Jews and their wives

Charles Martel

Taxiarches
Joined
Feb 12, 2012
Messages
6,805
Reaction score
0
Points
0
I can accept the fact of a man actually being married to more than one woman at a time (What firghtful thought actually) but that is if they are all in agreement with it and he is financially responsible for all of them and the children. I don't know why the govt would have a hard time with that but yet allow two dudes bind in nuptials and engaging in the most horrid form of sex imaginable. But then again, this is the govt that allows unborn children to be butchered almost to the point of the delivery room.

Anyway, America is rampant with it's own form of "polygamy" with many people having three or four "wives" and "husbands".

The divorce rate is astronomical.

Like the bible says they were" marrying and given in marriage" before they were destroyed.
 

yeshuaisiam

Protokentarchos
Joined
Oct 20, 2010
Messages
4,695
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Michał Kalina said:
yeshuaisiam said:
Morally I do not find anything wrong with polygamy, I do believe it to be biblical and fine for men to practice.  *Note* this does not mean I believe in group sex.  This means biblical polygamy.  This is where a man is married to multiple women, loves and cares for them all.   Nothing about being a bully, dictator, etc.  This means that his wives love him, and he loves them.  They all work as a family.

Now, to stave off the questions, YES my wife agrees with me and says she is perfectly open to polygamy if that is where I feel God is calling me.  However, I personally do not believe God is calling me to have more than my wife, as I do not desire other women emotionally or physically.  I'm extremely happy in a monogamous marriage and want no more.  Plus the honey-do list from two women would be incredible ;)
LOL, no kidding.... mine is long enough! 
 

yeshuaisiam

Protokentarchos
Joined
Oct 20, 2010
Messages
4,695
Reaction score
0
Points
0
JamesR said:
No offense to anyone, but contrary to what most people think, I believe that God in the Old Testament was actually more appealing than God in the New Testament. The OT God was much more simple and basic with His instructions for us, making it very clear what He wanted us to do and not to do, and leaving open room for error because He knew how hard it is (as much as people don't want to admit it) to stay monogamous or to wait until marriage for sex, which is why if you had sex with someone before marriage, He only required that you married each other. God in the NT is much more confusing, strict, abstract and depressing.
James, a large part of the OT was about establishment with a certain body of people (Jews).  In the NT, there was a plan to spread out the message to all the people of the world.  Much parable was used.  This is because not "every single situation" could possibly be covered. 

For instance, the prodigal son parable, is symbolic.    People fall away from God in all kinds of ways... Drugs, adultery, greed etc., but it illustrates that with a humble heart and in humility our father will accept us back.  The "variable" exists in parable.
 

Second Chance

Merarches
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 13, 2009
Messages
8,017
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
74
Location
South Carolina
JamesR said:
No offense to anyone, but contrary to what most people think, I believe that God in the Old Testament was actually more appealing than God in the New Testament. The OT God was much more simple and basic with His instructions for us, making it very clear what He wanted us to do and not to do, and leaving open room for error because He knew how hard it is (as much as people don't want to admit it) to stay monogamous or to wait until marriage for sex, which is why if you had sex with someone before marriage, He only required that you married each other. God in the NT is much more confusing, strict, abstract and depressing.
Yup, Christianity is much harder. So, you are depressed that you are forced right now to choose between lust and love, between the animalistic side of you and the side that was created in His image and likeness. You poor oppressed boy! You will show your Heavenly Father how much you resent such unfair treatment,won't you?
 

Cantor Krishnich

High Elder
Joined
Nov 26, 2011
Messages
545
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Tallitot said:
ialmisry said:
Tallitot said:
JamesRottnek said:
biro said:
Well, Jews today are monogamous. The only people who still say it's okay to marry up to four people are certain Muslim countries, and a few other places where polygamy is legal. It's not legal in the U.S. or in Israel, which have the largest populations of Jews.

You please read, before you go posting these things. I've never met a Jew who said it was okay to be polygamous, in the present day. It may have been accepted in ancient times, but there is no way it's okay with them today. No mainstream or Orthodox groups, anyway.
Actually, many Sephardic, Yemenite, and Mizrahi Jews still support polygamy.
In Judaism there is a pricipal "the law of the land is the law"; if a civil law doesn't case you violate G-d's law, it must be obeyed. Since polygamy is illegal in most countries today Jews must obey that law and have only one wife.I've read that some Sephardic, Yemenite, and Mizrahi Jews living in countries where polygamy is legal and a few do practice polygamy. There is nothing in the Torah that forbids this. these are mostly living in isolated rural areas. Also since polygamy is illegal in Isreal, most Jews in these countries don't practice polygamy since it would cause problems if they ever wanted to move there.
Illegal?  There are numerous polygamous families in Palestine.  And if, "the law of the land is the land" and they think that the Torah gives them that land, and the Torah allows polygamy, well....
I was refering to isreali civil law.
Many people are trying to change this to make it in accordance to Halakha law and not Western-influenced laws. Before Israel was invented, I'm sure that there were plenty of polygamist Jews and many Jews who made immigrated to Israel were polygamists.
 

