poly = selfish, unloving towards your wife

[Sean Miller]

If a woman is to be submitted to her husband in all things then a vow becomes meaningless. He can just tell her to release him from the vow (assuming he can't just declare it null which I would say he could) and she has to obey. She is to submit as to Christ, what exactly is the limits of how much we're to submit to Christ?

Good point, I don't recall vows being made by Christ, specifically. Our yes should be yes, our no, no. In that regard a vow to a wife is pointless if he has not intentions on being her committed husband. If he says he takes her as his wife then he is responsible for her, no way really around that. So what's it matter if a vow was made or not, Yeshua expects us to honor our word, taking a wife is on its own a vow by obligation, if you will.

 

[rockfox]

Nice? Well not everything or everyone who said anything in the OT was very "nice", lol. How about "get behind me satan"?

I do agree what your saying, but it's not the most tactful, as mentioned. I am reminded on occasion that God didn't force anyone to do anything. Some consider force to be telling someone to do something several times while being ignored. I'm told this is controlling. News to me, but this word is thrown easily theses days and I often hear it said when a husband does something deemed "not nice". I am sure we're all controlling Husbands in that regard, then wouldn't God be as well?

Ya well, many people confuse niceness with loving. When there is a contest of wills the nice one is the weak one who will end up submitting to the other. No woman wants to submit to someone so weak she can control him. Sometimes being the stubborn jerk of a dictator is what it takes to bring on submission. That's what we call an immovable object.

"Controlling" is just another scare word used to cow men into submission. The one in charge is the one in control; it's the very definition of being the head of the marriage. When women do the things men are called controlling for (which is pretty much all the time), no one bats an eye at it. Just another propaganda word.

But some men struggle with the thing called tact; especially when they're new at being the leader in their marriage. It may be you have to be bullheaded about the vow thing. But it's better to bring her to the point she follows you and doesn't care about that silly monogamy vow.

 

[Sean Miller]

Ya well, many people confuse niceness with loving. When there is a contest of wills the nice one is the weak one who will end up submitting to the other. No woman wants to submit to someone so weak she can control him. Sometimes being the stubborn jerk of a dictator is what it takes to bring on submission. That's what we call an immovable object.

"Controlling" is just another scare word used to cow men into submission. The one in charge is the one in control; it's the very definition of being the head of the marriage. When women do the things men are called controlling for (which is pretty much all the time), no one bats an eye at it. Just another propaganda word.

But some men struggle with the thing called tact; especially when they're new at being the leader in their marriage. It may be you have to be bullheaded about the vow thing. But it's better to bring her to the point she follows you and doesn't care about that silly monogamy vow.

I couldn't agree more. But yes, tact is very important, knowing when to bring down the hammer and when not.

 

[Mojo]

I just thought I would mention that Jacob and Rachel had an "I will love only you" attitude between them, and God cursed their marriage with infertility. And it is interesting that thus it was Rachel who was directly cursed for the attitude they shared.

The monogamy only bias in Christianity totally misses this part of the narrative. Thanks for pointing this out @Patrick Lauser! Leah was a legit wife and deserved just as much love and attention as Rachel, not the hate/neglect that she did. It resulted in a years long judgment of infertility by none other that God himself. He even chose to bless the world by sending his Messiah from the tribe of Judah (one of Leah's boys, not Rachel).

But, of course, He didn't approve of this plural marriage business or anything like that

 

[Mojo]

Leah was blessed when God saw her suffering because she was unloved. Up until that point they both were barren there was no curse. Rachel eventual had children so she was no infertile.

In that statement you make a suffering persons blessing and the love Elohim showed her nothing. Then you might not realise this but you condemned monogamous couples who choose the "I will love only you" attitude between them for loving each other that way. Which is not forbidden or wrong. Marriage is a good thing whether monogamous or polygamous.

But, I believe the broader point in this is that Leah was technically Jacob's first wife and she was not only feeling like she was unloved, but was actually being treated that way. It ties into the original post about a first wife feeling unloved. I may be reading way more into this narrative than is necessary, but I do believe it provides a commentary on God's thoughts on polygyny and the obligations of a godly husband to his entire family (all wives are legitimate and deserve attention...even if the "love" isn't there. Besides, what's romantic love got to do with it anyway?)

 

[Mojo]

If a conversation between a father and a son goes like this, “Dad! Kurt Warner was the best quarterback of all time! Dad says, No son, Tom Brady is. Why do you think Kurt Warner is?” This could become a heated discussion. However, heated or not, it can be a healthy discussion. Stats start flying past each other as they debate their views. Same discussion. “Dad! Kurt Warner was the best quarterback of all time! Dad says, How stupid can you be, Tom Brady is the best quarterback of all time! End of discussion!”

Things got quiet quickly in the second discussion. No arguments, no fight just a quiet evening.

There is no derailment in my part from headship of a family. I take issue with the term ‘Dictator’. One reason to allow healthy discussion is to help your family grow in intellect. Putting a halt on discussion stops the process of growth and maturity within the family.

Heck, I’ve raised some pretty sharp kids. I can now use their advice on some things. Usually around 22 years of age, I saw wisdom coming through. Unfortunately, not all have reached 22 yet.

Totally agree, but some children take this a little too far and use every opportunity to just argue for argument's sake. My oldest has fallen into this trap and I've had to put dictator scenario #2 into action more often than I'd like, but it's necessary.

 

[The Revolting Man]

what's romantic love got to do with it anyway?)

I feel a song coming on....