In this discussion, who suggested that?
-
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.
Whose responsibility is it to earn money?
- Thread starter theleastofthese
- Start date
It's been said several times on this forum, and I was reiterating that it's not a good idea in response to OP's concerns below
So, nobody suggested it here, except that the OP completely correctly observed that several woman and one man could pool their income together and better afford things. That's just maths. It doesn't imply anyone taking advantage of anyone else.
Rather, that idea was suggested somewhere else. I expect you found it so upsetting when you saw it, whenever that was, that you have been on the lookout for it ever since. The moment the OP said something that could possibly be interpreted that way you interpreted it in the worst way possible and saw this image in your mind. You then interpreted the words of others including myself as if that was what they were promoting. And finally reacted very negatively and confrontationally to this straw man that you were imagining in your own mind, but which none of us had actually suggested.
This is why I split this out to another thread - and why @NickF suggested I do that. It was not a direct response to anything suggested by either the OP or anyone giving him advice, but was rather a reaction to discussions elsewhere on the forum. It is therefore a separate topic. The title I gave this thread may not exactly reflect the topic as I was still trying to work out exactly what the topic was when I wrote the title, I can change it if needed!
Can you point us to any comments elsewhere where the idea has actually been suggested?
Rather, that idea was suggested somewhere else. I expect you found it so upsetting when you saw it, whenever that was, that you have been on the lookout for it ever since. The moment the OP said something that could possibly be interpreted that way you interpreted it in the worst way possible and saw this image in your mind. You then interpreted the words of others including myself as if that was what they were promoting. And finally reacted very negatively and confrontationally to this straw man that you were imagining in your own mind, but which none of us had actually suggested.
This is why I split this out to another thread - and why @NickF suggested I do that. It was not a direct response to anything suggested by either the OP or anyone giving him advice, but was rather a reaction to discussions elsewhere on the forum. It is therefore a separate topic. The title I gave this thread may not exactly reflect the topic as I was still trying to work out exactly what the topic was when I wrote the title, I can change it if needed!
Can you point us to any comments elsewhere where the idea has actually been suggested?
Last edited:
And, how exactly would they accumulate these assets to pool together? Oooh, that's right! By working... It's almost as though one wife could stay home with all of the other mother's children while the other wives worked in order to obtain the assets, which would then be pooled together. You know, sort of like a poly-worker-wife pyramid scheme; however, no one suggested that verbatim, therefore the scenario couldn't have possibly been suggested
Last edited:
I’m generally in agreement with @Ruth Elizabeth snd @theleastofthese from a practical standpoint.
From a scriptural standpoint I have to point out that Proverbs 31 is almost exclusively about the economic activity of the woman while the man sat in the gates. It throws a very large monkey wrench in the theology of anyone who claims women should never be economically productive.
From a scriptural standpoint I have to point out that Proverbs 31 is almost exclusively about the economic activity of the woman while the man sat in the gates. It throws a very large monkey wrench in the theology of anyone who claims women should never be economically productive.
I agree with you. I don't think my opinion is fully supported by a biblical standpoint, it's merely a preference.
I don’t think it’s the wrong preference. @windblown is a stay at home mom. We could not do what we do otherwise. Her domestic activities alleviate so much financial burden that it is akin to having a second pay check without the expenses that usually adds.
On top of that she also generates income as well.
I think what many of the men are wanting to express and are allowing their emotions to garble, is that they want their women to be dedicated to furthering their legacy and accomplishing their goals.
They will never accept that their labor is all in service of facilitating the mother/child bond. All of them though will dedicate all of their labor to facilitating the mother/child bond IF that bond is in service to them and their legacy. As usual, it’s a question of headship. Is a woman owed children and money or are those things rewards and tools with which to accomplish things?
