Ethical non-monogamy

[drray777]

Originally Posted by LibShooter

The Bible doesn't forbid polygamy but it surely doesn't encourage it.

If the Bible does not forbid it then why do you speak against it?

[drray777]

Originally Posted by cat_1978

Isaiah 4:1 shows a time of desperation and catastrophe not the "model of the Christian family"! To see you using the Bible so you can "seed" more women like a bunny is gross and full of blasphemy. You use God's Word to have more sex. You brainwash your "brides" (victims) in order to serve your little organ. You lie to yourself that you are holy so that you can circumvent all the defenses that God gave you in your conscience to prevent your sin. You remove all logic and see ONLY what you want in a passage of the Bible because you love to orgy with multiple women. You appear almost exclusively to all the threads that talk about having perverted sex and defend that perverted sex with Bible quotes chopped out with a halberd.

You are a cult leader (hidden mavbe somewhere) and after you finished tapping on the keyboard some of these blasphemies you go back to do what is ugly in the eyes of the Lord with innocent or not so innocent victims. We will probably hear about you in the news. Or only at the Judgement Day.

There are a whole lot of assumptions in your statement of judgment against me which have no basis in reality and are fundamentally untrue. That is sad.

[drray777]

Originally Posted by LibShooter

Yep... and it didn't work out well for most of them.

Statistically monogamy doesn't work out for a lot people and Paul said it is better not to be married, so should we believe God is against marriage altogether?

[drray777]

Originally Posted by Cuteandfuzzybunnies

So Moses wasn’t a prophet ? He had two wives.

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?

[Nomad, 2nd]

Originally Posted by Goodwrench708

I agree this is sick thread.
We have a couple twisted folks in here.
Trying to justify their actions by quoting bible verses

So which wife is the legal wife? The others are just mistresses. Side chicks...

Last i checked....one legal wife. Which one wife SSN do u use on your taxes

Glad to see im not the only one that thinks this is crazy

I think its crazy (I can't find one woman I want to put up with full time, let alone 2-3!!!)

But I reject that "marrage" (the religious institution.) has ANYTHING to do with Gov

[drray777]

Originally Posted by Jim from 28DaysLater

Modern people are used to instantly dismissing the idea of non-monogamy.

The more I think about it, the more I think it may make a lot of sense for PAW, though.

I can't speak to the theological side of it well-- unless all that needs to be said is that it's in the Bible many times, and the Bible doesn't condemn it.

1) As far as the practical side, though-- couples and families are a mutual support, economic, security, whatever, arrangement. A lot of people may not understand it today, but it's totally practical.

2) When it's the TEOTWAWKI, there may be a lot fewer men around. Many of them have have died in some kind of WWIII or Armageddon, or doing something else dangerous, or being victimized. Contrasted with this, a lot of women and girls may tend to survive a little longer, because of being hidden and protected.

3) And the PAW may be a time when people are very unequal. If a lot depends on how well you prepared, then it may be a lot different than the contrast between a plumber and a white collar worker now. It may be like instantly going back to the middle ages.

If all that's true, there may suddenly be a lot of potential dependents around, and very few people who are that capable of being protectors and providers. Morally, the extra women (extra people) matter, imo. They're not just to be treated as garbage because they weren't luckier, I'd argue. And along with that, the great providers will naturally tend to be a lot more attractive to these women than if the situation had been different. They'll be the powerful, cool men / groups that are around. And the extra women deserve husbands or protectors, imo. Once again, I don't think it sounds basically fair if we're saying anyone who wasn't lucky enough to be partnered with a great survivalist before SHTF deserves all kinds of horrible things to befall her--- and that instead the one most important ethic is just that there can be no multiple marriages, or anything even hinting of it, no matter how rough it is on people, given the circumstances.

Also, because of increased danger, disease, and lack of good health care, we may be faced with the situation once again of a lot of death during childbirth, a lot of childhood mortality, and a much shorter life expectancy in general. In that case, it may be important once again for families to have a lot of births, like they did in the old, old days. And it'll be all the more true of the leaders / the powerful than it is true of men and families in general. And that may be furthered by multiple marriages.

And all of that's why it's kind of too bad that the latest Mad Max movie villainized the guy with the multiple marriages, and it was actually kind of the entire point of the movie. When people reject the idea of multiple marriage, they're probably thinking just of the bad things about it. But when everything about our world gets shifted around, it could be time for an ethical reassessment of it. What's good about it may start to be more important than what's bad about it. Instead of existing in a time and a place where it tends to be about men oppressing people, it may be more about protecting people, and giving people enough of a chance to live as reasonably healthy and happy wives and mothers, instead of as something like slaves or pariahs, or maybe even much more realistically, simply being destroyed by the dangerous conditions of the PAW.

Fundamentally Isaiah 4:1 is an end time prophecy if you read it in context of chapter 3 from v. 16 through to the end of chapter 4. It talks about those who have escaped...escaped what? Answer...the great tribulation. I tell people that if they do not accept Isaiah 4:1 now it will be forced upon them, so you are right on target.

[Jim from 28DaysLater]

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.

[Jim from 28DaysLater]

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.

