why not multiple husbands?

[FollowingHim]

As I said, I understand the transubstantiation issue. However, that means that, from the point of view of the priest, he was not denying me just a symbol but the actual body and blood of my Saviour. I find it a greater insult because of that.

All we need to do to be saved is to believe in Jesus as Lord (everything else, however important, is just details). He commanded us to remember His sacrifice forever, with bread and wine. This is not an option, but a commandment. So to withhold the bread and wine from someone who accepts Jesus as Lord, is to prevent them from obeying Jesus. I can understand Satan trying to stop me from obeying Christ, but a fellow Christian?

I fully understand that they believe I would be failing to discern the body and blood of Jesus, and thus sinning to take it. But my discernment or lack thereof is something only I can know, not something to be presumed by another.

 

[FollowingHim]

Have we managed to set a record for the most off-topic thread yet? Multiple husbands -> Catholicism -> Holy Communion -> where will we end up next? :lol:

 

[magzillasaurus]

I was naming the doctrine specifically for anyone else that was reading, not because I assumed you didn't know (it's clear that you have a grasp of theological issues).

Why would you be insulted if you don't believe in the literal nature of the body and the blood? Wouldn't you find it uncomfortable or even sacrilegious? In my personal opinion communion isn't held up to the same esteem/scrutiny/regard/etc in many churches (most other churches I have attended offer it once a month and many use mass produced grape juice, etc).

I've had this discussion with friends of the Protestant persuasion who have told me they wouldn't want to receive communion is our church, they find the notion that it is literally the body and the blood to be disturbing to various degrees (many attend Open Table churches). I'm certain this isn't the case for everyone but perhaps maybe my belief in the doctrine is preventing from understanding your particular feelings of insult?

I can't speak for everyone else (people have varying viewpoints on this issue) but I think this particular doctrinal point makes sense. Children (since we baptize infants) and the unconfirmed (those who have not affirmed their belief of their own free will) do not partake either, the notion is that if you do no wholly understand and believe you should abstain. I've never personally seen a priest refuse the cup from anyone (it's nearly impossible to determine who is and isn't a member based on appearance) so it's a personal choice to respect the views of the church or not. Isn't that why we have the option to choose our place of worship, so we are free to celebrate the sacraments according to our own conscience/belief?

For someone who was hesitant to do more than read (I was a member for six months before posting) I find the off-topic nature to be refreshing! We often find inspiration in unlikely places!

 

[FollowingHim]

The belief in the literal nature of the body/blood really doesn't bother me as much as it does others. The Bible says "this is my body", that can be interpreted different ways. No worries. We're commanded to do it, whether or not we quibble about the details.

Whether there's some tranformation of the elements into Christ's body, whether we should use special wine or grape juice (the Bible just mentions "cup" and "fruit of the vine"), whether the bread must be unleavened, whether to have one cup or many etc are purely details in my view, and don't affect the fact that we should obey to the best of our understanding.

I fully agree that it is vital that you must not take it if you don't understand what it is about. 1 Corinthians 11:20-34 explains this in detail.

The disciples were claiming to be celebrating the Lord's supper, but actually were not. They were simply feasting together, getting drunk, and leaving others hungry. Paul stressed that the Lord's supper was a holy ritual to remember Him, and we must actually remember Him through it. If we do not, we bring a curse upon ourselves - which caused may to be weak and sickly, and some to even die (v30). We are not to eat it purely out of hunger, but out of remembrance (v34).

A child does not understand what it is about, so would eat purely out of hunger. They must not take it. It is up to their parents to judge when they understand it well enough. An unsaved person also would be taking it unworthily, not understanding what it was about, so must not take it. However the saved are commanded to take it.

Whether or not a person is saved, or whether their heart is right before God and they are remembering God through the Lord's supper, cannot be known for certain by anyone but that individual and God. It is only the individual who can tell whether they should take it. Whenever I am offering communion where there are people who I don't know understand this, I make sure to stress that communion is how Christians remember Christ, it is something to take only if you understand and agree with what it represents, it isn't something that you do just because you're in a church and you should feel quite free to pass it on untouched.

 

[magzillasaurus]

The belief in the literal nature of the body/blood really doesn't bother me as much as it does others. The Bible says "this is my body", that can be interpreted different ways. No worries. We're commanded to do it, whether or not we quibble about the details.