JamesR

Taxiarches
Joined
Nov 4, 2011
Messages
6,924
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
24
Location
The Underground
Charles Martel said:
I can accept the fact of a man actually being married to more than one woman at a time (What firghtful thought actually) but that is if they are all in agreement with it and he is financially responsible for all of them and the children. I don't know why the govt would have a hard time with that but yet allow two dudes bind in nuptials and engaging in the most horrid form of sex imaginable. But then again, this is the govt that allows unborn children to be butchered almost to the point of the delivery room.

Anyway, America is rampant with it's own form of "polygamy" with many people having three or four "wives" and "husbands".

The divorce rate is astronomical.

Like the bible says they were" marrying and given in marriage" before they were destroyed.
From a legal standpoint, all religion aside, I don't see how you could honestly compare homosexuality to polygamy. The difference is that while from a moral standpoint, homosexuality may be wrong, allowing them to marry monogamously will do nothing to harm the state. However, polygamy can potentially harm the state by costing us more money and even further clogging the divorce court.
 

Cantor Krishnich

High Elder
Joined
Nov 26, 2011
Messages
545
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Polygamy is accepted to some degree in Judaism and a few Sefardic, Mizrahi and Yemenite Jews do practice polygamy. The point is, that Christ has fulfilled the old law and we now have a new faith which has a strong ascetic flavor. Polygamy is not in accordance with Orthodoxy because it is not an ascetic practice, it is very self-centered and goes against what we were taught in the epistles and by Christ. Monogamy is more beautiful because it is a reflection of the love Christ has for the Church, a mutual sharing of love between two.   

I don't think Judaic Halakha law makes arguments against polygamy. If I'm not mistaken, although Rambam was personally against polygamy, he didn't completely forbid it in his teachings. The Hasidic and Haredi sects of the Ashkenazic Orthodox Jews are strongly monogamous from what I understand. Israeli law prohibits it in accordance to Western standards but many Halakhic scholars are trying hard to change this to make it in accordance to Halakha law.
 

orthonorm

Hoplitarches
Joined
Jul 24, 2010
Messages
17,715
Reaction score
0
Points
0
yeshuaisiam said:
For instance, the prodigal son parable, is symbolic. . . . but it illustrates that with a humble heart and in humility our father will accept us back.
Only have time to snipe lately, but if you think this is what the parable is about, you need to reread it or choose words that fall within some degree of precision to describe what you think it means.
 

J Michael

Toumarches
Joined
Jan 20, 2011
Messages
11,549
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
People's Soviet Socialist Republic of Marylan
JamesR said:
No offense to anyone, but contrary to what most people think, I believe that God in the Old Testament was actually more appealing than God in the New Testament. The OT God was much more simple and basic with His instructions for us, making it very clear what He wanted us to do and not to do, and leaving open room for error because He knew how hard it is (as much as people don't want to admit it) to stay monogamous or to wait until marriage for sex, which is why if you had sex with someone before marriage, He only required that you married each other. God in the NT is much more confusing, strict, abstract and depressing.
There is no OT God as distinct from a NT God.  Same God.  One God.  One only. 

 

Achronos

Toumarches
Site Supporter
Joined
Oct 31, 2010
Messages
13,265
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
House Of Balloons
orthonorm said:
yeshuaisiam said:
For instance, the prodigal son parable, is symbolic. . . . but it illustrates that with a humble heart and in humility our father will accept us back.
Only have time to snipe lately, but if you think this is what the parable is about, you need to reread it or choose words that fall within some degree of precision to describe what you think it means.
Yeah I thought his interpretation of it was embarrasing to say the least.
 

andrewlya

Archon
Joined
Oct 20, 2011
Messages
2,029
Reaction score
0
Points
36
Website
yrm.org
JamesR said:
I think it is the Muslims who in present times can marry up to four wives. Most modern day sects of Judaism are monogamous--save a few really old-school groups. In ancient times, however, Jews were allowed to have multiple wives. The Torah even condones it. The New Testament as well says nothing to suggest that marriage is now supposed to be monogamous. One could argue that they didn't have to, since it was already taken for granted due to the fact that the Roman empire only allowed monogamous marriage I believe. But that seems like kind of a speculative argument. Personally, this is another one of the things that the Church teaches which I have trouble accepting because the reasoning seems weak, such as a condemnation against fornication--which, is a later meaning we applied to the word. The original word meant temple prostitution, or the condemnation against homosexuality. Funny how the male g-spot is located in the anus...
Actually, it's in the NT where it says when a man and a woman marry each other they become one flesh, they become one. NT doesn't allow polygamy...
 

JamesRottnek

Taxiarches
Joined
Feb 4, 2010
Messages
6,256
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
26
Location
Mesa, AZ
Cantor Krishnich said:
Polygamy is accepted to some degree in Judaism and a few Sefardic, Mizrahi and Yemenite Jews do practice polygamy. The point is, that Christ has fulfilled the old law and we now have a new faith which has a strong ascetic flavor. Polygamy is not in accordance with Orthodoxy because it is not an ascetic practice, it is very self-centered and goes against what we were taught in the epistles and by Christ. Monogamy is more beautiful because it is a reflection of the love Christ has for the Church, a mutual sharing of love between two.     

