Polygamy...Was Never God's Plan

[Reluctant Theologian]

We're talking about experiences, not occurrences -- how it makes you feel.

If you say "I felt the holy spirit". I say that's great for you, but I don't care. If likewise I say I haven't that shouldn't sway you.

(Plus, eyewitness testimony is known to be the weakest form of testimony in criminal trials. I hope no one is executed on eyewitness testimony alone.)

Occurrences is what I am talking about And that sometimes gets reported in personal testimonies. The supernatural invading our material world. Many of those I find credible enough; if you discount that as allowable or acceptable evidence, one may end up with very workable knowledge in life.

Those testimonies I find extremely inspiring and comforting. Our modern day equivalent of the Gospels almost. Have you watched some of those?

 

[Hans Blaster]

Occurrences is what I am talking about And that sometimes gets reported in personal testimonies. The supernatural invading our material world. Many of those I find credible enough; if you discount that as allowable or acceptable evidence, one may end up with very workable knowledge in life.

Those testimonies I find extremely inspiring and comforting. Our modern day equivalent of the Gospels almost. Have you watched some of those?

I think I've seen a few snippets of the kind you talk about, but I just can't bring myself to care about them. They had an experience, why should I care?

If the supernatural affects our world, then we should design experiments to detect and characterize the impact on our world. If it can't be detected, then what is the point of it?

 

[Reluctant Theologian]

I think I've seen a few snippets of the kind you talk about, but I just can't bring myself to care about them. They had an experience, why should I care?

Because based upon the credibility of the sources, it may reveal very valuable info on reality or the purpose of life? There must be at least some bit of curiosity to explore that ..

If the supernatural affects our world, then we should design experiments to detect and characterize the impact on our world. If it can't be detected, then what is the point of it?

True, but if God exists, then his interventions in our world probably don't follow certain patterns; so would be very hard to study with the conventional scientific method.

At the same time I've seen people being changed/transformed radically without any evident logical explanation; those were not just accidents. Unless it happens to you or to someone you know quite well, it may be hard to fathom its impact.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Because based upon the credibility of the sources, it may reveal very valuable info on reality or the purpose of life? There must be at least some bit of curiosity to explore that ..


True, but if God exists, then his interventions in our world probably don't follow certain patterns; so would be very hard to study with the conventional scientific method.

At the same time I've seen people being changed/transformed radically without any evident logical explanation; those were not just accidents. Unless it happens to you or to someone you know quite well, it may be hard to fathom its impact.

If it can't be tested then it just a grab-bag of claims from random people. I don't see anything compelling in that.

 

[Will Joseph]

Having a girlfriend is a lot of work. Imagine two girlfriends. Then imagine if they were wives! Then imagine having your possessions divided by two wives during divorce. That sounds like every man's nightmare.

Polygamy has no benefits. A man with two wives would likely have two women jealous at each other. The jealousy or envy will ruin any emoitonal benefit and would quickly ruin sexual "benefits" because one wife will simply not want to have sex anymore or would have sex with another man.

 

[Godwilling]

It never ceases to amaze me how much of the Bible many Atheists know.

From the beginning of the Bible, right at Creation, God gave Adam ONE wife, to the end of the Bible where Timothy said that the Bishop and leaders in the CHURCH should be the husbands of ONE WIFE. Yet, those who want to follow their carnal desires search high and low to find ONE VERSE that APPEARS to contradict the entire rest of the Bible! And I say APPEARS because I don't believe the Bible EVER contradicts itself. The "apparent contradictions" are our fallible human misunderstandings.

 

[Godwilling]

I forgot to reply. I think most Christians believe like the quote above me. And I think why we are told by Paul to have only one wife is too not have too many distractions to keep us from God. We are told biblically to take care of our families. We would have more time with God if we only had one wife then if we had to satisfy multiple wives. It is not that Noone can do it but a majority cannot or it would not of been mentioned in the Bible because it would of been unimportant.

God bless

 

[The Narrow Way]

I forgot to reply. I think most Christians believe like the quote above me. And I think why we are told by Paul to have only one wife is too not have too many distractions to keep us from God. We are told biblically to take care of our families. We would have more time with God if we only had one wife then if we had to satisfy multiple wives. It is not that Noone can do it but a majority cannot or it would not of been mentioned in the Bible because it would of been unimportant.

God bless

Just because something is "MENTIONED" in the Bible does not mean that it has the stamp of God's approval. There are many horrible things mentioned in the Bible that Christians should shun, and POLYGAMY is one of them.

