Polygamy

Post Reply New Topic

Your ex has good taste. He must have taken all of his Ron Jeremy movies with him. It was very selfish of him not to let you watch.

^^^^^^That's probably true,He had the mailman hold his packages(no pun ),I have no idea what the man watched.Maybe best not to know

No. It's a moral dictate. It in part promotes monogamy. It also prevents conflict within families. Isaac and Rebekah could have prevented this by following the example of Isaac's father by sending a servant to do the dirty work. Jacob also got trapped in an unhealthy partnership with Laban, which could have been prevented by having the girl brought to Jacob rather than what actually happened. Now, sure, the unions that came out of this birthed the nation of Israel. However, the same result could have been had through monogamous marriage rather than marrying sisters. It's a lesson not only in how deceitful and immoral Laban was, but how God's chosen can be so quick to compromise their principles--and suffer the consequences for it.

Dietary laws lie somewhere between purity laws for worship in the assembly, formerly in the camp surrounding the Tabernacle and later in the Temple complex, and establishing Hebrew identity. So they aren't the same thing.


Oddly enough, this reminds me of some conversations my wife and I have had regarding a certain friend of hers. The way my wife put it, she doesn't want someone else's leftovers.

Another point to ponder is that even married sex makes one ceremonially unclean. Do your business privately at night, bathe, and you're clean in the morning. After sunrise, you're unclean until evening. After bathing, you're clean after evening from what I understand. So a wife who follows another in the same day would share a "sister-wife's" uncleanness. That might not be in the best interest of the wife who gets leftovers.

The Bible frowns heavily on incest. Lot's daughters bore children whose descendants became enemies of Israel.


Well, that in effect is prostitution--generally forbidden in the Bible.

Peter North>Ron Jeramy!

No it doesn't. The Bible was not written by Baptists. It doesn't say "Don't have any fun!" You can marry all of the women you want--just not sisters.


Well, this could be the case, if the sisters maintain some childhood grudge or just can't get along with each other. But, I suppose if they did get along well together, then they might be united against the husband's interests and undermine his authority, moreso than wives who aren't related. Also, a man who let another man marry all of his daughters would be putting all of his eggs into one basket. It would probably be wise to split them up among different households. If things went poorly with one husband, then at least you would have some fallbacks to support you in your old age.


There was a lot of inbreeding back in those days. Isaac and Rebecca were cousins. Rachel and Leah were Jacob's cousins. Isaac and Rebecca couldn't get along with the Hittite and Canaanite wives of Esau, who also married one of Ishmael's daughters (who was a cousin). I think that even most Baptists these days like to pick out their own wives, rather than relying on their parents' employees to do all of the work for them. Not that arranged marriages are necessarily a bad idea.


The reason Rebecca had for sending Jacob back to Mesopotamia was that Esau was quite angry with him--angry enough to want to kill him. Finding a cousin to marry in Mesopotamia was an afterthought.


Having a dozen sons is a big task to assign to one woman. Splitting this up between four women wasn't such a bad idea.


Laban wasn't so bad. Jacob probably should have noticed that he was porking Leah instead of Rachel. I don't know how he wouldn't have noticed. Laban explained that it was against the local custom to give the younger daughter in marriage before the older. Jacob ended up getting both of them, plus the two concubines. Not really such a bad deal. Jacob, I think, ended up being more deceitful, and had to leave town in a hurry. Anyway, he taught Uncle Laban a lesson.


Jacob didn't compromise any principles. Remember: this is a Patriarch you're talking about.


They're about the same thing. It is all laid out: what you can eat, what you can shag. Although I don't think that there was a death penalty for eating the wrong thing.



Probably no group sex with your harem, then, although I don't think that it was explicitly forbidden.


With all of the marrying of cousins?


And it is not surprising that the Israelites would have attributed an inglorious origin to their enemies.



No, that is an art form. It isn't one party paying another for coitus. This would be against the law in most states. It is the production of material that enjoys First Amendment protection.

And, as previously stated, the Bible was not written by Baptists, and it doesn't say "Don't have any fun!" Tel Aviv is one of the world's biggest cities for prostitution.

http://www.haaretz.com/weekend/magazine ... s-1.469461

And, a lot of the customers are ultra-orthodox

http://failedmessiah.typepad.com/failed ... s-789.html

who don't use condoms, and who insist on a full vaginal creampie, to remain kosher.

It demonstrates that polygamy is generally a bad idea. In effect, yes, it does promote monogamy.


