Typically when polygamy occurs and is socially acceptable there at least 2 reasons why . . . 1) a need to conserve limited resources . . . which feeds into . . 2) the need to consider the next generation. The next generation is kinda a big deal.
When humans developed agriculture thousands of years ago polygamy become very common . . . most of our ancestors are female, because powerful men.
The Greeks changed this trend by enforcing monogamy . . . . by giving suffrage to men . . . see how voting changes how we form families?
The Romans borrowed from the Greeks and Christianity borrowed from the Romans . . . .
I know I couldn’t support the needs and desires of more than one wife. I don’t know how those men do it. I marvel.
I can’t even do it in series. Or else, I’m unwilling. At this moment, I don’t beleeeve in marriage for myself. Not even one at a time.
What was the legislation?
I'm with you on that.
Divorces laws, making them easier, no-fault and such. Monogamy is essentially not enforced . . . anything goes . . . . my understanding is there rise in other dynamics now, such as poly. Will that effect how we raise kids and run gooberments? Probably.
Would people like VPW have and easier time in that environment, or a harder one?
Think series. Serial monogamy is accurate. Most people are in one monogamous relationship after another.
Serial polygamy? A stretch, but theoretically possible. I can conceive of it. I wonder if it's ever happened.
Yes, one monogamous relationship after another happens a lot.
But when you stand back and look at such an entire life of one mate alone and then another mate alone, you see many mates, and not just one. So I was implying, with my made up terms, that the prefix "mono" is misleading there.
Standing back and looking at many entire lives, you see ONLY three possibilities:
(1) zero mates per person, or
(2) one mate per person, or
(3) multiple mates per person.
I'm not sure what to call the first one. The second SHOULD (in a sense) be called monogamy, and the third should be called polygamy.
I think the current definitions are a bit sloppy, and would like to re-define them for clarity. I know that is impossible, but thought it ought to be pointed out that our current definition of monogamy is a bit misleading.
Things get even more complicated when you include common law marriages, and one-night stands that stretch out to a few months. This last is VERY common now in hook-up youth culture. I call them "pretend marriages."
*/*/*/*/*
But nomenclature aside, I am seeking verses that can fill in my understanding of permitted OT polygamy, meaning multiple simultaneous wives. I am thinking that Abraham was a polygamist in this sense. Maybe Moses too, but very unsure there.
Then there is the OT use of concubines that really throws me! I hear David and Solomon had them, but again, never searched all this out.... yet. I have no idea how concubines fit under God's Word and will.
I am hoping that someone here has done that already.
Yes, one monogamous relationship after another happens a lot.
But when you stand back and look at such an entire life of one mate alone and then another mate alone, you see many mates, and not just one. So I was implying, with my made up terms, that the prefix "mono" is misleading there.
Standing back and looking at many entire lives, you see ONLY three possibilities:
(1) zero mates per person, or
(2) one mate per person, or
(3) multiple mates per person.
I'm not sure what to call the first one. The second SHOULD (in a sense) be called monogamy, and the third should be called polygamy.
I think the current definitions are a bit sloppy, and would like to re-define them for clarity. I know that is impossible, but thought it ought to be pointed out that our current definition of monogamy is a bit misleading.
Things get even more complicated when you include common law marriages, and one-night stands that stretch out to a few months. This last is VERY common now in hook-up youth culture. I call them "pretend marriages."
*/*/*/*/*
But nomenclature aside, I am seeking verses that can fill in my understanding of permitted OT polygamy, meaning multiple simultaneous wives. I am thinking that Abraham was a polygamist in this sense. Maybe Moses too, but very unsure there.
Then there is the OT use of concubines that really throws me! I hear David and Solomon had them, but again, never searched all this out.... yet. I have no idea how concubines fit under God's Word and will.
I am hoping that someone here has done that already.
Don't forget Adam's first wife's name was Lilith.
And most men were slaves, eunuchs, soldiers, or some other form of gene pool dead end.
Yes, one monogamous relationship after another happens a lot.
And it's sufficiently, precisely, accurately called serial monogamy.
48 minutes ago, Mike said:
But when you stand back and look at such an entire life of one mate alone and then another mate alone, you see many mates, and not just one. So I was implying, with my made up terms, that the prefix "mono" is misleading there.
It's only misleading if you don't understand what it means. No need to make up new terms, because it won't be helpful. Use a dictionary.
48 minutes ago, Mike said:
1) zero mates per person, or
(2) one mate per person at a time, or
(3) multiple mates per person at a time.
I'm not sure what to call the first one. The second SHOULD (in a sense) be called monogamy, and the third should be called polygamy.
(1) Single; Eligible; Unmarried
(2) Monogamy
(3) Polygamy
48 minutes ago, Mike said:
I think the current definitions are a bit sloppy, and would like to re-define them for clarity. I know that is impossible, but thought it ought to be pointed out that our current definition of monogamy is a bit misleading.
They aren't sloppy at all. They may only be unclear to you. They really aren't misleading. Use a dictionary.
Throughout history, there have been, and still are, cultures that consider marriage to be a business arrangement and/or a matter of convenience. Marriage for love is a fairly new concept, dating back to about the eighteenth century. This needs to be understood and factored into any biblical discussion of marriage, concubines, courtesans, paramours and the like.
Trying to get past the nomenclature and modern culture on this topic:
10 hours ago, Mike said:
Most other cultures, especially ancient, follow and approve of ... many wives at the same time. I think, but am not sure, that the Bible allows this in the OT, but only if each wife is supported, and treated as equals. Sound pretty impossible to me, and if anyone has verses, I'd like to see them. I know the Bible says NT minister should not engage in this.
3 hours ago, Mike said:
... But nomenclature aside, I am seeking verses that can fill in my understanding of permitted OT polygamy, meaning multiple simultaneous wives. I am thinking that Abraham was a polygamist in this sense. Maybe Moses too, but very unsure there.
Then there is the OT use of concubines that really throws me! I hear David and Solomon had them, but again, never searched all this out.... yet. I have no idea how concubines fit under God's Word and will.
I am hoping that someone here has done that already.
I just want to see more thoroughly what is in the Bible on these items I have bold fonted above.
If anyone has verses and insight on these things, I want to learn.
Throughout history, there have been, and still are, cultures that consider marriage to be a business arrangement and/or a matter of convenience. Marriage for love is a fairly new concept, dating back to about the eighteenth century. This needs to be understood and factored into any biblical discussion of marriage, concubines, courtesans and the like.
Thanks for the reminder. I have read about this but forgot it. This should be included in the mix of a thorough study.
Might the book "Song of Solomon" be an exception to this? Or a new paradigm?
Again, I ask from a position of relative ignorance of this book of the Bible.
Equals? Seriously? This is one of the reasons some people find the Bible so hard to understand. They want to compare a culture that existed thousands of years ago to modern culture and expect that the same standards apply.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
10
34
7
18
Popular Days
Dec 16
52
Dec 20
15
Dec 17
11
Dec 18
9
Top Posters In This Topic
Mike 10 posts
Bolshevik 34 posts
OldSkool 7 posts
Nathan_Jr 18 posts
Popular Days
Dec 16 2022
52 posts
Dec 20 2022
15 posts
Dec 17 2022
11 posts
Dec 18 2022
9 posts
Popular Posts
So_crates
It's called presentism, as the video below explains:
OldSkool
Twinky
Do your own bloody research. Don't you have a concordance?
Nathan_Jr
Sorry. Apology = defense.
Defense of the priest doing the child focking.
I know I couldn’t support the needs and desires of more than one wife. I don’t know how those men do it. I marvel.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
Actually, you could. As we touched on before, do so in series. Legislation 60 years ago made this a common thing.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
I can’t even do it in series. Or else, I’m unwilling. At this moment, I don’t beleeeve in marriage for myself. Not even one at a time.
What was the legislation?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
I'm with you on that.
Divorces laws, making them easier, no-fault and such. Monogamy is essentially not enforced . . . anything goes . . . . my understanding is there rise in other dynamics now, such as poly. Will that effect how we raise kids and run gooberments? Probably.
Would people like VPW have and easier time in that environment, or a harder one?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
Right. I suspected that’s what you meant. Yeah, baseball, apple pie, Delta blues, divorce — Americana.
What a thought experiment. I don’t think polygamy would have curtailed his predation or his craving for power, control and young leg.
If polygamy was the norm, victor paul wierwille would practice monogamous marriage as a display of novel contrarianism.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
TWI pushed "commitment" a lot . . . I think he'd have hard time selling that idea
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
A case could be made that polygamy requires more commitment. More wives, more commitment.
I don’t think victor paul wierwille would have been willing to be bothered with that level of commitment and responsibility.
One wife and a bowl of Quaaludes for the girls is easier and cheaper.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
The Way is rumored to practice wife swapping. That would blend in.
Apparently quaaludes are sometimes known as quack, which explains the duck just sitting there.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Yes, one monogamous relationship after another happens a lot.
But when you stand back and look at such an entire life of one mate alone and then another mate alone, you see many mates, and not just one. So I was implying, with my made up terms, that the prefix "mono" is misleading there.
Standing back and looking at many entire lives, you see ONLY three possibilities:
(1) zero mates per person, or
(2) one mate per person, or
(3) multiple mates per person.
I'm not sure what to call the first one. The second SHOULD (in a sense) be called monogamy, and the third should be called polygamy.
I think the current definitions are a bit sloppy, and would like to re-define them for clarity. I know that is impossible, but thought it ought to be pointed out that our current definition of monogamy is a bit misleading.
Things get even more complicated when you include common law marriages, and one-night stands that stretch out to a few months. This last is VERY common now in hook-up youth culture. I call them "pretend marriages."
*/*/*/*/*
But nomenclature aside, I am seeking verses that can fill in my understanding of permitted OT polygamy, meaning multiple simultaneous wives. I am thinking that Abraham was a polygamist in this sense. Maybe Moses too, but very unsure there.
Then there is the OT use of concubines that really throws me! I hear David and Solomon had them, but again, never searched all this out.... yet. I have no idea how concubines fit under God's Word and will.
I am hoping that someone here has done that already.
Edited by MikeLink to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
Don't forget Adam's first wife's name was Lilith.
And most men were slaves, eunuchs, soldiers, or some other form of gene pool dead end.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
And it's sufficiently, precisely, accurately called serial monogamy.
It's only misleading if you don't understand what it means. No need to make up new terms, because it won't be helpful. Use a dictionary.
(1) Single; Eligible; Unmarried
(2) Monogamy
(3) Polygamy
They aren't sloppy at all. They may only be unclear to you. They really aren't misleading. Use a dictionary.
Edited by Nathan_JrGloves
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
There's a lot more terms. Diagrams too.
Course the question is . . . Why so many?
One answer is they are perfect for people with fractured personalities.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
Are there charts? Charts, please. Charts made by the Art Department, please.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
It's worse than I thought
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Throughout history, there have been, and still are, cultures that consider marriage to be a business arrangement and/or a matter of convenience. Marriage for love is a fairly new concept, dating back to about the eighteenth century. This needs to be understood and factored into any biblical discussion of marriage, concubines, courtesans, paramours and the like.
Edited by waysiderLink to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Trying to get past the nomenclature and modern culture on this topic:
I just want to see more thoroughly what is in the Bible on these items I have bold fonted above.
If anyone has verses and insight on these things, I want to learn.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Thanks for the reminder. I have read about this but forgot it. This should be included in the mix of a thorough study.
Might the book "Song of Solomon" be an exception to this? Or a new paradigm?
Again, I ask from a position of relative ignorance of this book of the Bible.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldSkool
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
No that is not my intention. Please don't think evil of me.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
https://www.christianity.com/wiki/people/why-was-david-allowed-to-take-so-many-wives-and-who-were-they.html
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
Brilliant!
mmmmmph
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
That the wives were all treated equally by the husband? No favoritism was to be given one wife over another?
Certainly, you don’t mean treated as equal to the husband.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Equals? Seriously? This is one of the reasons some people find the Bible so hard to understand. They want to compare a culture that existed thousands of years ago to modern culture and expect that the same standards apply.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.