heaven for a rich man is as hard as a camel passing through the eye of a needle."

I would say a majority of Christians don't forget this. And this verse is not to say that you need to be poor to enter Heaven, it means to be charitable.

It's their church so I guess they get to decide what is and is not ok for parishioners - new converts and long time members alike.

As for me, I have a hard time picturing Jesus sending people away or separating mothers and children simply because their previous religion allowed them to have more than one wife. Of course, while he may have accepted hookers with love, he did expect them to discontinue the hooking. So, I can see that the bishop is not saying we will not accept you but rather we cannot have you continue on with behavior we consider to be unsavory. But, the consequences to the families and the likelihood that people will avoid the church seem to outweigh the positives here, in my personal opinion.

Zeze - I think countries that have had violent strife, civil wars, and tribal conflicts as well as poverty for long periods of time are going to tend to have more women than men in general and fewer men with the resources to properly support a family.

I disagree, Cine. But isn't that the great thing about the bible? There's so much room for interpretation!

Okay. SO I suppose since I don't live in poverty, I am going to hell. According to your profile, you make $250 K plus. I guess get ready for some heat.

If I am getting this wrong, please feel free to explain your interpretation, I mean you did say you were Catholic, so you must have given it some thought.

Rac - can you sponsor me.

I agree with you Cine, about the interpretation of that verse. That's the trouble with picking out verses and interpreting one or two. You need to look at the whole story. ie: Who was Jesus talking to when he made that comment? Picking single lines to base interpretation is like taking a 30 second sound bite out of a 2 hour conversation. It can be made to show the exact opposite of what was actually being said.

"You need to look at the whole story. ie: Who was Jesus talking to when he made that comment? Picking single lines to base interpretation is like taking a 30 second sound bite out of a 2 hour conversation. It can be made to show the exact opposite of what was actually being said."

Well said UnDave! I hate when people do this. You get a medal

WooHoo!!

Sometimes I think you guys just like to argue for its own sake. All I said was that the bible can be widely interpreted and you turned it into a debate. Okay, so the bible can't be widely interpreted. You win. It must only be interpreted your way.

Well when you disagree, normally you offer a counterpoint. But whatev... (which is what cine did...)

Well, Cine sort of took it upon herself to speak for me so it was a misguided effort on her part to begin with. There really is no debate. I see a statement one way, and she sees it another way and since the author of the text never existed, it's sort of hard to get confirmation.

who Mark? Matthew? or Luke?

I did not disagree with you that there are many interpretations, I asked to explain your interpretation. Seems like you make comments that you don't want challenged, which is fine, but don't get pissy if you do get challenged.

And I don't see how I spoke for you at all. Maybe you should reread what was written. IF you don't see it as being charitable, but being only poor should get into heaven, then I am wrong, so explain your interpretation to me. How is that a lot to ask on a DISCUSSION board?

Also, how did the author never exist? That statement makes no sense whatsoever.

I'd like to know which author you're referring to as having never existed...

Q--Should women converts be forced to separate from their husbands and leave their families?
A--I think St Paul pretty much tells converts of his day to remain in their marriages. I don't think there were additional spouses, though. This is something that I would refer to the highest Church authority . . . in my case, the Roman Catholic Church . . . to decide.

Q--Since Christians inevitably are selective in what they follow in a sometimes contradicting Bible, should an exception be made for Muslims who want to convert, but don't want to break up their families?
A--Don't know what Christians you're describing, but as a Roman Catholic, there is no 'cafeteria' of beliefs I can choose or disregard. I either believe it all, or I am free to move on. Just because people like Sen. Kennedy, Speaker Pelosi, and Sen. Kerry remain in The Church and accept the Eucharist publicly, doesn't mean that what they are doing is acceptable by The Church. They did not receive from Pope Benedict XVI when he was here and he would have probably denied them, had they done so and had he known who they were at the time. People are free to damn their own souls no matter what they say they believe.

Q--Or, should these converts accept monogamy as a crucial tenant to the faith to which they hope to convert?
A--Again, it would be up to the leaders and authority of the church to which the Muslims convert to make that decision. I would imagine that the polygamy would stop with the converts and their children not perpetuate polygamy.

Roman Catholic Church doctrine is not something that is decided by popular vote. It's based on Scripture, other early Church writings, and Tradition. What other religions and faith communities do may be based on whim or vote, I don't know.

I just disagree with the polygamy actions all together.

I would like to repeat a post from an earlier polygamy discussion.
"I don't understand why any man would want to take on more than one wife. It's bad enough to disappoint on woman, let alone three or four."

I have no philosophical issue with polygamy. It's not for me, but I don't see any fundamental wrongs there.