I don't picture Laban as being that well-meaning. Jacob didn't do himself any favors, either, but still it stands he didn't seem to learn anything from his forebears. I don't think it was about holding a grudge, but Leah was a regular Fertile Myrtle while Rachael had a little trouble conceiving. Being married to the same husband seemed to exacerbate this sibling rivalry, something that never had to happen in the first place.


Despite our modern sensibilities, there is nothing really "dirty" about marrying cousins. I mean, scientifically we've established that first cousins will generally show enough genetic diversity to ensure freedom from genetic defects. In some cases, it might even be beneficial. I would say that a long string of first-cousin pairings might gradually produce some problems, but we don't really expect that kind of thing to go on that long.

In a perfect world, I'm all about arranged marriages. In reality, I'm sure manipulating sons and daughters to marry who YOU want them to marry is not quite so easy. There's no law that requires parents to ever let their children date, for instance. However, if you as a parent know someone who is a decent human being, get along with his or her parents, and would enjoy working together as in-laws, there are ways of getting your kids to, um, spend more time together.


Ah, but that is a failure in faith. God had already shown Isaac that his line would continue through Jacob and not Esau. I mean, come on...the evidence from the Bible shows that Isaac had clear doubts as to whether he was really giving his blessing to Esau, and I doubt even with age and disability that Isaac didn't figure it out right away. I don't think that was any accident, even if the methods Rebekah employed were iffy. It was the wrong thing to do, I mean, and I don't honestly think it would have played out differently had everyone played nicely. After all, Esau had already sold his birthright. What good would Isaac's blessing have really been if there was nothing to give? Besides that, because Jacob employed trickery, the blessing was never rightfully his to begin with. When Isaac told Esau there was nothing, I think he was speaking more prophetically.

If, however, a servant had gone with Jacob to do the actual work of matchmaking and consulted Yahweh FIRST, it would have ensured that Jacob would have ended up with the right woman and avoided the whole mess Jacob found himself in.


Sure. But why is it necessary that there have been 12 sons? Jacob could have had, say, 3 sons with one woman, and those could have produced 12 sons together, and they'd have constituted the 12 tribes. I myself have 3 children. It's not so bad, and we're contemplating a 4th in the next few years.


Jacob SHOULD have noticed, but he was too drunk, probably. I'm also suspicious of that "local custom" thing. Laban proved to be a lot of trouble, so I wouldn't put lying past him. Besides that, he was an idol worshiper. If he'd been more consistent with Abraham's religion, it's unlikely he'd have been so easily bent to compromise in favor of "local custom."


I don't care if he was a patriarch. He was a human being and prone to human error. And yes, Jacob DID compromise on principles. The earliest model of marriage involves monogamy. He broke from that. He erred. He compromised on principle and suffered the consequences.


They are NOT the same thing. Biblical law doesn't concern itself with what non-Jews eat. No, you won't get the death penalty for eating pork. You are, however, ritually unclean and must be "cut off from your people." You can eat whatever you want. You just can't live in Israel. If you want to act like non-Israelites, go live with non-Israelites. Who you have sex with is tied in with that, though foreigners are not STRICTLY forbidden. It's about who you worship, not your ethnicity. Marrying foreigners makes you more likely to stray from God in favor of other gods or just forgetting God altogether. Marrying within your own religion is safer. There was nothing wrong with non-Israelites converting and becoming a "son of Abraham."


I have no idea. It's certainly not the most hygienic thing to do, at any rate. Maybe you COULD...but why?

It's also risky behavior in that sex rituals were known to be associated with idol worship. If nothing else, it doesn't look good.


Cousins don't seem to be a problem, but I don't count that as incest in the Biblical sense. I think of cousin incest as really being more of a modern world taboo and more of a recent development. Siblings, nieces/nephews, parents/children would fit the scriptural definition. Part of that might have to do with the Pharaonic practices in deifying their rulers. It is apparently something that is disgusting to God, therefore we shouldn't do it.


Well, I'm not getting into that discussion. I think you either believe what the Bible says or you don't. If you want to make the argument that the only reason the Bible says that is because they were enemies, then you'll need to provide evidence. I have no problem with what the Bible says on the matter.


People are getting paid for sex. That is prostitution. We also might be disagreeing on definitions of what art forms are. There's a reason why they call it the adult entertainment industry.


None of that is my concern. I don't care what happens in Tel Aviv. Immoral people are immoral. Hypocrites are going to be hypocrites. And I know full well that the Bible doesn't say "Don't have any fun!" because I've read Ecclesiastes a few times. And I know Jesus went to parties and turned water into wine. And I know the Bible says there is celebration in Heaven. The Bible, however, DOES point out things deemed by God as wrong. Prostitution is in there. It has nothing to do with being Baptist or any other denomination.

Facts are facts. Women were marginalized in the ancient world. There are Biblical mandates that acknowledge plain old reality and seek the best way for God's people to deal with those realities. Slavery is another such reality. Unequally applied or downright unfair justice systems. Predominantly Christian societies have consistently sought to eradicate those kinds of things and have more or less succeeded--and where they've been less successful they haven't stopped trying. I don't care what you do on your own time to "keep kosher." If you're doing something that is evil in God's sight, you're a sinner.

Cum to think of it, I think that most of Mr. Jeremy's films conclude with Onanism, which would be a violation of kosher restrictions. Perhaps it is acceptible based upon artistic merit, so long as he doesn't commit Onanism in his free time.

Still, I think that most men are turned on by visual stimulation, whereas for most women this is less the case. They need context and romantic involvement. Hence, Wuthering Heights and the wide array of chick flicks.

Between Ron Jeremy, Rocco and Oliver North, I think that most women would choose Mr. Jeremy. Of the three, he is the most highly educated, most erudite, most talented, most engaging and the most romantic.

Plus, Mr. Jeremy once banged 12 women in one film. What are Rocco's and Oliver's records?

How do you get that from "Do not take your wife's sister as one of your wives, as long as your wife is living?" Even if you couldn't marry your wife's sister, there were still plenty of other ladies that you could add to your collection.


Oh, he probably wasn't so bad of an uncle/father-in-law.


Well, he could have done like Esau and married local girls. They seem to have been a lot less trouble, at least for Esau. But, remember, Jacob had to leave town in a hurry.


The rivalry was fairly good natured. I mean, most guys probably wouldn't have had a problem with being in Jacob's shoes.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_regarding_incest




The Moonies do arranged marriages.


Jacob had plenty of descendents through both sons.


He probably would have ended up just with Leah and Zilpah, and would have never pined after the younger, hotter sister.


Planning on becoming a Patriarch, then?


The Bible doesn't say that he was drunk at all. If he was that drunk, then he probably would have just gone to sleep, and not consummated the affair.


A lot of places have the custom that daughters get married off in order of age. If a younger sister gets married before an older sister, even in the USA, the older sister may experience some anxiety. Where does it say that Uncle Laban worshipped idols?


Monogamy wasn't a principle. You're the only one who ever condemned him for polygamy. Moreover, this was Genesis. The prohibition against marrying sisters doesn't appear until Leviticus, some 400 years later. You can't really judge him by a different century's standards.


I'm pretty sure that non-Jews can get themselves a pork chop in Israel.



Some Jews care a bunch about ethnicity, as do some other people.


Well, that's what Hugh Hefner does. If I had a harem, then I would certainly want to make the most of it. Solomon had a personal copulation cabinet consisting of no fewer than 700 wives and 300 concubines. If he did a different one every night, then they would all be obliged to go years between refreshments. Might as well at least try to double up.


Well, they can be entertaining to watch.


More to the point: it violates laws in a lot of places.


The winning side gets to write the history. During World War II, there was a lot of propaganda denigrating and dehumanizing all sides. The Moabites and Ammonites probably maintained a different set of stories concerning their origins.


Absolutely no-one follows the Bible more than ultra-Orthodox Jews. They wouldn't eat a ham sandwich if their life depended on it. If lots of ultra-Orthodox guys are making use of the executive ejaculatory administrators, then it must be okay with the Bible, and okay with Yahweh.


Oh, I eat pork.

I don't know about ancient Israel per se, but erotic depictions were commonplace in ancient times.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of ... depictions

It is conceivable that artists were paid to maintain erotic poses for the production.

The Bible's principal erotica is The Song of Songs.

Regarding prostitution:


Other than the Executive Ejaculatory Administrator disappearing before being paid, this must be reflective of the standard operating procedures for such activities back in the day.

Sure. Still doesn't make it right, though. Still doesn't improve solidarity within the family. Sarah's Egyptian handmaiden made trouble for her. Ishmael ultimately made trouble for Isaac before they were banished. Penninnah made trouble for Hannah. The Bible might not condemn the practice of polygamy outright, but it certainly does nothing to encourage it. The monogamy standard was set in the beginning, just as lifelong marriage was. Polygamy was merely too ingrained into ancient cultures to be done away with.


Suit yourself. Jacob would disagree strongly.


Isaac and Rebekah would have disagreed regarding the local girls. And I'm not so sure Jacob really had to leave town in a hurry.


Seriously? He had to have been miserable at times. He couldn't even keep his [censored by mods] straight...

Ooopsss...can't talk about that. My mistake... Let's move on...


Sorry, I just don't see what the big deal is.