Whether there's some tranformation of the elements into Christ's body, whether we should use special wine or grape juice (the Bible just mentions "cup" and "fruit of the vine"), whether the bread must be unleavened, whether to have one cup or many etc are purely details in my view, and don't affect the fact that we should obey to the best of our understanding.

Exactly, those details are unimportant to some but crucial to others. Therein lies some of the issues surrounding closed communion. You seem fairly open minded but some here have expressed that they think the Catholic church is in error, unbiblical and what have you. From that assumption I was asking why you would want to even receive the sacrament there. If you are less concerned about the details (and what I personally perceive as fairly minor doctrinal differences) I can see why it would offend your sensibilities. Ah-ha! I should say

 

[Federic]

Hello!
I suggest the latest posts have been getting deep into the sacraments and other high concepts, perhaps distanced from the initial question of "why not multiple husbands?". I would like, if you all allow, to bring focus back to more practical aspects. For example: would multiple husbands not be very messy and against basic hygiene? also, would paternity become uncertain? and , would not a multiple husband marriage not make the woman the leader? and yes, who would the children obey?

 

[Isabella]

Hello!
I suggest the latest posts have been getting deep into the sacraments and other high concepts, perhaps distanced from the initial question of "why not multiple husbands?". I would like, if you all allow, to bring focus back to more practical aspects. For example: would multiple husbands not be very messy and against basic hygiene?

Oh dear, why would you assume that men who share a wife would lose the ability to wash?

also, would paternity become uncertain?

Possibly, but then again paternity is never really certain anyway, especially in the more modern era (the wealth of those awful paternity test shows us that much in this serial monogamous age). Besides which Paternity certainty is a concern of a past age when it was expected that men will only use their resources just for their own offspring. In this day and age when some men are naturally or artificially sterile and some adopt and raise step children, is this such a concern now? I think this is far more complicated situation in this modern age when if a child is raised with two fathers in their life, I am not sure that it will be such an identity crisis that they are not sure which one of them is their father and if they really can't guess (through physical traits) there is always testing, but I don't know what the concern is in a Polyandrous situation when you take into account the wealth of people who don't even know who their fathers are, or are raised with a man who they think is their father but isn't (for whatever reason). Paternity uncertainty seems to be more of a worry in monogamous culture than any Polygamous.

and , would not a multiple husband marriage not make the woman the leader?

This is definitely an interesting insight into the difference between male and female mindsets, men think the inverse of patriarchy is matriarchy, and technically it is, but in practice the evidence is women work in a more communal way and certainly in the (few) Polyandrous societies, plus the Western people who end up in these types of relationships, that is the way they tend to run their relationships, there is no "leader", they decide things in consensus.
Now whether you think this is a problem or unworkable personally is by the by, since it works perfectly well for these people and if your objection is based on religious ideals than that similarly is not relevant to them because they are unlikely to believe the same way.
However, I think everyone agrees that it is not Biblical. I just think some of these justifications to bolster what is essentially cultural and religious ideals are flawed, for anyone who follows the Bible and then is asked the question 'Why not multiple husbands?' Because it is not allowed. Simple.

and yes, who would the children obey?

Adults. I never understood this idea that one adults voice held more merit when it comes to obeying. Again, the idea that someone must be the totalitarian leader (or some familial hierarchy) is quite culturally (and religiously) specific.

B

 

[CharityNeverFaileth]

I don't know if this is a point that was ever brought up or not for I have not read all the comments yet. But putting aside all biblical points in which I totally agree with, to me it would not make any sense for a woman to marry multiple men for the reason being that there are far more women on Earth then men. Statistically there isn't enough men in the entire world for every man to have only one wife. For every woman to be married which probably will never be achieved anyway, but a woman would have to marry a man that is already married to another woman.

~Asia

 

[FollowingHim]

would not a multiple husband marriage not make the woman the leader?

Here I agree with Bels that you are presuming a lot to think that polyandry would be the inverse of polygyny. Bels has stated that modern polyandry is not like that. Also, traditional polyandry is not either. For instance, in the few pockets of India that practice Hindu polyandry, the polyandry tends to be fraternal - ie the wife is available to a group of brothers. Each wife usually marries the eldest brother, but all his brothers have access to her. He may get several wives, and they have access to them all. But the eldest brother remains the head of the family. Eventually he may accumulate enough wives for there to be enough to go around, then they can split off into a number of monogamous families. The polyandry doesn't make the woman in charge, rather it makes her have to serve even more men.

