![]() |
|
The Following User Says Thank You to drray777 For This Useful Post: | ||
|
||||
![]() Quote:
![]() |
The Following User Says Thank You to drray777 For This Useful Post: | ||
|
||||
![]() Fundamentally most of the great men mentioned in the Old Testament were polygamous. That in and of itself should speak volumes. Even Jacob who was the father of God's chosen people was one of the most obvious ones, so where does the whole thing of God not supporting polygamy stand when the very man whom He chose to be the namesake of His people was a blatant polygamist, even marrying sisters?
![]() |
|
|||
![]() Quote:
But I reject that "marrage" (the religious institution.) has ANYTHING to do with Gov |
|
||||
![]() Quote:
![]() |
The Following User Says Thank You to drray777 For This Useful Post: | ||
|
||||
![]() I'm definitely not condoning anything nonconsensual or exploitative. I don't want to sound like I'm giving the ok to stealing, capturing, or raping women, or hurting people who should really be their protectors or partners.
What I am saying is we may find there are sometimes, when it's really the right guy, when it's really someone who's going to protect them and provide for them well and treat them right, where a multiple marriage is the right thing. Sometimes, it may be better for everybody if a man and a woman remain a poor, poor, and not-that-well-defended, monogamous PAW couple. And other times, it may be better if she's with a more powerful man who has other wives already. I think we're just going to have to see what the world is like before we'll know if we need this. But I think the world is likely going to be so different, that it makes sense to suspect that it could happen. |
|
||||
![]() Let's say for the sake of argument that 30% or 40% of men today make good husbands. Maybe even less.
And then let's suppose that something about the apocalypse reduces that number to 5% or 10% of post-apocalyptic men. Or maybe even less. That's a pretty tough situation for women! If something causes that, then it looks like we start to have a lot more reason to think that non-monogamy could start to be the best thing so we can have a healthy society. The alternative is leaving a large portion of those talented, wonderful, etc. women destitute or unprotected. At least relatively, yet sometimes maybe even more or less totally. That's all I have to say about it. Sorry if I'm stepping on anybody's toes. I'm definitely not trying to promote anything wicked or hurtful to people, but the things I wrote above in my comments here and on the previous page just seem like what there is that's important to say about it right now. It just seems like things could change, and could lead to a situation where there's maybe a lot less reason to imagine that non-monogamy has to do with mischief. And in fact, there will be very powerful moral, practical arguments in its favor. Maybe not in every last case, but some of the time, with regard to some of the men and women. |
|
||||
![]() Quote:
|
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Cuteandfuzzybunnies For This Useful Post: | ||
|
|||
![]() "No one can serve two masters."
This is why a man should have but one wife. |
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to PalmettoTree For This Useful Post: | ||
|
|||
![]() Jim, it seems the whole premise of your theory is that a woman is helpless and cannot defend herself. I can think of many woman who would not fit your mold.
An example, friends of mine, both the men are blind, their wives carry and are crack shots. The women are strong and able to handle whatever comes. It does not matter if the man can defend them, they can defend themselves. A lot of women these days are leaning toward that mold. Not all of them are going to cower in the bushes, waiting to get scooped up by a strong man. I am really the exception as I should never own a gun and have disabilities. Peter, on one hand you say incest is necessary, on the other that it is disgusting. |
The Following User Says Thank You to PurpleKitty For This Useful Post: | ||
|
|||
![]() Quote:
Either way... Josephus mentioning only TWO folks who practiced polygamy doesn’t suggest to me that it was common. YMMV Quote:
Having said that, there’s no evidence that polygamy was common in first century Judea. The evidence shows that polygamy has always been very rare. (Polyandry and polyamory are even rarer.) That doesn’t mean you shouldn’t do it if that’s what you want to do. I think we should believe that PAUL was against marriage altogether. Last edited by LibShooter; 11-12-2019 at 08:28 AM.. Reason: Typo |
|
|||
![]() I absolutely agree on Paul, he was very clear he didn't think anyone should marry.
Some say either: 1. His wife divorced him after he converted or 2. He had a great love affair with his wife, who died tragically. Not sure which. I am inclined to go with #1. Having a difficult marriage I wouldn't advise anyone to marry at this point. |
|
||||
![]() Quote:
Also under Jewish law polygamy was required under certain fairly common circumstances. If a man was married , died with no children , then his brother was required to marry his wife / wives. This law applied to married or single brothers. The article I link to shows records of a man who had several brothers die and applied for an exception to taking all their wives because he was not financially able to care for them. The exception was denied as the wives brought money to the marriage and agreed to give it to him. So you can say there was no evidence. But there is plenty of evidence in the form of actual marriage and other historical records from the time period. |
The Following User Says Thank You to Cuteandfuzzybunnies For This Useful Post: | ||
|
||||
![]() Quote:
You just have to marry women with good values. As a woman marry a man with good values. |
|
||||
![]() Quote:
I can separate my personal feelings from an objective analysis. Incest and polygyny may be necessary in desperate times. That does not make it personally disgusting. |
|
||||
![]() Quote:
Quote:
He then cites ONE case in which ONE middle class woman becomes someone's second wife after the death of her husband. Then he draws a dubious conclusion that this one reference "...might indicate that polygamy was much more widespread in the middle classes than previously thought." Frankly, there's just no evidence that polygamy was widespread in that time and place. It's pretty clear that it did exist... but the number of actual cases in evidence is very low. I doubt we would find ten. Quote:
![]() But again... there's no evidence that Leverite marriages were common. Quote:
|
The Following User Says Thank You to LibShooter For This Useful Post: | ||
|
|||
![]() Quote:
![]() |
The Following User Says Thank You to LibShooter For This Useful Post: | ||
|
|||
![]() The idea of doing a close relative revolts me.
I remember reading the biography of the last native american in the SF bay area. At the end, it was just him, his grandmother, and a female cousin. He never had relations with his cousin as it was forbidden, and they literally let the tribe die out before they had sex. So not ALWAYS necessary. I have had yet another difficult day. It would be easier if he were all great or all jerk but it's a mix and today has been difficult. When he finally kills himself through bad living I will not be in a hurry to remarry. |
|
|||||
![]() Quote:
And the little ceremony with the shoe was a public humiliation. And it was no little thing. It still is a kind of big deal but not generational shaming like it was. . Again there are several examples of actual polygamy cited in the literature I provided. There are also accounts of the Jews being polygamous. As to the 10% number that’s simply based on other polygamous societies. The numbers tend to range from 5-15 percent of the people in polygamous marriages. As the author of the second paper I link to , a serous Jewish historian , states we can’t know the number or percent. We don’t have records. But it’s obvious from his research that the Jews of the first century lived in what we would consider a polygamous culture. Polygamy was legal. It was practiced. And taking a second wife was considered a man’s right IF he could afford one. In other words polygamy was common enough that most people had an extended family member or neighbor with multiple wives. Much like polygamous cultures today. |
The Following User Says Thank You to Cuteandfuzzybunnies For This Useful Post: | ||
![]() |
Bookmarks |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|