Now you're changing the subject again. No one is claiming that the rapid growth of the church proves the message was true, at least I wasn't claiming that. That's sort of a nonsense thing to claim, because it makes it sound like truth is subject to a majority vote. Besides, the question at hand was whether religions evolved to survive, which is a different discussion than whether or not church growth is a sign of truthfulness.

As to "naturalistic vs. supernatural explanation," since you're talking to a Christian, it's probably obvious that I believe in both. The problem with your position, however, is that you can't prove that nature is a sealed box, so to speak, and that nothing else exists, or could possibly exist, and even if it did that it had no ability to do anything inside the sealed box. Those kinds of questions aren't able to be investigated by naturalistic strategies, since they are philosophical, logical, and theological questions.

I agree that this is a subject change or sidebar discussion.

> mistaken sociological take

We'll have to agree to disagree. It simply comes down to naturalistic versus supernatural explanations. Like the early church growth argument that apologists use to support the resurrection, but sociologist Rodney Stark calculated that the rate of growth for the Mormon Church was about the same (so therefore Mormonism must be true /s).

Now you're changing the subject. Progressive revelation has nothing to do with the slavery issue or today's gay right/equality/marriage issue. And your more likely explanation (religion evolves to survive) is not more likely at all, but a mistaken sociological take on a theological question.

> what I was saying is that revelation is progressive

I am not disputing what you said but rather offering a much more likely explanation of what is actually occurring.

It's the same with slavery (aka the "Institution of God") and today's gay rights/equality/marriage issue.

No, that's not what I'm saying at all. While religion does evolve, it evolves mostly by distortion, not by intent. And Rob Bell is an illustration of that distortion. Universalism is a contradictory and untenable panacea to the salvation question, and Bell has fallen for an age-old weakness.

Instead, what I was saying is that revelation is progressive, and necessarily so. Every time God reveals himself, we know more than we used to, just like every time you watch a movie again, you see something that you didn't see the time before. Except in the case of God, it's not the same video playing repeatedly, but sequels. When God revealed himself to Abraham, now he knew more than his dad did. When God gave the law to Moses, now we all knew more than Abraham did. When God spoke through David, now we all knew more than Moses did. When God revealed himself in Jesus, we really got the farm. It a far cry from "religion evolves to survive." Instead, it's that every sequel surpasses the awesomeness of the original movie. The franchise gets better all the time.

In other words, religion evolves to survive. A good contemporary example is the growing popularity of Universalism (or Universalism light by Rob Bell). Much to the dismay of Evangelicals of course.

Then I have miscommunicated by not mentioning the visceral in preference to explaining the technical. Marriage and sex are wonderful, fantastic things. Lifelong commitment and sharing bodies intertwine with each other to make life, mah-vellous. I was just trying to explain that in the OT monogamy is never commanded, as the OP was wondering, and polygamy is never condemned. I was interpreting that as the direction of his question. Then I also added, though, that in NT times things changes, and the one man-one woman concept was brought home as an ideal.

To respond to your comment, however, in ancient times marriage often was an economical tool. Marriages were arranged and didn't have a whole lot to do with love, though marriage for love did certainly happen (like Jacob to Rachel and David to Bathsheba). But often marriage was part of an economic system involving the exchange of dowries, part of a political system involving treaties, and part of their survival involving children (and therefore workers to sustain life). Our modern notions of marriage for love are quite foreign to the ancient mindset, even though I'm pretty happy about it. ;)

You make it sound like it was just another duty. An economical tool. It's marriage and sex.

The elders were supposed to exemplify the ideals of the community, not to live a lifestyle in contrast to it. The elders were to set the moral tone for the church as examples to be followed. It's the same thought we hear from Paul in places like Phil. 4.9 & 1 Cor. 11.1.

> But among Christians, monogamy became the requirement (Titus 1.6).

Titus 1:6 is part of a list of qualifications for an elder. Similarly in 1 Timothy 3 verse 2 for overseers and verse 12 for deacons. This is not a requirement that each Christian man must have only one wife (or must marry at all). Not every man desires to be appointed as an elder, overseer or deacon.