On the other hand, I've got some pretty hawt cousins. As long as your family tree isn't a straight line, I just don't see the problem.


I have no intentions of joining the Moonies.

What unnerves me about many Christians is the overall apathy many of us show in actually living out our faith. They are too worldly and think of children's programs at church as just a way to get rid of their kids a couple of hours on a Sunday night. And yes, I'm talking about Baptists either I or my wife interact with once or twice a week. I think it is a parent's responsibility to teach a young man or woman how to choose a mate and hopefully steer them away from dating until they are closer to age of majority. Set high standards and hold kids and potential marriage partners to those standards. Parents are too often afraid of meddling in their kids' lives, perhaps due to what they saw were bad experiences in their own lives. I think what we actually need is the opposite: Be faithful by controlling as much of our children's environments as possible and continue teaching them well into adulthood. I'd rather see my children succeed especially well in that area of their lives after enduring the pain and misery of discipline and constant involvement rather than make the same mistakes or even more mistakes than I did and have to suffer worse consequences for it.

My mom was generally disapproving about pretty much everything I brought home. My wife's personality resonated deeply with my mom. I don't agree with my mom on a lot of things, but I did take the relationship she cultivated early on with my mom as a pretty good sign!


? Not sure what you're referring to here.


MAYBE. Or perhaps if Jacob was meant to end up with Rachael alone, a servant would have been more persistent in making sure Jacob got the right woman.



[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qw9oX-kZ_9k[/youtube]

Whatchutalkinbout, Willis? I AM a Patriarch!


It's not unreasonable to guess Jacob might have been intoxicated, which together with the darkness of the evening would have made it difficult for Jacob to figure out that he was being set up. Rabbinic sources have other theories, but those kinds of things are normally not within my interests.


Rachael stole the household idols. When Laban caught up with Jacob, Jacob promised to put anyone in possession of the idols to death. When Laban went to Rachael, she was sitting on the idols. She refused to get up claiming that she was on her period. I forget the chapter and verse, but it's all in there.


Monogamy was always a principle. Adam and Eve. One woman for one man. A man shall leave his father and mother, cleave to his wife, and the TWO of them will become ONE FLESH. There is no room for polygamy here.

The prohibition in Leviticus is part of a written code intended to form the initial rule of law of the new nation of Israel. That doesn't mean that similar prohibitions didn't already exist from the time of Abraham or even before. It just means they consisted of an oral law rather than a written one.


I won't be going any time soon, so it doesn't concern me.

I haven't eaten pork in months, btw. I don't miss it, but as per tomorrow evening I will end my abstinence from all meat. It's part of my slow recovery from fasting. I've enjoyed fresh, homemade yogurt a time or two for breakfast in the last couple of weeks--much fun, especially since I figured out how to use a microwave, toaster oven, and oversized coffee filters to get a nice yogurt that resembles cream cheese. That mixed with fruit followed by a glass of either apple or orange juice has been my breakfast, and I've been eating very small portions of soups and most recently a spicy stew with tofu. I'm exercising more consistently now and have started losing weight again despite eating. So I'm looking forward to a few days of eating a chicken stew I made followed by a week or so of eating a spicy beef chile. These were foods I made while fasting and froze--now I'm in the process of cleaning out the freezer. Saves a lot of money that might have been spent on going out to eat or unnecessary spending at the grocery. For the time being, I could use the protein. I also have a wonderful soup I made with potato, turnip, acorn squash, and Italian sausage that should last me possibly three weeks. Beyond that, I'll be going back to a mostly vegetarian diet.

I bring that up because I'm eating such small portions at meals--my yogurt with fruit is about 4 oz., my glass of fruit juice in the mornings and evenings is only 4 oz., and I only eat about 1/2 cup of food for lunch and dinner. The idea is that through fasting I depended on God to keep me alive. Now that the time for that is over, I only want the amount of food I need for basic survival needs. By changing my habits, avoiding gluttony, and seeking to glorify God in the way that I eat (or don't eat), I can play a part in working to deepen my relationship with God.

Perhaps a Jew in Israel can get pork chops. By eating pork, though, a Jew is compromising on the outward identifying marks of what Jews are.

Jesus, of course, effectively nullified the need for dietary restrictions for Christians, which is helpful because the hope is that Christianity is open to everyone. Remember, Jesus instructed Peter to stop calling common all that Jesus had made clean. Lifting dietary restrictions is an outward show of freedom from a law that binds us to death. It is a sign that all are welcome into a new covenant of life at the Father's table.


