• 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.

why not multiple husbands?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Just a quick note:

Polyandry where it was-and in some cases still is-practiced had some logic behind in. In Southeast Asia where families are poor and all sons stand to inherit it made sense for them to share a wife so one son didn't inherit everything while the others were left in absolute poverty (fraternal polyandry). This system assured there were only one group of heirs per generation, keeping land in the family and avoiding disparity. Also, polyandry may actually decrease fertility in women which is perceived as a good thing in very poor societies (according to some of the very limited research available). Lastly, in areas where this is/was practiced there was a serious gender imbalance (meaning there were a larger pool of marriage-age men then women).

I am not defending the practice, nor am I in agreement with it from a socio-religious standpoint but I felt it prudent to share a VERY condensed version of some of the anthropological scholarship on the subject. While this is not an acceptable practice amongst adherents of the Abrahamic faiths, I can clearly see why it would be seen as a logical alternative to monogamous marriages in other cultures.
 
Interesting!
 
There is a fascinating book looking at this from a sociological standpoint, that is readily available to purchase as an ebook (Kobo store has it): "Polygamy: a cross-cultural analysis", by Miriam Koktvedgaard Zeitzen. This looks at polygamy in general, then looks in detail at two examples of polygyny (Islam and Mormon), and one of polyandry.

Historically, both polygyny and polyandry came about for exactly the same reason - the desire of a man for women, for not only sexual pleasure but more importantly for domestic duties. If there are plenty of women around, this drive means that some men have more than one women, until all are accounted for. If there is a shortage of women, this drive means that some men cooperate to achieve a joint woman, so they still have access to one. Historically, polyandry did not mean the woman was in charge, or that the relationship was equal, rather women in this situation were often oppressed - remember they were primarily acquired for domestic duties, and doing all the cooking, cleaning and clothes-making for two men is a greater burden than for one man. On the same note, polygyny does not mean women are oppressed, rather they can be given greater freedom through this (the freedom to work and have another wife take care of the children for instance).
 
eternitee said:
http://youtu.be/SC4horRfoVg

interesting biological changes discussed for women with multiple partners
Click to expand...
Well, and changes with even one partner. I first saw and bookmarked that nifty video a couple of years ago. As a male, I find it compelling to know that the emotional changes within a woman I sleep with are as chemically, physiologically real as a pregnancy.
 
eternitee said:
http://youtu.be/SC4horRfoVg

interesting biological changes discussed for women with multiple partners
Click to expand...

This is hilarious, no doctors, no science, just Catholic presumption, which flies in the face of embryology which doesn't surprise me because Catholics are against fertility treatment, any (biologist) ful kno that women's bodies are stronger and more resilient to 'cope' with this situation, our auto immune response is not some mystery that 'we don't know what problems it will cause' (false hysteria) we know very well, it protects the female system, in fact AFAIK the only thing that is a concern is the HPV, which is, of course, a virus and not caused by benign semen. Sperm competition is scientifically known and well documented, she is not saying anything especially new, but just adding personal theory to scientific fact. I think this is just a mismatch of ill Catholic thought with pseudo science thrown in to justify their anti sex policies. There is no more repressive institution, than the Catholic Church.

BTW, bacterial vaginosis is not a sexually transmitted infection, multiple sexual activity is a risk factor that isn't even entirely conclusive and it's certainly not caused by sperm, it is caused by a bacterium and can affect lesbians, if you have the same partner for 30 years or are a virgin. The most well known risk factor is douching. The fact that it is even mentioned in such a pointed way as if multiple sexual activity it is indicative, says more about this woman's lack of medical training and the fact that she is trying to make a link that truly does not exist means that it would probably do not to trust her as some sort of authority on this issue. What sort of impression would it give if a woman gets it in marriage, will it be assumed that she is a cheater? Or if a virgin gets it? Making these sorts of spurious assumptions are not medically sound and are more likely to unfairly demonise women.

Remember folks, just because it is on the internet, does not make it true.

B
 
As a Catholic, I'd greatly appreciate subjective statements like "I find the Catholic church to be repressive" as opposed to statements that present such views as fact. As this is a largely Protestant/Non-Denominational/Inter-Denominational (and what have you) group I will try my best to be respectful of opposing viewpoints and hope everyone else will do the same. Disagreeing with a doctrinal point is one thing, insulting the views over a billion people may hold sacred is something else entirely.

That being said, this woman does not speak for everyone (or even the majority of Catholics, if you look at statistics and research of modern view in the Church). You will see that I simply said "interesting" and didn't state whether or not I agreed. We are free to come to our own conclusions as members and you will find conflicting notions even amongst clergy and other leaders.
 
FollowingHim said:
Historically, both polygyny and polyandry came about for exactly the same reason - the desire of a man for women.... - remember they were primarily acquired for domestic duties, and doing all the cooking, cleaning and clothes-making for two men is a greater burden than for one man. On the same note, polygyny does not mean women are oppressed, rather they can be given greater freedom through this (the freedom to work and have another wife take care of the children for instance).
Click to expand...

I would be quite interested in knowing which Polyandrous society this man based his research on, since, it seems very western biased, these sorts of assumption that the woman does all the domestic duties and the men do nothing, seems to be more indicative of Western norms, not eastern Norms, since in many parts of the East everything is pretty much domestic, raising livestock, growing food, cooking food, making clothes, it is ALL domestic work and it tends to be a whole family activity, rather than there being a strict line between male work and female work. Also, there is this cultural assumption that these people live like us, they don't. They live very humbly, not very many possessions nor are their homes big and full of stuff that gets dirty. The wife in these situations is actually probably doing a lot less of what we consider cooking and cleaning in the home than many Western women in large houses full of labour saving devices. They do, of course work alongside the men outside the home very often.

In this CNN report, you see the men prepping food with the women and the women doing back breaking labour with the men. I think it is useful not to impose our cultural standards on other types of families over the world.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u7HKmu3eMEk

B
 
magzillasaurus said:
As a Catholic, I'd greatly appreciate subjective statements like "I find the Catholic church to be repressive" as opposed to statements that present such views as fact. As this is a largely Protestant/Non-Denominational/Inter-Denominational (and what have you) group I will try my best to be respectful of opposing viewpoints and hope everyone else will do the same. Disagreeing with a doctrinal point is one thing, insulting the views over a billion people may hold sacred is something else entirely.
Click to expand...

I am not a Christian at all Maggie, people feel it is fine to insult my world view all the time and I do indeed take my views very seriously also. I think you would be hard pressed to find many Western Catholics who are not worried in the least, or downright alarmed of the Catholic Church's increasingly hysterical (in the classic definition) attitude towards sexuality. I make a great distinction between the Catholic Church as an institution and Catholic people. I know it is not the same thing and do not regard them as such, so please do not take offence.

You will see that I simply said "interesting" and didn't state whether or not I agreed. We are free to come to our own conclusions as members and you will find conflicting notions even amongst clergy and other leaders.
Click to expand...

I think you are assuming I judged you for a reply that appeared to be approving of the link, I most certainly did not and in fact, I did not notice your reply until now since I was too busy watching the butchering of reproductive science on You Tube. I will in no way apologise for my words, since I really think it would be a lie for me to say that the I only think the Catholic Church is sexually oppressive, when I know very well that it IS, as probably a great deal of its adherents do, but I certainly would not want to give the impression that it is the only sexually oppressive religion out there, it isn't or that all Catholics are sexually repressed, they're not.

B
 
I didn't assume you were judging me, I simply provided myself as an example of a fairly typical Catholic in my part of the world. I found the video interesting and noted some of your same objections (though not all) and simply stated I found it interesting.

Also, I did not request an apology only that we all attempt to refrain from phrasing opinion as absolutes. If you find the Church to be oppressive, wrong, what have you-that is your right (and that does not bother me in the slightest). I only ask that you use I statements as opposed to absolutes (maybe it's the Sociologist in me). I never suggested that only you feel that way, that still does not give you license to make blanket statements like "The Catholic Church is repressive." It is still an opinion, even if a large number of people agree with it. By all means feel free to cite Scripture that is at odds with it on this subject. In my opinion, the Bible is not contrary to Catholic views on Sexuality, in fact it is one area that many Christian groups agree on (sex with a procreative possibility, homosexuality not seen as biblical, etc). While I certainly do not necessarily agree with every doctrine and footnote in canon law-hey I am here on this forum supportive of polygyny which could get me excommunicated so clearly I'm no golden child- I am more knowledgeable about the Church than many of my peers.

