Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Oh? What else can "....into they bosom...." mean? Every occurrance of that Hebrew terminology throughout the OT is very intimate, which goes far beyond mere care.
I'm not a Jew, and the words God spoke through the prohpet Nathan weren't a result of Jewish thought, so that point is moot.
You seem very sure of yourself. Applying your system of interpretation to modern times, I could carry your thinking to its logical conclcusion and state that monogamy is an utter failure, given the enormously high divorce rate resulting from wife-beating, drugs, alcohol, emotional abuse, et al. Therefore, monogamy has "....never worked out very well."
Now, if that sounds absurd to you, then I would have to agree.....which applies to both sides of that observation.
Now, if you're going to judge polygyny as a sin, what sin are you going to try and stamp upon its visage?
BTW
All forms of polygamy are condemned by the Orthodox Church under the New testament, and all terms seeking to differentiate (polygyny et al) ARE seen to be sin.
We don't judge Old Testament patriarchs - we let God do that - His covenant with them is different than the one for us.
If you want to claim Old Testament theology, you really have to take it all, not only the parts that you like.
So with "polygyny" you also have to start doing absolutely everything else you don't like described in the OT. Only I'm not aware of any Jews even that do that.
The ONLY valid expression of sexual relations in the Orthodox Church is a marriage between one man and one woman.
Everything else is condemned as sin and not God's plan for our lives, and thus, all permutations of what was once identified with the general terms "bigamy" and "polygamy" (also euphemisms, when you come down to it - certainly when applied to humans) are evil euphemisms.
Your tone of discussion is inappropriate in TAW. I don't mind discussing this topic, but commenting that I am "sure of myself" is ad hominem and inappropriate for a guest in someone else's home. If you'd like to revise your post with attention to your tone, I'd be happy to have a conversation.
In giving the Orthodox answer, you have to revise the paradigms. We don't see sin in exactly the same way as westerners do - this is due to the legalism of the Roman Catholic legacy that Orthodoxy does not share.That's the part I can't seem to understand, and was seeking an answer from the orthodox. If it is sin now, then one would have to conclude that it was sin then, right? Just simple questions about a particular that was brought up by one of your own members.
I'm also left with yet another question: What sin is being invoked in relation to polygyny?
Again, just simple questions, with no debate.
I agree that we're not under the same covenant. However, I'm left wondering what marriage has to do with those two covenants. If one is going to conclude that polygyny is a sin, then one is indeed judging the Patriarchs if the foundation of God's moral absolutes are indeed intact across the boundary of covenants. How did the coming of Christ make any alterations to God's definition of marriage, and the moralities therein? Where did the coming of Christ make even one alteration to the foundation of God's moral absolutes? Never mind the Law, I'm asking about morality itself, which I can't see was ever altered with the coming of Christ.
I agree. However, where does marriage, something defined before the Law, enter into this mix of theology and covenants?
This is the dichotomy. I could see the reasoning behind this only if I can be shown the parallel to the Law and the covenants.
Do orthodox divorce, or acquire annulments, and then remarry? If so, isn't that a form of serialized polygamy? What are some thoughts on that?
Good point. What we're talking about is the idea that polygyny is one of many evil euphemisms. I'm trying to discover the legitimacy behind generally categorizing polygyny as a sinful euphemism.
BTW
In giving the Orthodox answer, you have to revise the paradigms. We don't see sin in exactly the same way as westerners do - this is due to the legalism of the Roman Catholic legacy that Orthodoxy does not share.
Sin (in Greek, "amartia") means "missing the mark", "failing", falling short of perfection - which is NOT OK - we are to greatly desire that perfection and to lament our sin.
Also, we are to understand sin without judging others.
The OT patriarchs did lots of nasty things, and in the book of Genesis they are described in quite a factual, non-judgmental manner.
Getting David to lament the murder of Uriah et al is a real moral advance in that light. Now the things they did were very often sin, and even grave sin - but the point is that it is not our business to judge them.
So yes, multiple wives IS amartia, failing and falling short of the ideal, even though it was practiced.
But we agree that moral law did not change.
Certainly, the instances of multiple wives we find were not blessed.
Ishmael was a result of human desire impatience with God - an unwillingness to accept God's will, and essentially it was Abraham doing an end-run around God and taking matters into his own hands, and the result was, well, less than positive.