 

[Whyayeman]

I think all - or nearly all - poster here are men.

What do women think?

 

[lismore]

Maybe that is one the reasons Paul specifies 'one woman man' for elders/deacons, but we're not fully certain of that.

Also it was illegal in Greek/Roman society to have more than one wife and Christians are to obey the law. What sort of example would it have set to outsiders for Christians to disobey the law? God Bless

 

[lismore]

2 Samuel 12:8 " I gave your master’s house to you, and your master’s wives into your arms. I gave you all Israel and Judah. And if all this had been too little, I would have given you even more."

Interesting passage because it's God speaking there. The 'I'.

 

[Whyayeman]

I would really like to get some women's views. A great deal of what I have read so far gives no agency to women.

 

[Reluctant Theologian]

Also it was illegal in Greek/Roman society to have more than one wife and Christians are to obey the law. What sort of example would it have set to outsiders for Christians to disobey the law? God Bless

True for formal marriages (as this regulated property/inheritances) and only formalised in 212 CE (Lex Antoniana de Civitate), yet in Roman/Greek society it was commonly accepted men had mistresses or that men engaged in homosexual activities with boys (Greece). At the same time the Jewish residents in the Roman Empire at times received explicit permission/exemption to that Roman law as it was widely recognised that in Jewish Law and society polygamy was accepted (see Josephus Ant. XVII, 1:3).

Yet, what is moral or immoral is not determined by secular Laws or norms, but by God's instructions. When I read in Acts 15:29 about the Apostles' consensus that also Gentile believers should abstain from 'sexual immorality', I conclude this can only be understood within the wider framework of Mosaic Law which was the ONLY moral framework for the (Jewish) Apostles making the decision at that time.

 

[Whyayeman]

Is polyandry prohibited? I cannot think of any prohibition anywhere, except the general civil law against bigamy.

Reliance on the Bible for the moral law is a bit risky. If it is not explicitly forbidden does that make it morally OK? I am now trying to think of some examples...

 

[Reluctant Theologian]

Is polyandry prohibited? I cannot think of any prohibition anywhere, except the general civil law against bigamy.

Polyandry (a woman having multiple men/husbands) is prohibited by implication throughout the OT and NT: one of the two Hebrew words for 'husband' is 'baal' = 'owner'. A 'married' woman in Biblical Hebrew literally would be called a 'baal-ed' / 'owned' woman. By very definition a woman can only have one owner/husband. The whole concept of patriarchy is consistent with this. Multiple husbands would mean uncertainty of offspring, and who is in control of a family.

The very definition of adultery in Biblical terms is a married woman having sex with a man not her (supposedly sole) husband.

Reliance on the Bible for the moral law is a bit risky. If it is not explicitly forbidden does that make it morally OK? I am now trying to think of some examples...

It is not risky for things and phenomena that already were present and common in the times the Biblical texts were written; as those texts explicitly address those things. E.g. divorce, sexuality was around back then and was addressed explicitly, so using the Biblical instructions for that would be the obvious thing to do.

To me, NOT using or casting aside the moral laws found in the Bible would be very, very risky - as it amounts to casting aside the very instructions of God himself.

Of course for issues/phenomena that didn't exist in Biblical times (and for which we thus don't have any explicit Biblical guidance) we now have to interpret those Biblical guidelines and try to apply these to the best our abilities to our modern day issues: making sure we let the 'spirit of God's moral law' also apply to our day and age.

 

[Whyayeman]

Polyandry (a woman having multiple men/husbands) is prohibited by implication throughout the OT and NT: one of the two Hebrew words for 'husband' is 'baal' = 'owner'. A 'married' woman in Biblical Hebrew literally would be called a 'baal-ed' / 'owned' woman. By very definition a woman can only have one owner/husband. The whole concept of patriarchy is consistent with this. Multiple husbands would mean uncertainty of offspring, and who is in control of a family.

So there is nothing specific about polyandry in the Bible? I am not surprised. It is a book written by and for men. Wives are chattels, owned by men.

There was always uncertainty about the paternity of children until DNA was discovered. That is historically why men have kept women under tight control - tried to!. For a woman having several husbands there is certainty of maternity. (The same is true for polygamy and monogamy.)

Polyandry does exist in some extremely poor communities in which two or more men, usually related, share a wife. That way their combined labour is enough for the subsistence of the family.

The very definition of adultery in Biblical terms is a married woman having sex with a man not her (supposedly sole) husband.

I see. Men do not commit adultery when they stray from the marital bed. Again, a book written by and for men. I don't know why people still take it seriously.