For the record I would have made a similar request had someone offered an opinion as a fact about Jews, Muslims, Atheists, or anyone else. However, this is a Christian group and I think it wise to display the kindness and love of Christ (the Grace so freely presented to us) to my brothers in Christ especially, all denominational/doctrinal disputes aside. I'm no apologist and I certainly not sitting behind my keyboard fuming over some minor disagreement, B. I don't think you meant to offend at all, I was simply making a polite request-one you are free to honor or ignore. I offer you the same treatment and as I do to my fellow Christians; my Pentecostal, hymn-singing, fire and brimstone believing lovely Grams would be ashamed of me if I didn't.
 
magzillasaurus said:
By all means feel free to cite Scripture that is at odds with it on this subject. In my opinion, the Bible is not contrary to Catholic views on Sexuality, in fact it is one area that many Christian groups agree on (sex with a procreative possibility, homosexuality not seen as biblical, etc).
Click to expand...

I am not in a position to site anything I am afraid, I am wholly ignorant about Christian theology, everything I know about Christianity comes from watching Robert Powell.....
But I do trust my Christian peers (Catholics amongst them) who do feel that the Catholic Church (again, as an institution) have got it wrong wrt to sex (like celibate Priests for example, is that Biblical? I don't think it is....) and their doctrines and laws regarding sex are oppressive, just to be fair, I think Judaism, despite being more sex positive in general, have many Charadi sects who are so sex negative they make the Catholic Church look Bacchanalian...
I do make a distinction between opinion and fact but I don't think it serves anyone to tip toe around difficult issues by saying 'I feel' all the time. I am perfectly happy being challenged on any issue at all along with the multitudes who share my view.
:)

B
 
The church has certain practices anchored in Scripture and others in tradition (they are not of equal of importance of course). Essentially some practices are just that, practices, and not a salvation issue.

Celibate priests for example: a priest can be responsible for a parish of several hundred or more people. This means constant meetings, homily preparation and of course the administration of church rites. Something like ministering to the sick often takes a priest out of his home in the middle of the night frequently. Having a wife and trying to be fully present for a family would prove very challenging while trying to fulfill the enormous responsibility of a priest. Priests are considered to be full time servants of Christ, always ready to step in and meet needs. A married person simply could not (and should not) make the constant sacrifices the church demands of him. While I personally don't think celibacy in the priesthood is absolutely necessary, I understand the logic. This is of course somewhat unique to the Catholic church (and some of the Eastern churches) in that a youth minister, assistant, layperson, etc is not eligible to help fulfill some of these duties. I think each church or group decides what it wants and needs. One of my very favorite priests (a Jesuit) once told me he thinks eventually women will be allowed to become priests, it will just take a couple hundred years as an institution this old is very slow moving. The same could be said of celibacy, birth control, and other points of contention among Christian groups. I think the second Vatican council proved that sweeping changes based on the wishes of the people do come, however slowly. I know for some adherents of other traditions it may seem strange or ridiculous but it's just how it is!

This is why we have the freedom to find a church or fellowship that suits our needs. While I find comfort in the ritual and tradition of my church other great people prefer to have their spiritual needs fed elsewhere. With Christ in our hearts, we're all on different journeys to the same destination. I know I'm a minority around here, which is fine by me, I'm always happy to discuss my church and compare notes.
 
PS in the western world at least, no one is conscripted into the priesthood. A man enters an order (or Diocese) full aware of the requirements. Very few communities even accept people without a college degree these days. That is not oppression in my eyes, that's a voluntary sacrifice.
 
magzillasaurus said:
The church has certain practices anchored in Scripture and others in tradition (they are not of equal of importance of course). Essentially some practices are just that, practices, and not a salvation issue.

Celibate priests for example: a priest can be responsible for a parish of several hundred or more people. This means constant meetings, homily preparation and of course the administration of church rites. Something like ministering to the sick often takes a priest out of his home in the middle of the night frequently. Having a wife and trying to be fully present for a family would prove very challenging while trying to fulfill the enormous responsibility of a priest. Priests are considered to be full time servants of Christ, always ready to step in and meet needs. A married person simply could not (and should not) make the constant sacrifices the church demands of him. While I personally don't think celibacy in the priesthood is absolutely necessary, I understand the logic. This is of course somewhat unique to the Catholic church (and some of the Eastern churches) in that a youth minister, assistant, layperson, etc is not eligible to help fulfill some of these duties. I think each church or group decides what it wants and needs. One of my very favorite priests (a Jesuit) once told me he thinks eventually women will be allowed to become priests, it will just take a couple hundred years as an institution this old is very slow moving. The same could be said of celibacy, birth control, and other points of contention among Christian groups. I think the second Vatican council proved that sweeping changes based on the wishes of the people do come, however slowly. I know for some adherents of other traditions it may seem strange or ridiculous but it's just how it is!

