Author Topic: Forced Monogamy Leads to More Feminism (Read 9377 times)

Tantor · « **Reply #15 on:** May 05, 2009, 09:18:43 AM »

Quote from: phoebe on May 05, 2009, 09:13:53 AM

It used to be in OT times the custom that the bride and groom lived with the bride's family to protect the bride, and the groom did not work for the first year so they would have plenty of time to get to know each other, and the bride's father would know if he turned out to be an abusive-no-good-scoundrel and kick him out on his keester. I like it! Why don't we re-instate that one?

Only if they spend the next year at the grooms parents house... so he can boot that gold-digging, bon-bon eating, lazy bride back to her parents... I'd be all for that.. it would have saved me 22 years of my life.

Christian Forums and Message Board · « **Reply #15 on:** May 05, 2009, 09:18:43 AM »

fanuvmxpx · « **Reply #16 on:** May 05, 2009, 10:02:56 AM »

Quote from: Tantor on May 05, 2009, 09:18:43 AM

Only if they spend the next year at the grooms parents house... so he can boot that gold-digging, bon-bon eating, lazy bride back to her parents... I'd be all for that.. it would have saved me 22 years of my life.

Yup. Door swings both ways.

Christian Forums and Message Board · « **Reply #16 on:** May 05, 2009, 10:02:56 AM »

phoebe · « **Reply #17 on:** May 05, 2009, 10:55:34 AM »

Quote from: Tantor on May 05, 2009, 09:18:43 AM

Quote from: phoebe on May 05, 2009, 09:13:53 AM

It used to be in OT times the custom that the bride and groom lived with the bride's family to protect the bride, and the groom did not work for the first year so they would have plenty of time to get to know each other, and the bride's father would know if he turned out to be an abusive-no-good-scoundrel and kick him out on his keester. I like it! Why don't we re-instate that one?

Only if they spend the next year at the grooms parents house... so he can boot that gold-digging, bon-bon eating, lazy bride back to her parents... I'd be all for that.. it would have saved me 22 years of my life.

Quote from: fanuvmxpx on May 05, 2009, 10:02:56 AM

Quote from: Tantor on May 05, 2009, 09:18:43 AM
Only if they spend the next year at the grooms parents house... so he can boot that gold-digging, bon-bon eating, lazy bride back to her parents... I'd be all for that.. it would have saved me 22 years of my life.

Yup. Door swings both ways.

That's baggage talking. I was referring to Scripture.

Christian Forums and Message Board · « **Reply #17 on:** May 05, 2009, 10:55:34 AM »

fanuvmxpx · « **Reply #18 on:** May 05, 2009, 11:12:51 AM »

Quote from: phoebe on May 05, 2009, 09:13:53 AM

I like it! Why don't we re-instate that one?

You 'were' talking about scripture until you incorporated this phrase above. Modern day application.

Christian Forums and Message Board · « **Reply #18 on:** May 05, 2009, 11:12:51 AM »

Memphis Dwight · « **Reply #19 on:** May 05, 2009, 03:27:40 PM »

Observations:

I firmly believe that the objections to polygyny by the marriage forbidders is not rooted in a desire to follow scripture. The motivation is rooted in self idolatry.
There is never a single passage given by the marriage forbidders that has God conveying a dislike of multiple wives.
All of the passages given that are supposedly against polygyny always have other primary meanings. We are always told to accept the secondary supposed inference as if it were a direct and primary meaning of the verse. **

**To put it another way, any verse from bible cited against polygyny will always be dealing with a different issue. For instance, Matt 19 is dealing with divorce, not about polygyny. 1 Cor 7:2 has the inspired writer reasserting the right to marriage because of the rampant pagan sex worship, not about polygyny. I Tim 3:2 deals w/ qualifications of a deacon, not about polygyny.

Where is the passage that deals primarily against polygyny?

Christian Forums and Message Board · « **Reply #19 on:** May 05, 2009, 03:27:40 PM »

WendyB · « **Reply #20 on:** May 05, 2009, 08:59:01 PM »

Where is the passage that deals primarily against polygyny?
[/quote]

Deuteronomy 17:17
17 He must not take many wives, or his heart will be led astray. He must not accumulate large amounts of silver and gold.

Malachi 2:14-15
14 You ask, "Why?" It is because the LORD is acting as the witness between you and the wife of your youth, because you have broken faith with her, though she is your partner, the wife of your marriage covenant.
15 Has not the LORD made them one? In flesh and spirit they are his. And why one? Because he was seeking godly offspring. [a] So guard yourself in your spirit, and do not break faith with the wife of your youth.