[Cuteandfuzzybunnies]

Originally Posted by Jim from 28DaysLater

Let's say for the sake of argument that 10% of men today make good husbands.

And then let's suppose that something about the apocalypse reduces that number to 1%. 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 maybe 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 comment 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.

Why just the PAW ? Why should women now be denied the choice of a better husband because he’s married ? Why should men who can take care of multiple women just take care of one ? So the best woman in town gets a rich dr and the 10th best gets to stay single or marry a drunk wife beater and the woman at the bottom has zero chance for a husband.

[PalmettoTree]

"No one can serve two masters."

This is why a man should have but one wife.

[PurpleKitty]

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.

[LibShooter]

Originally Posted by Cuteandfuzzybunnies

Jospeh son of Tobias was married to two women according to Josephus. This is in addition to his mention of the king.

Joseph son of Tobias is presented as sort of a legendary figure. A lot of scholars believe much of what Josephus says about the Tobiads is exaggerated.

Either way... Josephus mentioning only TWO folks who practiced polygamy doesn’t suggest to me that it was common. YMMV

Originally Posted by drray777

If the Bible does not forbid it then why do you speak against it?

I’m not speaking against it. If a man and several women want to enter into a plural marriage (or a woman and several men, or several women and several men) they should do so and the law should allow it. It’s none of anyone’s business to interfere with whatever consenting adults do to make themselves happy.

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.

Originally Posted by drray777

...Paul said it is better not to be married, so should we believe God is against marriage altogether?

I think we should believe that PAUL was against marriage altogether.

[PurpleKitty]

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.

[Cuteandfuzzybunnies]

Originally Posted by LibShooter

Joseph son of Tobias is presented as sort of a legendary figure. A lot of scholars believe much of what Josephus says about the Tobiads is exaggerated.

Either way... Josephus mentioning only TWO folks who practiced polygamy doesn’t suggest to me that it was common. YMMV

I’m not speaking against it. If a man and several women want to enter into a plural marriage (or a woman and several men, or several women and several men) they should do so and the law should allow it. It’s none of anyone’s business to interfere with whatever consenting adults do to make themselves happy.

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.

I posted two links to academic historians papers that argue polygamy was common among wealthy and “middle class “ Jews in Palestine around the first century. Few Marriage records of any kind survive from that time / place. But there are records of and writings about men having multiple spouses.

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.

[Cuteandfuzzybunnies]

Originally Posted by PurpleKitty

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.

I dunno. I love my wife she’s great. If my current gf will make even 1/10th of the wife she is and if so she will be way worth it.

You just have to marry women with good values. As a woman marry a man with good values.

[PeterEnergy]

Originally Posted by PurpleKitty

Peter, on one hand you say incest is necessary, on the other that it is disgusting.

Yea, don't you often find that to be true?

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.

[LibShooter]

Originally Posted by Cuteandfuzzybunnies

I posted two links to academic historians papers that argue polygamy was common among wealthy and “middle class “ Jews in Palestine around the first century.

Here's a quote from page 2 of one of the papers you linked to:

In the first century CE, polygamy was still considered part of traditional Jewish teaching and practice though in practice most men would have had only one wife for financial reasons. There is very little evidence of polygamy in this period...

As you can see... Brewer agrees there is little evidence of polygamy in first century Palestine. He goes on to say, "...it might be assumed that only the very rich practiced polygamy."

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.

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.

Yep. Yibbum is a thing. It was likely pretty rare because of all the restrictions which included birth order, fertility of both parties, etc. The widow was also allowed to refuse her husband's little brother by performing a ceremony involving a shoe and some spit.

But again... there's no evidence that Leverite marriages were common.

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.

What I mean to say is there is no evidence that polygamy was common... I don't see any way to support the notion that 10% of the people in 1st Century Judea were in plural marriages... especially among the folks of common means with whom Jesus hung out.

[LibShooter]

Originally Posted by Cuteandfuzzybunnies

If my current gf will make even 1/10th of the wife she is and if so she will be way worth it.

You probably have more experience with this than I do, but... if your girlfriend does become 1/10th the wife of your present one... DO NOT MENTION IT!

[PurpleKitty]

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.

[Cuteandfuzzybunnies]

Originally Posted by LibShooter

Here's a quote from page 2 of one of the papers you linked to:

As you can see... Brewer agrees there is little evidence of polygamy in first century Palestine. He goes on to say, "...it might be assumed that only the very rich practiced polygamy."

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.

Yep. Yibbum is a thing. It was likely pretty rare because of all the restrictions which included birth order, fertility of both parties, etc. The widow was also allowed to refuse her husband's little brother by performing a ceremony involving a shoe and some spit. [IMG class=inlineimg]https://www.survivalistboards.com/images/smilies/smile.gif[/IMG]

But again... there's no evidence that Leverite marriages were common.

What I mean to say is there is no evidence that polygamy was common... I don't see any way to support the notion that 10% of the people in 1st Century Judea were in plural marriages... especially among the folks of common means with whom Jesus hung out.

You leave out where he says there is little evidence because so few marriage records survive. There isn’t a lot of evidence of mono marriages either.

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.