• Biblical Families is not a dating website. It is a forum to discuss issues relating to marriage and the Bible, and to offer guidance and support, not to find a wife. Click here for more information.

Poly Practised Elsewhere

MemeFan said:
Some Euro history

View attachment 11271
Click to expand...


Perhaps it is just my rigid and stiff necked moralistic streak showing but I am in no way a supporter of the notion of concubines.

The way I see concubines is as a sidestep of some cultures and the powers that be using threat of (usually) force or (in some cases) social pressure to keep you from being a polygamist or it is just a means of having additional sexual partners for the husband. Not that I am objecting to additional sex partners by any means...I do however object to the notion of short term or temporary attachments with woman. In essence, if you do not intend to keep the woman, then bloody well keep it in your pants. Pop it out for ephemeral coupling and I would advocate for it getting whacked with a yardstick.


Obviously there are the arguments for functional polygamy in that if one can have a "legal" wife and one or more functional but unrecognized. The problem I see is the why of this sort of arrangement...frequently related to succession, legitimacy and who does and does not qualify as an heir.

Not particularly interested in if additional legal documents need to be employed, our whole world is dictated by red tape...so we deal with it. We should perhaps instead make second class wives and children because of the conventions of inculcated cultural NPC types who will advocate for serial monogamy, shocking body counts, no fault divorce, sexual revolution and abortion as a means of birth control? You will pardon my French but baise-les dans les oreilles et pisse dessus d'une grande hauteur...you take the time to look that up and get offended then it is your fault.

So rah rah marriage and down with what I see as essentially the modern cringy idea of a side chick.
 
OttoM said:
It won’t be long that Muslims overtake the Christian population, and infiltrate law making positions.
Click to expand...
They already do in some countries. Christians are a minority, and very few secular governments have any sound Christians as members of their governments. I actually don't know of any country that has true Christians in majority, please correct me if I'm wrong.
 
Man_in_the_Middle said:
The irony is that this forum can not more agree on how to define a concubine than we can on what constitutes a valid marriage! lol
So, it is hard to say if a person should be for them or against them...
Click to expand...
Agree. Part of why as a person with different priors I gave the informal definition I am using as opposed to argue/advocate within the (apparently) hard to agree upon biblical definition.

If you had asked me in my teens or 20's I suspect I would have had a little different and less rigid definition than I have now. Children do or at least bloody well should change one's attitude toward what amounts to a girlfriend and hopefully friend to your wife joins the equation for a few months or even a couple years.
As a genuine high conscientiousness adult man, one should be more forward thinking and able to put our more animalistic and decidedly cave ape wants to the side and navigate our actions and decisions based upon what is best for the family and children...even if it is potential children.
 
Frank S said:

Polygamy in Christianity in various groups and countries - Wikipedia​


Polygamy in Christianity - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org
Click to expand...
Wow! One of the best additions to the conversation I’ve seen in years! John Milton was allegedly supportive of our view. That seems huge. There was a ton of new names and movements I’d never heard of before here.

At one point early on a note calls for more citation needed for the claim that people are still debating this today. Does anyone know how edit Wiki articles and get us added as a citation?

Really amazing find Frank!
 
Last edited:
The Revolting Man said:
Wow! One of the best additions to the conversation I’ve seen in years! John Milton was allegedly supportive of our view. That seems huge. There was a ton of new names and movements I’d never heard of before here.

At one point welt on a note calls for more citation needed for the claim that people are still debating this today. Does anyone know how edit Wiki articles and get us added as a citation?

Really amazing find Frank!
Click to expand...
Read this!
 
Mojo said:
Read this!
Click to expand...
He uses many of the arguments we use. His conclusions are our conclusions. There is no debating a state/church un-holy union, however. You're immediately an heretic, and truth is irrelevant. What is relevant is their power and control over the people.
 
Mojo said:
Read this!
Click to expand...
Mind bomb. Milton is one of the most important writers in the history of Anglo-Saxons. Wow, and he’s making a simple, clear argument that we make today. Polygyny can’t be wrong or Israel and all of its descendants should not exist. We have not lived up to our calling to promote this truth. How many more of these thinkers are out there?

By the way, he makes a great argument for sola scriptura too.
 
Mojo said:
Read this!
Click to expand...
Bookmarked!

I will copy /paste this when I find it appropriate to do so:
Those who deny its lawfulness, attempt to prove their position from Gen. ii. 24. a man shall cleave unto his wife, and they shall be one flesh, compared with Matt. xix. 5. they twain shall be one flesh. A man shall cleave, they say, to his wife, not to his wives, and they twain, and no more, shall be one flesh. This is particularly ingenious; and I therefore subjoin the passage in Exod. xx. 17. thou shalt not covet they neighbour's house, nor his man-servant, nor his maid-servant, nor his ox, nor his ass: whence it would follow that no one had more than a single house, a single man-servant, a single maid-servant, a single ox or ass. It would be ridiculous to argue, that it is not said houses, but house, not man-servants, but man-servant, not even neighbours, but neighbour; as if it were not the general custom, in laying down commandments of this kind, to use the singular number, not in a numerical sense, but as designating the species of the thing intended. With regard to the phrase, they twain, and not more, shall be one flesh, it is to be observed, first, that the context refers to the husband and that wife only whom he was seeking to divorce, without intending any allusion to the number of his wives, whether one or more.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top