Christian Forums and Message Board · « **Reply #20 on:** May 05, 2009, 08:59:01 PM »

marc · « **Reply #21 on:** May 05, 2009, 09:02:43 PM »

I find the use of the word "polygyny" rather telling. You wannabe harem-leaders wouldn't have approved of Rachel Jackson either, I guess.

OldDad · « **Reply #22 on:** May 05, 2009, 09:18:50 PM »

polygamy/polygyny blah, blah... it's all about harem keeping perverts.

marc · « **Reply #23 on:** May 06, 2009, 05:52:49 AM »

Yeah, but that's the thing. Promoting polygyny narrows it down by making sure women don't have the same rights, thus keeping them enslaved.

Christian Forums and Message Board · « **Reply #23 on:** May 06, 2009, 05:52:49 AM »

Memphis Dwight · « **Reply #24 on:** May 06, 2009, 07:04:13 AM »

Marc:

Quote

Yeah, but that's the thing. Promoting polygyny narrows it down by making sure women don't have the same rights, thus keeping them enslaved.

I didn't write the bible and the MEN that did write it were writing what God told them. And you're the one that would keep single women from having a husband. Yes, Social Security can take care of them.

It is not a matter of women belonging to man versus women being independent. It is either women belong to man or women belonging to the State.

Those telling the lie to woman that she can get a better deal by 'working for herself' always leave out that no one wants to marry an old spinster. That is why Match.com and other dating websites are making money hand over fist. Its because these women that either put off marriage till late in life or divorced their husbands thinking they would trade up have begun to realize they were sold some magic beans.

Woman was not made independent. When she was made, the man was already here. As the writer or I Corinthians puts it, Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man, 11:9.

Christian Forums and Message Board · « **Reply #24 on:** May 06, 2009, 07:04:13 AM »

Memphis Dwight · « **Reply #25 on:** May 06, 2009, 07:11:22 AM »

Bonnie:

Quote

Well if God had endorced and approved of so many wives, why did he give Adam only one?

That did sort of slow down the populating of the earth.

God never put a limit on how many women a man could become one with.

Memphis Dwight · « **Reply #26 on:** May 06, 2009, 07:17:27 AM »

Mandalee:

Quote

It's a moot point, anyway. The bible says we are to respect the laws of our government and polygamy isn't allowed.

Without going to deep into this aspect of the discussion, it reminds me of a dialogue I once had.

Why was polygyny made illegal? Because they thought it was wrong.
And now why is it wrong? Because it is against the law.

And why was it made against the law? Because they thought is was sinful.
And why is it sinful now? Because it is against the law and we have to follow the laws of the land?

Is there anyone here that can see the circular logic involved?

chosenone · « **Reply #27 on:** May 06, 2009, 07:55:02 AM »

So MD are you in favour of women having more than one husband? If not why not?

zoonance · « **Reply #28 on:** May 06, 2009, 08:05:35 AM »

So threesomes or tensomes, as long as all are married to each other, is authorized by silence. (Who says that the one wife married to the husband is not in the same committmented contractual relationship with the other woman as well, and not just to the man?) *Or multiple men married to each other as well as the one woman?

Go for it! God don't mind!

Modified: Why only one at a time? where is 'but thou shalt know one at a time' also sanctioned by scripture?

Memphis Dwight · « **Reply #29 on:** May 06, 2009, 08:07:40 AM »

Choosenone,
The bible is one of those things that if we don't look at it regularly, we forget what was said. Like Eve forgot specifically and added to God's command about the forbidden fruit. She added the clause about not touching the fruit while God never forbade that only not to eat it.

You asked:

Quote

So MD are you in favour of women having more than one husband? If not why not?

To which God replies:
Romans 7:2-3
For the woman which hath an husband is bound by the law to [her] husband so long as he liveth; but if the husband be dead, she is loosed from the law of [her] husband.
So then if, while [her] husband liveth, she be married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress: but if her husband be dead, she is free from that law; so that she is no adulteress, though she be married to another man.

Is that specific enough? Should I provide more?

News:

Author Topic: Forced Monogamy Leads to More Feminism (Read 9377 times)

Tantor

Christian Forums and Message Board

Christian Forums and Message Board

Christian Forums and Message Board

Christian Forums and Message Board

Memphis Dwight

Christian Forums and Message Board

Christian Forums and Message Board

Christian Forums and Message Board

Memphis Dwight

Christian Forums and Message Board

Memphis Dwight

Memphis Dwight

Memphis Dwight