">
:: Unregistered? Register for a user account.



Christian Topics



Christian Friends

There are 3 unlogged users and 0 registered users online.

You can log-in or register for a user account here.

Languages

Preferred language:


Ethics In Practicing Your Faith

A husband who is limited in the number of wives that he may have at the same time is no longer a husband but has in fact become a wife.

Deuteronomy 22:5 The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman's garment: for all that do so [are] abomination unto the LORD thy God.

How much worse if a man puts on a woman's behavior? A man who vows a woman's vow, that he shall not retain the right of a man to have more than one wife, has vowed an abominable vow. Renouncing such a vow and declaring it an abomination is an act of repentance, not an act of covenant breaking. If a man vowed at his wedding that he would forever wear a woman's garments, would such a vow be valid? God forbid! Abominable vows, abominable covenants, or abominable whatever you want to call them, are never valid. A man who vows an abominable vow must renounce the abomination and make clear to the world that he will not "put on a woman's behavior."

Permission Slip Polygamy should call itself what it is. Instead, supporters of Permission Slip Polygamy continue to refer to their belief system with the misandrist* invective; "Love Not Force".

This cruel invective does three things:

1.) It denounces men who would dare to disagree.

2.) It abuses men who disagree by insinuation.

3.) It censures discourse by insinuation.

Consider first the following weak statement that they don't use:

"I can't possibly agree with what you're proposing. We adhere to Permission Slip Polygamy."

Apparently the promoters of Permission Slip Polygamy know that their concept is so weak that they must turn to political tactics to attack those who disagree with them. Instead of debating Permission Slip Polygamy, they create a name that of itself condemns those who would disagree.

Consider the tactic they actually use.

"I can't possibly agree with what you're proposing. We adhere to Love Not Force."

The statement insinuates that the o­ne being spoken to is not loving and that they're proposing to force something o­n somebody.

Because the phrase doesn't say something like "love not brutality" or "love not bondage" the reader doesn't realize the intensity of the accusation but it's there all the same. It accuses those who don't agree with those who invoke this invective disguised as a doctrine of being unloving and of forcing something o­n someone, specifically of being mysogynists*. It shouts, "Either you're o­ne of us or you're a mysogynist."

Imagine if someone said to you,

"I can't possibly agree with what you're proposing. We adhere to Love Not Butchery."

You'd immediately know that they were calling you an unloving butcher!

The names we call our doctrines should not be invectives. I call upon all the "Love not Forcers" to call it what it is: Permission Slip Polygamy. And yes, I am most certainly questioning the motives for selecting an invective for the name of a doctrine and even moreso the motives for retaining it.

I've listed below some other well known invectives that have been used throughout history to accuse instead of define or debate. Have you ever been accused with o­ne of these invectives?

Love not Lust - against polygamy
Love not Gender - against biblical relationships
Love not Bondage - against different roles in marriage
Love not Legalism - against Sabbath keepers
Love not Words - against patient people
Love not Terror - against self defense
Love not Anger - against self defense
Love not Violence - against self defense
Love not Rebellion - against dissent
Love not Judgement - against Christians
Love not War - against self defense
Love not Greed - against private property rights
Love not Money - against private property rights
Love not Babies - against procreating
Love not Bloodshed - against self defense
Love not Religion - against Christianity

Invectives such as "Love Not Force" have no place in Christian dialog. The affect is to bring out the misandrist* in the reader by planting the thought: "Those beasts! How could they teach force instead of love!" We urge those who teach that you must get a Permission Slip from your wife in order to take additional wives to simply call it what it is: Permission Slip Polygamy


Note: Definitions:*"Love Not Force" - Permission Slip Polygamy*misogynist - woman hater*misandrist - man hater

If you have questions or comments concerning this article please
click here
to send a message to Pastor Don.

Site Search


Admonitions

To offer a woman equality is to offer her shackles to bind your soul.

-- Pastor Don Milton --

Other Stories

Chat with Pastor Don