There's nothing wrong with that, either, but for me, I view it as a personal choice. I think that the work Jesus did nullified the need for Jewish identity. But there is nothing wrong with a Jewish convert to Christianity maintaining the customs and traditions that mark them as Jews. My opinion is that interpreting the Bible to mean the Jews must maintain ethnic purity is exaggerated. After all, modern-day Jews are just as much ethnic mutts as the average white American. I chose to marry into a family of similar British decent as my own. I take no issue with those who, for their own reasons, cross racial or ethnic lines in marriage.




meh...


And why is that, I wonder?


OK, but it's logically possible that the winning side could actually be telling the truth. It would be a fallacious argument to assume that someone is a liar just because they're a winner. Sometimes the winners deserve to win.


Not necessarily. They descend from a long line of Rabbinic tradition that dates back to the Pharisee sect that put laws on top of laws to avoid sin. Well, those man-made laws came to be accepted as the very words of Moses a la the oral tradition. Jesus was not often favorable to the traditions of the Pharisees, and such acts with contemporary ultra-Orthodox strike me as hypocritical. By no means is it necessarily okay with the Bible nor is it a sign of obedience to Yahweh.


Hey, I'm looking forward to finally eating that soup I made with Italian sausage. And I'm sure I'll have the occasional pork chop. But I see mostly vegetables in my dietary future. I've been a vegetarian since, I believe, October. I don't really miss meat that much. The Bible actually commends vegetarianism at times.

Eve did create a heck of a lot of trouble for Adam. Which would seem to be an advertisement for Paul's preference for celibacy. The trouble that Eve caused for Adam (and for us, their descendents) was a heck of a lot worse than what Hagar did to Abraham. If Adam had had multiple wives, and if one of them had eaten that fruit (or done anything else that displeased him), then Adam could have divorced her and sent her away, instead of sharing in her punishment.


Well, Esau certainly enjoyed them.



Mom was worried, and told him to get out of town. So, he got out of town.



Jacob had erectile dysfunction?



http://discovermagazine.com/2003/aug/featkiss

Most of the article is encouraging of inbreeding, but the author does concede the following:




Esau also had a lot of children--he was by no means a genetic dead end.


Are you saying that the Servant would have married Leah, and brought Rachel back for Jacob to marry? I doubt that Laban would have married his eldest daughter off to a servant. But, maybe the servant could have pulled the wool over Uncle Laban's eyes.


What are the other theories?


Okay, I found it. Yahweh didn't seem to have a problem with the idols, though. Jacob had the God of Abraham (Jacob's grandfather), while Uncle Laban had the God of Nahor (Laban's daddy). The God of Nahor may have been cool with household idols. It wasn't until Exodus that Yahweh really got fussy about idols.


Yes there is. Becoming one flesh with a lady is just a euphemism for making the beast with two backs.


It doesn't mean that the prohibitions existed, either.

The winners invariably write the story to imply that they deserved to win. As far as I know, we don't have the other side's story to compare against. But, I still suspect that their version of the story of their origins would have been considerably more flattering.


Do any Jews want to enter the discussion?

Shall we look at the examples of two morally upright, prominent Southern Christian gentlemen? Newt Gingrich and Mark Sanford were both married, and both wanted a new piece of ass.

Newt was on his second wife, Marianne, when he took Callista as his concubine, to service him while he was away in Washington. Both Newt and Callista were cool with the arrangement, but Marianne rebelled against her husband, and they divorced, leaving Marianne alone, embittered, humiliated, and undateable, just like Newt's first wife. Marianne is probably wishing that she had simply allowed Newt to have his concubine, and maybe even participated with Callista and Newt in some threesomes.

Mark is simply dumping his wife of many years, and mother of his children, so that he will be free to marry his Argentine tarte. He could have just taken her as a concubine, and remained married, without ruining his political career. Or, if he could just have two wives, then everyone would be happy. There would be absolutely no reason for Mrs. Sanford to be alone and frustrated.

Herman Cain is a much more admirable Christian, for remaining faithful to his wife while continuing to be entertained by his concubine(s).

Here is an interesting little documentary on Malaysia's Obedient Wives Club.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ns0W4d1EGco[/youtube]

They raise some interesting issues.

The Sister Wives recently won a court victory:

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/15/us/a- ... 31215&_r=0

You can still have only one legally-recognized wife at a time, but you can have all of the concubines that you can enjoy.

Would it be so wrong to accumulate some brother husbands?

I am burnt out on polygamy based on religion. It could work, like in the case of the Browns but sometimes it's just too oppressive of women, like with FLDS and the way the "prophet" tells people who they will marry. I completely disagree with that yick. It should always be about choice and with appropriate partners, not people who do not wish to get married.