But WE are responsible for what WE know. The sin is fornication.
The teachings of the Church are clear. (here you'll want to begin to learn about the basis of authority, since you probably see the Bible as the sole authority (Sola Scriptura).
1) What did Christians do in the first 3 centuries when they only had varying fragments of the canon, which was not established until the 4th century. If they could only look to the Bible, which many only had a few pieces of, if that, then whence the authority?
2) Who is the person who decides what is written means?
Note - we don't engage in Scripture wars in general because of the ease with which one can take a passage out of its larger context and make up one's own meaning. Otherwise, I'd mention 2 Thess 2:15.
These are essential problems for someone whose understandings are based on Sola Scriptura
It also explains why there are thousands of denominations in the west, but why in the east, everybody believes pretty much the same thing.
(there's more...)"Speak on," said Oyarsa to Weston.
"Me no ... no ..." began Weston in Malacandrian and then broke off. "I can't say what I want in their accursed language," he said in English.
"Speak to Ransom and he shall turn it into our speech," said Oyarsa.
Weston accepted the arrangement at once. He believed that the hour of his death was come and he was determined to utter the thing - almost the only thing outside his own science - which he had to say. He cleared his throat, almost he struck a gesture, and began:
"To you I may seem a vulgar robber, but I bear on my shoulders the destiny of the human
race. Your tribal life with its stone-age weapons and beehive huts, its primitive coracles and
elementary social structure, has nothing to compare with our civilization - with our science,
medicine and law, our armies, our architecture, our commerce, and our transport system which
is rapidly annihilating space and time. Our right to supersede you is the right of the higher over
the lower. Life -"
"Half a moment," said Ransom in English. "That's about as much as I can manage at one go." Then, turning to Oyarsa, he began translating as well as he could. The process was difficult and the result - which he felt to be rather unsatisfactory - was something like this:
"Among us, Oyarsa, there is a kind of hnau who will take other hnaus' food and - and things, when they are not looking. He says he is not an ordinary one of that kind. He says what he does now will make very different things happen to those of our people who are not yet born. He says that, among you, hnau of one kindred all live together and the hrossa have spears like those we used a very long time ago and your huts are small and round and your boats small and light and like our old ones, and you have one ruler. He says it is different with us. He says we know much. There is a thing happens in our world when the body of a living creature feels pains and becomes weak, and he says we sometimes know how to stop it. He says we have many bent people and we kill them or shut them in huts and that we have people for settling quarrels between the bent hnau about their huts and mates and things. He says we have many ways for the hnau of one land to kill those of another and some are trained to do it. He says we build very big and strong huts of stones and other things - like the pfifltriggi. And he says we exchange many things among ourselves and can carry heavy weights very quickly a long way.
Because of all this, he says it would not be the act of a bent hnau if our people killed all your people."
As soon as Ransom had finished, Weston continued.
"Life is greater than any system of morality; her claims are absolute. It is not by tribal taboos and copy-book maxims that she has pursued her relentless march from the amoeba to man and from man to civilization."
"He says," began Ransom, "that living creatures are stronger than the question whether an act is bent or good - no, that cannot be right - he says it is better to be alive and bent than to be dead - no - he says, he says - I cannot say what he says, Oyarsa, in your language. But he goes on to say that the only good thing is that there should be very many creatures alive. He says there were many other animals before the first men and the later ones were better than the earlier ones; but he says the animals were not born because of what is said to the young about bent and good action by their elders. And he says these animals did not feel any pity."
"She -" began Weston.
"I'm sorry," interrupted Ransom, "but i've forgotten who She is."
"Life, of course," snapped Weston. "She has ruthlessly broken down all obstacles and liquidated all failures and today in her highest form - civilized man - and in me as his representative, she presses forward to that interplanetary leap which will, perhaps, place her for ever beyond the reach of death."
"He says," resumed Ransom, "that these animals learned to do many difficult things, except those who could not; and those ones died and the other animals did not pity them. And he says the best animal now is the kind of man who makes the big huts and carries the heavy weights and does all the other things I told you about; and he is one of these and he says that if the others all knew what he was doing they would be pleased. He says that if he could kill you all and bring our people to live in Malacandra, then they might be able to go on living here after something had gone wrong with our world. And then if something went wrong with Malacandra they might go and kill all the hnau in another world. And then another - and so they would never die out."
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?