Tom, you still haven't proven your point - that polygamy specifically violates the 7th commandment. I'm still waiting.

"Thou shalt not commit adultery" prohibits unlawful sexual relations. It doesn't define monogamous marriages. Right?

Nowhere in the Bible is polygamy condemned or forbidden. Right?

"Why did you agree that it is a sin?" Because it says so in the SOP. Why do you believe it is a sin?

"If the laws of the land did not prohibit it, you are saying that polygamy is acceptable?" Nope. I believe being married to one person at a time is God's ideal plan.

But the law that requires a man to marry his brother's widow is confusing. How do you explain it?

Also confusing is the fact in the beginning God expected A&E's children to marry one another. Whereas nowadays it is wrong. How do you explain it?

Tom, I presented a well constructed explanation. You happen to feel it proves nothing. What more can I say? What do you think? Are we born totally devoid of instinctive knowledge of what is morally right and wrong as defined by the last six commandments? Or, do we have a partial knowledge? What is your opinion?

Regarding knowledge of sexual relations outside of marriage it is clear to me that a monogamous relationship is natural. How people define "marriage" may differ, but in general couples expect to pair off for life. In the case of Isaac and Rebbecca they got married by having sex. Once two people decide to hook up the idea of having sex with someone else feels wrong. They know it instinctively.

No, MM, it's poorly reasoned, for the reason I pointed out. In a well-reasoned argument, you can't simply state what you're trying to prove. You can't say things like:



That's a no-no! Please try again, without stating your conclusion as a conclusion.

Here's a well constructed argument. We'll prove that, given certain assumptions, Jill likes chocolate.

Premise 1:All girls like chocolate.
Premise 2:Jill is a girl.

Conclusion: Jill likes chocolate.

Here's a poorly reasoned one:

Although Jill likes chocolate .....

This is poorly reasoned because it assumes the conclusion is true. You can't do that in a well reasoned argument.



We are born with a notion of right and wrong, but most of what we consider to be right and wrong, is learned. What we know of right and wrong includes both commandments from the first 4 commandments and the last 6, as Paul argues in Romans 1 (regarding the first 4 commandments, that all men know God, because He has revealed Himself to them; all men should be thankful to God.)



That's what you were taught. If you were brought up in a society that was not monogamous, it wouldn't be so clear to you.



How do your remarks address the question as to why someone would know by instinct that it's wrong to have sexual relations outside of marriage? What reason is there to assume this is instinctual as opposed to being learned?

How do you differentiate between what is instinctual and what is learned?

What do we know instinctually about God? Can we observe God in nature and learn to obey the first four commandments without reading about them and Him in the Bible?

Couples instinctively crave a monogamous relationship. Polygamy is made necessary in certain circumstances.

There's no way to effectively do this, which I why (or one reason, a chief one) that I think your theory is lacking. You ascribe *all* of one's knowledge of the last 6 commandments to instinct alone. I think that's way off. It's off by whatever extent we actually learn things regarding the last 6 commandments, in terms of knowing that certain things are morally wrong. In your view, we never learn that anything is morally wrong (according to the last 6 commandments).

If one studies human behavior compared to other animals, one finds that our behavior is far more learned. For example, we are the only species that can swim, but not be instinct.



According to Paul in Romans, what can be known about God is evident in His handiwork. We have an obligation to be thankful to Him, for example.



How do you know this isn't something which is learned?

Surely you know this is not true? Or if you acctually think it is, some National Geographic TV or maybe Animal Planet would give your general knowledge a boost.

The "be" should have been "by" (I.e. "be instinct" is "by instinct"). That changes the meaning quite a bit!

I'm saying that we are the only species that teaches its members how to swim, as opposed to knowing how to do so by instinct.

Some other species can be taught to swim, but they are taught by humans! (so they don't count).

Tom, you didn't address my comments and questions. You simply disagreed with them. Read them again carefully and you'll see what I mean. Thank you.

I looked again, and I did answer your questions. Your assertion here doesn't even make sense. How do you disagree with a question?

One doesn't disagree with questions; one disagrees with assertions. For example, I disagree with your assertion that I disagreed with your questions.

Tom, what do we know instinctually about God from birth? Can we observe God in nature and learn to obey the first four commandments without reading about them and Him in the Bible?