This is why we have the freedom to find a church or fellowship that suits our needs. While I find comfort in the ritual and tradition of my church other great people prefer to have their spiritual needs fed elsewhere. With Christ in our hearts, we're all on different journeys to the same destination. I know I'm a minority around here, which is fine by me, I'm always happy to discuss my church and compare notes.
Click to expand...

thank you for sharing Maggie, it is nice to hear from another pov.

B
 
As was stated, the Catholic Church is not known for coming to greater understanding of God's Word for their new doctrines, but rather applying an evolutionary approach to the church of God. I believe this is their greatest downfall, as God exists outside of time and commanded Israel to do certain things, then when they refused they were judged. Surely Korah thought he was right, but God caused the ground to swallow him and his whole family. In New Testament times, we see often that it was not wise or necessary to change beliefs or traditions in order to please men, but rather to change ourselves to agree with God.

God strictly forbids women from certain things in 1 Corinthians 14 and other passages. Therefore, it matters not what the RCC decides to do, it still will not be right no matter if the whole world agrees, as Christ is the Head of the church, not the poop... er, um, pope.

Protestant churches have done many similar things in doctrine and practice to attempt to improve on the pattern set forth by Christ and His apostles. Yet, Paul praises those who hold fast to the word that was taught to them, to keep the practices as they are not cultural or convenient, but all symbolic of the character of God. 1 Corinthians 11 would have to be thrown out of the Bible to allow women to have authority in the church in any way, shape, or form over men. Whether authority is usurped or willingly surrendered, the fact is that for reasons beyond my understanding, God has made men leaders in the church and the home. These point to the supremacy of Christ and the Godhead.

There again comes the problem with the RCC, they have chosen to exalt the doctrines of men (political pressure and goals included) to chart the course for them. They rejected the Word of God and Christ as the Head and have substituted men in His place. This usurpation has been and already stands condemned by Christ, and so while it may seem terribly politically incorrect of me to do so, I will publicly proclaim that the leadership of the RCC is apostate at best and Satanic more likely in exalting men to the place that only rightfully belongs to Christ Himself.

For the record, I have interviewed higher ups in local Catholic groups and they said nothing of the pragmatic discussion of time necessary to do the job, but rather believe that the priest is literally married to Christ in the flesh and therefore marrying a woman would be committing adultery. Seemed odd to me, and I suggested polygamy as an option (that's a joke, folks) ok actually I asked tongue in cheek that question, and the one guy took is as blasphemy. I didn't beat him over the head with it, but as I continued to ask questions about the doctrines and practices of the RCC, his answers were never scriptural and always due to extra-biblical standards. He didn't even quote apocryphal books, but stood firmly that whatever the papalcy proclaims was just as if God had said it.

The doctrines of men.....
 
I think that part of the trouble you will run into here, Maggie, with the members of this forum when it comes to the RCC is that many/most of them are clearly aware that ...

The reason that Christianity in general rejects PM is that the RCC outlawed it many centuries ago, a position for which there is no scriptural basis.

Au contraire, the reason most of us have arrived at our current position of accepting / practicing PM is due to our specific intention to accept the Bible only and reject the traditions of men, including the non-Biblical pronouncements of the RCC.

For example, while their argument, which you presented above, that the priest cannot do justice to both a wife and his congregation, so celibacy is the way to go, sounds very plausible and logical, the Bible specifically requires that the leaders of a church be married (or have been -- the intent does not seem to be to exclude widowers).

The official position of the RCC is that when church tradition and the Bible clash, the pronouncements of the church take precedence. This is visibly applicable in a number of areas. And it is directly contrary to the teaching of Jesus, who specifically said that the religious leaders of his day erred, teaching as doctrines the traditions of men.

Anything or anyone who directly and knowingly contradicts Christ is therefore, by simple definition, anti-Christ. Thus, while you will find that we love and respect folks and their right to believe whatever they want, very few of us will give any respect at all to the RCC, its forms, traditions, pronouncements, or head (who claims the right to speak for Almighty God).