 

[Reluctant Theologian]

So there is nothing specific about polyandry in the Bible? I am not surprised. It is a book written by and for men. Wives are chattels, owned by men.

The prohibition and sanctions on a wife or man committing adultery are pretty specific; so it is addressed implicitly, just not with that subject in mind.

There was always uncertainty about the paternity of children until DNA was discovered. That is historically why men have kept women under tight control - tried to!. For a woman having several husbands there is certainty of maternity. (The same is true for polygamy and monogamy.)

True, but as we have concluded before, the Bible is all about patriarchy It seems to use that pattern intentionally.

Polyandry does exist in some extremely poor communities in which two or more men, usually related, share a wife. That way their combined labour is enough for the subsistence of the family.

Yes, I'm aware of those cultures; a certain small area in India works like that. And indeed it would clash with Biblical instructions.

The very definition of adultery in Biblical terms is a married woman having sex with a man not her (supposedly sole) husband.

I see. Men do not commit adultery when they stray from the marital bed. Again, a book written by and for men. I don't know why people still take it seriously.

Men commit adultery when they engage in physical relations with a woman who is married to someone else; and also this would attract the death penalty in the OT.

But in a patriarchal polygamous society a man does not 'stray' from the marital bed when he would have a 2nd wife (that in itself would constitute another 2nd marital bed), so your terminology does not apply here.

The Biblical texts were written by men indeed, yet for women also (Paul sometimes explicitly addresses women).

I understand your dislike of and disdain towards the Biblical worldview and values; I do appreciate your honesty about that, but then what is the goal of spending your time on it ? Just curious ...

You take the view the Bible is just a tool of suppressing women; but you can only arrive at that conclusion when you don't recognise God in and behind the texts. Your starting point (Atheism, I presume) almost forces you to draw that conclusion, but from a believer's point of view, that's not the case luckily!

 

[Whyayeman]

I do see that the Bible is an authoritative text for many (but not all) Christians. Could we just agree to disagree on this?

I think the Bible is used as a tool by men to suppress women; there are so many instances where the male dominance is maintained, especially in the Old Testament. It is not surprising; men were dominant in those societies. (This dominance is echoed on this thread where women's voices are largely unheard.) Modern society is a little different and women are struggling to remove those ancient desert sandals from their necks.

Atheism for me was a destination, not a starting point. I was brought up to attend church and I have a reasonable grounding in Christian traditions (English traditions are surprisingly different from American). But, you are right to understand that the Bible is not authoritative for me; thus I do not see God behind the texts. I see men.

 

[Rajni]

I do see that the Bible is an authoritative text for many (but not all) Christians. Could we just agree to disagree on this?

I think the Bible is used as a tool by men to suppress women; there are so many instances where the male dominance is maintained, especially in the Old Testament. It is not surprising; men were dominant in those societies. (This dominance is echoed on this thread where women's voices are largely unheard.) Modern society is a little different and women are struggling to remove those ancient desert sandals from their necks.

Atheism for me was a destination, not a starting point. I was brought up to attend church and I have a reasonable grounding in Christian traditions (English traditions are surprisingly different from American). But, you are right to understand that the Bible is not authoritative for me; thus I do not see God behind the texts. I see men.

Woman's voice, here:

Yeah, obsessing over whether others have more than one spouse (or are gay, or eat meat, or put ketchup in their coffee...) seems like nothing more than a tempting diversion away from having to address the skeleton(s) in my own closet (like when I used to dip my cookies in orange juice before eating them. Yeah. And y'all thought polygamy was bad ).

If polygamy works for some, great. If not, don't do it. Pretty simple. Personally, I think it would take a herculean effort on my part to overcome my own ego in order to comfortably accommodate such an arrangement, because of the notions of ownership-of-other that come with the typical romantic relationship. There's so much "mine" in there already that it would just complicate things. Polygamy might be better suited for a time when people have largely evolved beyond the possessive, his/hers/mine dynamic that typifies one-on-one marital relationships. If that's attainable in this dimension and this era, it's by a very small minority.

Also, having been married (the traditional flavor) and now single, I much prefer single and solitary, so having a house full of potentially thirsty peeps for whom I must fulfill my "spousal duties" at any given moment is, for me, the stuff of nightmares. Some things are better left to fantasy, not reality.

 

[TedT]

All you have to do is read the Bible story of Abraham or Jacob and see the misery that having MULTIPLE WIVES brings into a home, to KNOW that POLYGAMY was never God's plan.

Please explain that marriage of the Lamb to His church....