Well, I suppose someone COULD hypothetically have a poly-worker-wife pyramid scheme in mind. I mean, you've thought of it, so maybe there's a man out there who has thought of it also. It's the least likely scenario - I'm pretty sure most people are just thinking of mutually collaborative teamwork - but since you're so insistent on the idea I'm sure someone will get the hint. I mean, ladies do love pyramid schemes selling essential oils and so forth, so it doesn't surprise me that it's a woman suggesting the idea, and maybe there are ladies who will go for this one.And, how exactly would they accumulate these assets to pool together? Oooh, that's right! By working... It's almost as though one wife could stay home with all of the other mother's children while the other wives worked in order to obtain the assets, which would then be pooled together. You know, sort of like a poly-worker-wife pyramid scheme; however, no one suggested that verbatim, therefore the scenario couldn't possibly exist
I'm not sure of the mechanics for how to make a pyramid scheme of wives work in practice, but I suppose it means I encourage @FollowingHim2 to recruit a couple of sub-wives, and each of them to recruit a couple more sub-wives, with each wife getting a 10% cut of the income from all the sub-wives below them, so once they recruit enough they can stop working and start breeding, or something like that, and if they breed before reaching that stage they hand over the kids to their immediate superior so they can go back to work.
You know, it just might work. You've convinced me. Sarah, you better get busy recruiting.
While we're placing orders, I'll take 5
Hey, if it's a pyramid scheme, you have to find the 5 yourself. Go forth and multiply.
Not fair, I have to go find my own because I don't have a wife to do everything for me
Last edited:
Well, it was your idea. It's not how I would run a family but you were very persuasive.
She’s got me thinking now, that does sound like the a pretty chill life. @WifeOfHisYouth how does a 10% cut of the income of each additional wife sound? I’ve always been a “husband is the breadwinner” type of guy, but this is changing my mind!
I have given this thread a wide berth for reasons many 'long-timers' would already know:
My 'ministry' is largely dedicated to the concept (Rev. 18:4) of "come out of her, My people," - so "employment" in a debt-based slave system is just not on my agenda. My wives would necessarily understand such.
But - back to simple Scripture, and the thread title:
What the hell does it mean to "earn money"?
Are we talking the fake stuff, fully fiat, and of no actual economic definition (which encompasses EVERY 'currency' today on planet Earth) -
- and which Yahuah says, repeatedly (six times in Proverbs alone, for example, and dramatically in Deuteronomy 25:13-19, etc) is literally "abomination" and even carries a curse? AND, BTW, which is anti-constitutional besides? (check that out for yourself!)
Or are we talking 'real money'? Which is called "qesef" in Scripture (there is NO word used that does not also mean 'silver' translated as 'money'.) AND which is (ok, WAS) defined by law (when we had it) as the meaning of the "dollar." ("371.25 grains of fine silver.")
SO: I don't want a wife 'selling herself' for a fake that He calls "abomination." We all have better things to do.
My 'ministry' is largely dedicated to the concept (Rev. 18:4) of "come out of her, My people," - so "employment" in a debt-based slave system is just not on my agenda. My wives would necessarily understand such.
But - back to simple Scripture, and the thread title:
What the hell does it mean to "earn money"?
Are we talking the fake stuff, fully fiat, and of no actual economic definition (which encompasses EVERY 'currency' today on planet Earth) -
- and which Yahuah says, repeatedly (six times in Proverbs alone, for example, and dramatically in Deuteronomy 25:13-19, etc) is literally "abomination" and even carries a curse? AND, BTW, which is anti-constitutional besides? (check that out for yourself!)
Or are we talking 'real money'? Which is called "qesef" in Scripture (there is NO word used that does not also mean 'silver' translated as 'money'.) AND which is (ok, WAS) defined by law (when we had it) as the meaning of the "dollar." ("371.25 grains of fine silver.")
SO: I don't want a wife 'selling herself' for a fake that He calls "abomination." We all have better things to do.
I don't even know what we're talking about because I didn't create the thread myself or ask the question regarding money. I had no intention of doing either of those things. I was just placed here, in timeout randomly because I said a few things that annoyed the wrong men
Last edited:
Sorry - wasn't directed at you,@theleastofthese. Just the thread title.
Oh stop being a drama queen. The thread was split because there was a sub discussion to be had that was unrelated to the OP's question.I was just placed here, in timeout randomly because I said a few things that annoyed the wrong men
Yet it wasn't unrelated. It was deemed unrelated by people who disagreed with it and I've repeatedly pointed out why it was related to the OP's question. I guess we're competing for biggest diva.
Last edited: