TE: Just present some argument, any argument, that polygamy is a sin, but not a violation of the Seventh Commandment.

MM: Since polygamy is not adultery or fornication, it is not a violation of the 7th commandment. It is, however, a violation of God's orignal "order".

Also, since no one can violate one of the last six commandments, and not instinctively know it is morally wrong, it must be a violation of one of the first four commandments.

The Seventh Commandment is "that shall not commit adultery." I asked you to present an argument, and your argument starts out, "Since polygamy is not adultery ..."

This is not an argument, MM. This is just circular reasoning. You are assuming your conclusion. Your argument should *end* with, "therefore polygamy is not adultery." It shouldn't start out with "since polygamy is not adultery" because that's the very thing you're trying to prove.

I could just as well say, "Since polygamy is adultery, it is a violation of the seventh commandment." Do you understand the point? Hope so.

Perhaps you would like to try again?



This is just the same thing, a circular argument, assuming your conclusion. Actually, you're thinking here is amusing. It seems to be, "Polygamy is a sin. I see that now. However, my theory states that no one can violate one of the last six commandments, and not instinctively know it is morally wrong. Since I can't be wrong about this, polygamy must not be a violation of the last six commandments."

Perhaps you are wrong about this. As far as I'm aware, you have presented absolutely no evidence that the no one can violate one of the last six commandments and not know instinctively that it is wrong. Do you have any evidence whatsoever to support this idea? Anything?

Tom, your response to my last post makes me think you missed the one right before it. Here it is again:

TE: As far as I'm aware, you have presented absolutely no evidence that the no one can violate one of the last six commandments and not know instinctively that it is wrong. Do you have any evidence whatsoever to support this idea? Anything?

MM: Romans 2:13-15. Romans 12:3.

The first text speaks of the work of the law written in their hearts. Why would you interpret this to be precisely the last 6 commandments? In Romans 1, God pronounces the heathen to be at fault for not acknowledging God, and giving Him thanks. (around vs. 18-21 or so). This is dealing with the first four commandments.

I don't see anything in Paul's writing which would indicate that he had precisely the last 6 commandments in mind, so that's one problem. An even greater problem is that you have postulated that *no* sin of the last 6 commandments can be committed in ignorance. All Paul has said is that the heathen are conscious of *some* sin, not every sin.

Here's Paul's argument. All have sinned, and all have some consciousness of that fact. That's it. Paul is not arguing that every man is conscious of every sin that he can commit, provided that it's a sin involving specifically the last 6 commandments.

Finally, Paul himself, in speaking of covetousness, indicates a progression of his knowledge of this sin. He says "then the law came, and I died" indicating that he came to a realization, over time, that he had been coveting. Therefore it was not something he was immediately aware of.

In short, you seem to be reading in an awful lot to get out of the texts that you cited the idea that Paul was teaching that no violation of the last 6 commandments can be done in ignorance. Would you please present some actual argument, that reasons from premises and has a conclusion? That would be easier to discuss. When you simply present some texts which are speaking to a different question, and present no argument, I have to guess what you are thinking, and what your argument might be. It's much clearer if you present the argument yourself.

The second text doesn't look to be discussing the last 6 commandments at all.

You seem to have this backwards. Wouldn't God be more inclined to permit behavior having to do with violating one's behavior to man than with God?



The way you are interpreting this law seems to have God sanctioning polygamy. Is that what you are saying, that God sanctioned polygamy?

I'm not sure what your point is here. However you interpret the meaning of Leverite marriage, isn't is obvious that this would have to do with the 7th commandment? After all, it is the 7th commandment which has to do with marriage.

Which of the first 4 commandments do you think this is dealing with?



Genesis teaches this. Jewish law itself recognizes this fact. (and, of course, Jesus made this point on the Sermon on the Mount. EGW makes the same point).



Not if God doesn't sanction polygamy, correct? Unless you think God is an unnecessary party to a marriage.



If God has not sanctioned polygamy, even once, then in no case has God joined together the superfluous marriages.

Tom, you still haven't proven your point - that polygamy specifically violates the 7th commandment. "Thou shalt not commit adultery" prohibits unlawful sexual relations. It doesn't define monogamous marriages. Nowhere in the Bible is polygamy condemned or forbidden.

Because mankind was originally made in the image and likeness of God, we are born with both a conscious and instinctive knowledge of what is morally right and wrong. “God hath dealt to every man the measure of faith.” (Romans 12:2) For example, we know from birth that it is morally wrong to lie, cheat, steal, murder, et cetera. Nobody has to tell us such things are wrong. We just know it naturally, instinctively. That’s how God programmed us from birth.

“As through Christ every human being has life, so also through Him every soul receives some ray of divine light. Not only intellectual but spiritual power, a perception of right, a desire for goodness, exists in every heart.” (RC 106)

Even a cursory study of feral children, humans who were raised by animals, makes it obvious that we are born with an instinctive knowledge of what is morally right and wrong. Without ever having been told, feral children know it is wrong to lie, cheat, steal, and murder. In fact, they feel guilty when they violate any one of the last six commandments. The reason they are able to feel guilty is due to the fact humans are born with a conscious and instinctive knowledge of what is morally right and wrong.

Although we are born with a conscious and instinctive knowledge of what is morally right and wrong as defined by the last six commandments we are not, however, born with a mental or biblical knowledge of what is morally right and wrong as defined by the first four commandments. For example, we do not know from birth that it is morally wrong to worship false gods, to make idols, to take the Lord’s name in vain, or to violate the Sabbath day. Nor are we born with an understanding of certain doctrines like diet and dress reform.

Until we learn about such things through Bible study and prayer, we unwittingly disobey them, that is, we sin ignorantly. God does not, of course, hold us responsible until we are convicted of the truth. Consequently, it is possible for someone to experience rebirth before they understand the first four commandments. This applies to people, like indigenous natives, who have never heard of Jesus but who live in harmony with what they know naturally from birth. They are morally but not mentally converted.

“For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified. For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves: which show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another.” (Romans 2:13-16)

“Those whom Christ commends in the judgment may have known little of theology, but they have cherished His principles. Through the influence of the divine Spirit they have been a blessing to those about them. Even among the heathen are those who have cherished the spirit of kindness; before the words of life had fallen upon their ears, they have befriended the missionaries, even ministering to them at the peril of their own lives. Among the heathen are those who worship God ignorantly, those to whom the light is never brought by human instrumentality, yet they will not perish. Though ignorant of the written law of God, they have heard His voice speaking to them in nature, and have done the things that the law required. Their works are evidence that the Holy Spirit has touched their hearts, and they are recognized as the children of God.” (DA 638)

We can also apply the principle of “morally but not mentally converted” to Christians who do not understand the truth about Sabbath keeping, or diet and dress reform, or any other doctrine which requires Bible study and prayer. In other words, a person can experience rebirth before they complete the process of converting to obeying and observing everything Jesus commanded.

Nowhere in the Bible is this taught? Then two questions:

1)Why did you agree that it is a sin?
2)If the laws of the land did not prohibit it, you are saying that polygamy is acceptable?

MM, you're just repeating your beliefs. I've been asking you to construct an argument.

An argument has premises, builds upon those premises, and the ends with a conclusion.

So, please, say what your premises are. Then construct an argument based on those premises to lead to your conclusion. In particular, I'm interested in why you think everything covered by by the last 6 commandments is known by instinct, and nothing of the first 4 commandments is, if this is indeed your position.

In particular, why would anyone know instinctively that it is wrong to have sexual relations outside of marriage? That makes no sense to me.