Sorry.
 
Isabella said:
I would be quite interested in knowing which Polyandrous society this man based his research on, since, it seems very western biased
Click to expand...
That book was actually written by a woman, and a secular woman at that. Don't jump to conclusions! Unless of course I am jumping to conclusions presuming someone called Miriam is necessarily a woman... :D The polyandrous societies she looked at were primarily in India, but she also looked at the Inuit.

Honestly Bels, I think you would find that particular book fascinating, since it comes from a completely secular perspective. My take on it above may be clouded by my presuppositions, you may come to a different conclusion. It's absolutely packed full of facts from serious research, to the point that it reads like a thesis in places (I suspect it might actually be a thesis turned into a book).
 
Maggie, although pragmatic justifications may be used now, that is not the origin of celibacy for priests. It stems from an extra-biblical religious argument, grounded in Gnostic philosophy, that the body is evil and the spirit is holy. As a result, sex is evil and must be avoided. From this flow both celibacy and monogamy - if sex is evil, a priest shouldn't have it at all, and although common people must to procreate it should only be used for procreation and they should stick to only one wife so they aren't doing it excessively.

I would highly recommend that you read the book "The History and Philosophy of Marriage", available as a free download in the "Resources - Books & Links" section above, or in print from Patriarch Publishing House (link on the same page). Although written in 1869 it is quite readable, and carefully looks into where monogamy came from in the Christian church, and the philosophy behind it. The link between the rejection of polygamy and celibacy for priests is made quite clear in that book.

Note that the only reason a priest may have 600 or so parishoners, is that not many people are interested in joining the priesthood, partly because of the requirement for celibacy. With more priests, the demands would be less. But also note that a wife can be a great help for a married minister in other denominations, a team can actually achieve more than an individual. Finally, if anyone who might have to get up in the middle of the night should be celibate, then what other professions should be celibate too? Doctors, midwives, plumbers, firefighters? Yet most of those manage while being married. So the pragmatic argument is not the reason, just a justification. The reason is deeper
 
You said it so well, Samuel.

Actually, the only Biblical model for quantities of leaders and their structure that I know of is something more like the following. It comes from what Moses did during the Exodus, but makes good sense.

Each man is the leader, and responsible for, his own family.

The men are then organized into groups, with one in 10 designated as the leader / deacon / pastor / judge / poo-bah of that group of 10 men/families.

The 1 in 10 model continues, with 1 in 100 (or would that be 1 in 101?) given responsibility as the leader, etc. of the "1 in 10" leaders. Presumably the same occurred at the 1000 level.

Now, that's not such a bad organizational scheme. Especially if the organization could/would provide training to help the men grow in skill to match their responsibility. Your own family plus, maybe, 10 men who could/would bring you situations that they could not solve themselves.

Btw, Samuel, the computer programmers among us feel left out! I've gotten calls many times in the middle of the night to go fix something. Sometimes I fixed them over the phone, went back to sleep, and didn't even remember it come morning. Other times, I had to work all night. Guess I wasn't qualified to have a family either! :lol: But awfully glad to have them.
 
While I may not agree with each and everything said in the last few posts, I understand the reasoning (I am also fully aware of modern ideas regarding celibacy versus historical justifications). I am also no blind sheep following the orders of my church, member or not (again, I'm here aren't I?). I gave a very brief summary of a few points of celibacy, I had no need to write a thesis (several people have done that before me). My personal opinion I kept largely to myself, though I'm willing to discuss it should someone be interested.

That being said I find calling the Pope a name that even my six year old students know better than to use immature and downright disrespectful. That kind of posturing and arrogance serves no one. I clearly stated that I feel strongly that everyone should follow their own callings and conscience and have never once insulted any of you that have felt led elsewhere. As a convert, I can state with confidence I never would have come to Christ had a constantly been met with such patronizing and mean-spirited attitudes. If your goal is to create an atmosphere that is Anti-Catholic and completely fundamentalist to the point of being exclusionary, let me know. There is a reason we don't have more ecumenical discussion and are so divided, even today, it starts with us.

Just remember, Luther (and others) set out to reform the church, not create an ongoing series of schisms. At the end of the day we are all members of one Catholic (universal) Church.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top