Statistically there isn't enough men in the entire world for every man to have only one wife.

Overall, that is true. However within communities it is not always the case. China for instance has far more men than women - because they have sex-selective abortion and female infanticide. Their one-child policy encourages parents to ensure that one child is one that will earn more money to support them in their old age, so as men tend to have higher incomes than women, they do anything to obtain a male child. This is going to cause China massive problems, but they are certainly not the first society to face that.

The Inuit also traditionally practiced female infanticide during times of scarcity. This resulted in more men than women, resulting in polyandry. I wonder if China will go towards polyandry? Maybe they will unofficially through promiscuity rather than marriage...

The other thing that can cause polyandry is excessive polygamy. In some traditional societies, the rich could accumulate so many wives that the poor were unable to find enough to go around, resulting in polygamy, monogamy and polyandry all existing at the same time!

'Why not multiple husbands?' Because it is not allowed. Simple.

Dead right Bels. The Bible bans it. The Bible also bans female infanticide, which can lead to it. So we don't practice it. I also cannot understand why people need to find a justification for Christian teachings. "God said it" should be enough for any Christian. I can understand that some people find polyandry ok, I can also understand that some people find homosexuality ok - but the Bible says both are wrong, so I'm not doing either (the fact I find both ideas gross is irrelevant, others find polygyny gross).

 

[magzillasaurus]

Statistically there isn't enough men in the entire world for every man to have only one wife.

There are actually slightly more men than women in the world. Sex-selective abortion is actually widening the gap (in places like China and Korea it is very common). In certain countries there are certainly more men than women but that is not true of the world as a whole.

Let me add a source since I forgot: http://www.census.gov/population/intern ... rldpop.php

This data is also available from the UN in a much more detailed and complicated format.

 

[FollowingHim]

Maggie, thanks for the link, that's fascinating data. Note that it is not the overall numbers of males and females that matter, but the relative numbers of marriageable age, which is different. If we look at the individual census data for any country that does not practice widespread sex-selection, there is a clear dominance of women from the age of 20 or so.

But in that worldwide data women do not become more numerous until the age of at least 40. To pull the numbers that far in that direction, there must be some countries where males remain more numerous until quite elderly ages, and to do this they must start at birth at far greater numbers than women. Sex-selective abortion must be having an impact, but it can't be the sole cause. Sex-selective abortion is a recent technology, that cannot affect the ratio of 40-year-old men to women, but only the ratio of children.

Female infanticide must be a key issue at those ages, since it's been practiced for a lot longer. It's also a lot more available today - anyone can let their daughter die, but only the wealthy can afford to do it before she's born. There are no doubt other factors at play also.

Interestingly, the age at which women first become more numerous than men has declined since 2000 according to that data, not increased with the availability of sex-selective abortion. That also suggests that abortion is not the cause, but rather something else.

The other possibility is that the data's dodgy, it must be incredibly difficult to estimate actual world populations, and this outfit pushes their projections well into the future. There's nothing to suggest the 2013 data is any more reliable than the 2020 data, they will both be projected from earlier figures as nobody's had a chance to collect any data this year, and most census' are conducted very infrequently. So we can't draw any firm conclusions from it, but it is concerning.

It is not concerning from a "oh no, this justification for polygyny isn't supported by that dataset" - frankly I don't care about that. It's concerning because I wonder how many baby girls have actually been murdered to get those numbers.

 

[magzillasaurus]

This is a global world, I look more towards global trends than in any specific country. In places where female infanticide is practiced there tends to be more immigration (here in East Asia a lot of men marry Southeast Asian women or in some cases other women from outside their country) as well as more men that just never marry.

In the US there is also the fact that the fertility rate is down, women simply aren't having as many children. I'm curious to see how this translates into the population in the next several decades. All projections aside it is really hard to say just how the population will look in 50 years!

 

[Federic]

Wow! this is exciting...so many responses.
I would like to add one more reason not to have many husbands for one wife: men are always ready and willing for copulation, women not so much. If, things being what they are biologically and psycologically, one loving husband has to exert much patience and wait days for his wife to be ready and willing, one cannot help but wondering how long the wait would be if more husbands were in line.
Also, when female chores in marriage are divided among several wives there is a benefit in burden reduction. I doubt that a woman married to many men would find any of her chores reduced.
All comments welcome.

 

[Isabella]

Wow! this is exciting...so many responses.
I would like to add one more reason not to have many husbands for one wife: men are always ready and willing for copulation, women not so much. If, things being what they are biologically and psycologically, one loving husband has to exert much patience and wait days for his wife to be ready and willing, one cannot help but wondering how long the wait would be if more husbands were in line.

I think such wildly generalised statements do not take into consideration individual needs and behaviours, many men have a low libido, many women have a high libido. Also, I think it is wise to look into the sex negative cultures in many populations which discourage female sexuality, this can often mean women are not empowered to talk of their sexual needs and end up in wildly unsatisfying sexual relationships which, of course, means they are not as interested as they may be otherwise. Physically of course, female physiology being what it is, women often have more stamina than men in that area but when it comes to women, the largest sex organ is the brain, men who fail to feed that side of it end up with disinterested wives. Modern women seeking Polyandrous relationships tend to be able to keep up with the men so that reasoning is very culturally biased to me.
By the way, I know of a few men who can't satisfy the one woman they have, some of whom are under the impression that women are not so interested in 'that sort of thing' anyway and are looking for another wife as well because they like the idea of having two wives, but that does not mean they will be able to keep them satisfied, especially if wife 2 has a higher libido than wife one and is more liable to complain or be really frustrated.

Also, when female chores in marriage are divided among several wives there is a benefit in burden reduction. I doubt that a woman married to many men would find any of her chores reduced.
All comments welcome.

I think this has already been addressed, in modern Polyandrous families there is no women's work vs male work, there is just work. The sort of women who desire Polyandry are unlikely to be attracted to the type of men who believe that all household tasks are women's work!

B

 

[CecilW]

You say it so well, and eruditely, Bels.

Putting a point on it -- I know one lady who, through most of her marriage, only accepted copulation (as you put it) once every 6-8 weeks! And another who complained bitterly if she didn't "get it" MULTIPLE times per day. Just once wasn't enough.

So in this area, as in most others, people differ widely. It's an individual thing.

Turns out the same holds true for men's drive.

What's more, age and health can bring about changes as well. Both in urge to merge and in willingness to help with household chores. *shrug*

Folks are such interesting critters. (Best viewed behind glass! :lol: )

 

[CecilW]

Ok. Lying on my bed praying about a totally different set of stuff, and had what was, for ME, an absolutely WILD thought.

Bels, listen up. *big grin*

Biblically, the definition of "adultery" centers around the woman who breaks her covenant, correct? But it doesn't spell out all the details of that covenant. There is no Divine Ketubah that we're all supposed to carefully copy off word for word and sign. So what if ...

What iff, whether through the demographics of an area or some other reason, a woman's covenant was to be the wife of these 5 men? Possibly brothers? Possibly not. But that was her covenant?!!!

Going outside the covenant would be adultery, indisputably. But ... ?

From the male leadership issue, yes the Bible plainly says that the family leader must be male.

But group dynamics research has shown pretty clearly that ANY time 2 or more people associate themselves together, one emerges as the leader. The Bible merely specifies that God's plan 'A' is for it to be a male.

There are biblical examples, such as the judge Deborah, where men refused and God raised up a woman to lead. Modern examples as well.

And there is nothing in the above scenario, where a woman has bound herself in covenant to more than one man, which says that it couldn't or wouldn't be one of the males who emerged as the leader.

Nor is there any particular reason to assume that more males in one family would lead to a rise in homosexual relationships between the males, unless already predisposed to it.

The point being, that this is HER covenant, and she is remaining faithful to it.

I'm sure someone will have a good rebuttal to this, but for some reason I can't think of one other than my own assumptions and traditions about what is MEANT by what is said, rather than what is actually said standing all by itself.

Ok, let the verbal carnage begin!!! :lol:

 

[FollowingHim]

If, things being what they are biologically and psycologically, one loving husband has to exert much patience and wait days for his wife to be ready and willing, one cannot help but wondering how long the wait would be if more husbands were in line.

I second Bel's points, but also, why are you presuming it is the man that has to be the generous one here following the lead of his wife? Should not a loving wife with a low libedo be willing even when she is not "ready", out of love and respect for her husband?

Cecil, Cecil, whatever will we do with you? Interesting mental exercise, but I think you'd find the men are still in violation of Leviticus 18:16 or 20.

Now, maybe you could argue that if the woman's covenant was with multiple men, then I suppose she hasn't broken her covenant, but he has broken the law. So I suppose you could argue that rather than both of them being put to death for it, only he should be. So now we have discovered the real reason for fraternal polyandry - it's a way of getting rid of brothers you don't like much, let them sleep with your wife so you've got an excuse to stone them. :roll:

 

[Isabella]

why are you presuming it is the man that has to be the generous one here following the lead of his wife? Should not a loving wife with a low libedo be willing even when she is not "ready", out of love and respect for her husband?

The easiest way to have a terrible sexual relationship is to do it for someone else's happiness.

So no. She should not be willing if she does not want it out of 'love' if any man gave me that sort of nonsense he would get an earful. Who wants to sleep with someone who lays there like a fish so you can get your jollies? How grotesque is that? :evil: No thank you, give me a person 'up for it' each time.

Cecil, Cecil, whatever will we do with you? Interesting mental exercise, but I think you'd find the men are still in violation of Leviticus 18:16 or 20.
Now, maybe you could argue that if the woman's covenant was with multiple men, then I suppose she hasn't broken her covenant, but he has broken the law. So I suppose you could argue that rather than both of them being put to death for it, only he should be.

I get what Cecil is saying. If she marries 4 men at the same time, than she is 'your wife' as well as 'another man's' it is impossible to kill a man for sleeping with his wife therefore it is a conundrum, your theory would only work if she married one husband at a time. If we accept that it is her covenant to be married to these four men, than they are married to her and can't be punished for it.

So now we have discovered the real reason for fraternal polyandry - it's a way of getting rid of brothers you don't like much, let them sleep with your wife so you've got an excuse to stone them. :roll:

I think you'll find they don't believe that in places which practice fraternal polyandry.

B

 

[CecilW]

Thinking is dangerous business, Samuel. I tried it yesterday, and just LOOK where it took me! :lol:

Bels understood. If that was her covenant, then how could she or they be in the wrong? My own head is going tilt at the thought, but there it is...

Try this on for size ... During creation week, God said that it isn't good for man to be alone. That created a "family imperative", i.e. that the "good" always means to live as part of a family, with all needs being met. "Alone" isn't good. He said so. Sorry to those who wish to claim celibacy as equally good or even better. He said it isn't!

We've used this argument as a moral and practical justification for polygyny. I personally enjoy causing churchians heads to explode by showing that the roots of polygamy were laid in this passage, before Eve was even created!

So what happens in an unbalanced society where, for whatever reason, there are far more men than women? Does this family imperative only apply when there are more women than men? Or does God care about ALL the men in this situation? If so, how does / can He provide? The news doesn't report many men mysteriously losing ribs...

Is it possible, just POSSIBLE, that His grace and mercy and even justice and morality are so large, so overwhelmingly and primarily concerned with human happiness and well-being, that all facets can be and are satisfied in a faithfully lived fraternal polyandrous covenant relationship situation? Maybe even when the males are related by other bonds than 1 generational blood (brothers from the same mom and/or dad)?

Again, I may well be wrong. But the thought is so compassionate and revolutionary that I don't want to dismiss it out of hand simply because my lifetime of reading the Word and interpreting it in certain ways is so ingrained.

The thing is, I keep discovering that God is so much BIGGER than my narrow view. It is why I find relationship with Him so entrancing, Bels. *shrug*

Guess I'm STILL thinking, and it's STILL dangerous. But isn't that the fun of it?

 

[Isabella]

We have recently been discussing gender selective abortion and only yesterday I was watching news about the problem in India. It has reached such proportions now that trafficking of teenage girls has become epic. Many of these girls are being forced into marriage in populations that have aborted so many of their female foetuses, the rest are sold into brothels, one girl described being raped several times every day for seven months until she was found by her family. My heart aches for her and all other women going through this in those and other regions. How on earth can someone think Polyandry is worse than that?...I couldn't possibly understand.

B