I don't think Judaic Halakha law makes arguments against polygamy. If I'm not mistaken, although Rambam was personally against polygamy, he didn't completely forbid it in his teachings. The Hasidic and Haredi sects of the Ashkenazic Orthodox Jews are strongly monogamous from what I understand. Israeli law prohibits it in accordance to Western standards but many Halakhic scholars are trying hard to change this to make it in accordance to Halakha law.
The Talmud, and many Rabbis since, have pointed out - to varying degrees - how it generally doesn't work out too well, but neither have generally prohibited it.  However Rabbeinu Gershom did, around the year 1000, ban polygamy among European Jews, and this has been accepted by the European Jewish community.  As well, the Shulchan Aruch states that "in a place where it is customary to marry only one wife, he is not permitted to take another wife on top of his present wife.″
 

Azurestone

Protokentarchos
Joined
Jul 15, 2010
Messages
3,920
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
36
Website
deum-quaerens.blogspot.com
Achronos said:
orthonorm said:
yeshuaisiam said:
For instance, the prodigal son parable, is symbolic. . . . but it illustrates that with a humble heart and in humility our father will accept us back.
Only have time to snipe lately, but if you think this is what the parable is about, you need to reread it or choose words that fall within some degree of precision to describe what you think it means.
Yeah I thought his interpretation of it was embarrasing to say the least.
Where exactly did he go wrong?
 

NicholasMyra

Merarches
Joined
Sep 19, 2010
Messages
8,838
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Website
hyperdoxherman.tumblr.com
Aindriú said:
Achronos said:
orthonorm said:
yeshuaisiam said:
For instance, the prodigal son parable, is symbolic. . . . but it illustrates that with a humble heart and in humility our father will accept us back.
Only have time to snipe lately, but if you think this is what the parable is about, you need to reread it or choose words that fall within some degree of precision to describe what you think it means.
Yeah I thought his interpretation of it was embarrasing to say the least.
Where exactly did he go wrong?
For one, in the parable, the Father runs to meet the son before the son even displays any humility. In other words, the forgiveness precedes the repentance. Just as God wants to forgive us before we seek his forgiveness.
 

JamesRottnek

Taxiarches
Joined
Feb 4, 2010
Messages
6,256
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
26
Location
Mesa, AZ
NicholasMyra said:
Aindriú said:
Achronos said:
orthonorm said:
yeshuaisiam said:
For instance, the prodigal son parable, is symbolic. . . . but it illustrates that with a humble heart and in humility our father will accept us back.
Only have time to snipe lately, but if you think this is what the parable is about, you need to reread it or choose words that fall within some degree of precision to describe what you think it means.
Yeah I thought his interpretation of it was embarrasing to say the least.
Where exactly did he go wrong?
For one, in the parable, the Father runs to meet the son before the son even displays any humility. In other words, the forgiveness precedes the repentance. Just as God wants to forgive us before we seek his forgiveness.
Not to mention that the elder brother, who refuses to go to the party for the prodigal, insists the father meets him out in the fields (which, leaving one's own party - I am given to understand - would have been a potential embarrassment).  Then he argues with the father, and without any sign of repentance is still invited into the party.
 

Azurestone

Protokentarchos
Joined
Jul 15, 2010
Messages
3,920
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
36
Website
deum-quaerens.blogspot.com
NicholasMyra said:
Aindriú said:
Achronos said:
orthonorm said:
yeshuaisiam said:
For instance, the prodigal son parable, is symbolic. . . . but it illustrates that with a humble heart and in humility our father will accept us back.
Only have time to snipe lately, but if you think this is what the parable is about, you need to reread it or choose words that fall within some degree of precision to describe what you think it means.
Yeah I thought his interpretation of it was embarrasing to say the least.
Where exactly did he go wrong?
For one, in the parable, the Father runs to meet the son before the son even displays any humility. In other words, the forgiveness precedes the repentance. Just as God wants to forgive us before we seek his forgiveness.
The son was already showing humility in his return, the father, however, wasn't angry and fully accepted him.

This is nitpicky anyways to a sentence long internet post. Stop looking for crap to complain about.
 

rakovsky

Toumarches
Joined
Aug 17, 2006
Messages
11,988
Reaction score
1
Points
38
Location
USA
Website
rakovskii.livejournal.com
JamesR said:
Funny how the male g-spot is located in the anus...
????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

I heard most sensitive part is the foreskin, and otherwise the circumcised area. Besides that, in women it's not in the a--s, but elsewhere, and that other place corresponds to male sexual organ.
 

rakovsky

Toumarches
Joined
Aug 17, 2006
Messages
11,988
Reaction score
1
Points
38
Location
USA
Website
rakovskii.livejournal.com
JamesR said:
Personally, this is another one of the things that the Church teaches which I have trouble accepting because the reasoning seems weak, such as a condemnation against fornication--which, is a later meaning we applied to the word. The original word meant temple prostitution
The claim that it's a mistranslation isn't strong enough. St Paul says people should get married if their passion for eachother is so strong that they would have sex.
 
Top