Black Relationships : Is there any real "justification" for monogamy?

[CreativeGrl]

Thanks for sharing your POV , Sister. However, I have to disagree. I know interpretation has a lot to do with our difference of opinions. But going specifically how the bible is design. I have to disagree with you because of these points.

Anything that is forbidden is stated. Laws etc. If polygamy was forbidden . Like everything else it would have stated so. Nowhere in the bible was it forbidden and God himself, rewarded a couple of his servants with more wives. So if he only wanted man to have one wife , Why would he reward his servants with more ?? Example : Leah

Jacob was just one of many polygamists in the Bible. Some others included Gideon (Judges 8:30), Elkanah, father of the prophet Samuel (1 Samuel 1:2), and kings such as Abijah (2 Chronicles 13:21), Rehoboam (2 Chronicles 11:21), and Jehoiada (2 Chronicles 24:3). Most famously, Solomon himself had "seven hundred wives... and three hundred concubines" (2 Kings 11:3). None of these royal polygamists were chastised or punished by God for this - except for Solomon, but even here the exception proves the rule. According to the Bible, Solomon's sin was not that he married many wives, but that he married foreign wives who turned him away from worshipping Yahweh (11:4).

Was polygamy just a Hebrew tribal custom, disliked but tolerated by God? Hardly: the Torah itself, God's law book, endorses polygamy by giving rules on when and how a man was allowed to take more than one wife and how the rules of inheritance worked in this situation.

Note: We know they tampered with the bible, But to take out polygamy , I suspect it would have been noticeable. Not to mention that the singular and plural is because of language change. The word for "wife" in Hebrew is "eesha" (ee like in meet). It is also the word for "woman". There is no plural.

Don't get me wrong, People should do what they want to do. However, I think we all should be careful that we don't elevate our ideas and theories over God , himself. If you indeed believe in the bible as being Gods word.

I admit that it should be modified but still an legal option for those who choose.

If a woman does not want to be in an polygamist marriage , She shouldn't be forced too. Same vice versa for either gender.

Realistically, Good people are good people regardless if they CHOOSE to be in either. But Should they not have the choice ??


btw: As for men providing the protection , and vital needs. That's simply not true. In our ancient culture, many matriarchy societies had polygamy as well. Meaning that the women played a vital rule in that "providing and protecting."
Take a look at the Queens that ruled with a firm hand in Egyptology. Also note that they had the title "Kings". As European cultures made it more gender specific but it was simply an title at that time.

We are taught to think that Polygamy will suppress women. But May I ask this question:

Never in our history was it ever necessary to have an women's liberation movement until western society control the masses.



Why ???


Because we was already liberated. That's why. It truly an mind trick.

Black women contributed to man-kind as well as our black men. Black men taught the world how to honor and give the deepest respect to black women. That's shown in the pyramids that they built, in the hieroglyphics, in the books, and at the temples and even with their gods.

Unlike them, Who burned their own women that dared to think. Killed their own babies and threw them over the cliff, If they was anything short of perfect . ( Spartans ) And they had never treated their women will any type of respect but they was closer to slaves then anything.

That was never us.

Nowhere in our ancients culture before their was an Caucasians have you ever heard of gender wars or Afrikaans competeing with each other by gender.

Truly that is strictly an western practice because of how they treated their OWN women. Women liberation movement was never our fight but we played a role of the movement taking focus off the civil rights movement where we was fighting for human rights for all.

My 2 cents.

Thanks again, I look forward to hearing your POV .............. Peace

[/QUOTE] The word for "wife" in Hebrew is "eesha" (ee like in meet). It is also the word for "woman". There is no plural. [/QUOTE]

Actually, the plural word for woman in Hebrew is "Nashim", which can either mean women or wives.

According to the Bible, Solomon's sin was not that he married many wives, but that he married foreign wives who turned him away from worshipping Yahweh [/COLOR](11:4)

Well, this was actually two different instructions given by God. You are correct in that one instruction, given to all of the Israelites (in 1Kings 11:2), was not to marry foreign women because they will turn their hearts from worshiping Him. But the other instruction was given to Solomon (in Deuteronomy 17:17), stating that he was not to take many wives. Period. There was no distinction or elaboration made here about foreign women or any exceptions made for Israelite women.

Anything that is forbidden is stated. Laws etc. If polygamy was forbidden . Like everything else it would have stated so. Nowhere in the bible was it forbidden and God himself, rewarded a couple of his servants with more wives. So if he only wanted man to have one wife , Why would he reward his servants with more ?? Example : Leah

Well, we definitely know that God forbid deacons from having multiple wives (in Timothy 3:12) when He stated, "A deacon must be the husband of but one wife". Why would God forbid an accepted practice?

As far as God "rewarding" people with wives, Take David for example. It was common practice for newly appointed Kings to inherit the possessions of his predecessor, including his wives and concubines. Basically, when God "gave" David his kingship, the previous king's wives came along with the package, so yes, "technically" you could say that God gave them to him, but this practice was more a reflection of the laws of the land than an acceptance by God. As far as the other men who were "blessed" with wives, if you read further you will usually see that many of those relationships resulted in disaster.

As far as Leah goes, Leah clearly saw Jacob's marriage to Rachel as a betrayal (in Genesis 30:15) when she says to Rachel "Wasn't it enough that you took away my husband?" If polygamy was so accepted by all, then why would Leah take such offense to it and consider it a betrayal?

btw: As for men providing the protection , and vital needs. That's simply not true. In our ancient culture, many matriarchy societies had polygamy as well. Meaning that the women played a vital rule in that "providing and protecting."
Take a look at the Queens that ruled with a firm hand in Egyptology. Also note that they had the title "Kings". As European cultures made it more gender specific but it was simply an title at that time.

Yes, polygamy was common amongst Egyptian royalty, but the practice was very rare among commoners, mainly for financial reasons. And yes, Egyptian women had more independence and contributed to the household more than women of other cultures, but it was because of their independence that many of them saw themselves as equal partners with their husbands and had no interest in sharing them with other women.

Peace to you blkbutterfly...

 

[jamesfrmphilly]

btw.....

i believe the gender indication is one of the perks of premium membership

 

[blkbutterfly41]

This would be a valuable topic to take up in another thread. I was raised Pentecostal, but an intensive 3-year study of the Christian writings of the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and 4th centuries helped me recognize that I was mistaken. Suffice it to say that Christian doctrine didn't change with Constantine. You can read what Christians wrote all over the world prior to Constantine and after him, and find that the Catholic, or "universal" faith remained identical to what it had been since the 1st century. You can keep on reading into the Middle Ages and find that, though there was much refinement in terms of theological vocabulary, the doctrines remained the same.

What really tarnishes the whole thing is not that Christians changed their doctrine, but that powerful men of little conviction made a show of accepting the faith, while denying it with their actions. That's how the black slave market got started. A group of Portuguese raided the Canary Islands in 1425, and brought black slaves back into Portugal. Pope Eugene IV found out about it, condemned it, and threatened to excommunicate the lot of them if they didn't return the people back to their homeland and restore their property to them. Obviously, the threat had little meaning to them, and the black slave market grew, despite repeated attempts by the Papacy to chastise those who engaged in it. The whole "love of money" thing really is the root of this, and every evil.

But I digress! It would be worthwhile to address your objections to what I'm saying in another thread, because they certainly are reasonable, and deserve a fair hearing. Pax!

I agree that we would be going wayyyyyyyyyyy off topic. If you create the thread , let me know.

btw; Also research deeply the origins of Catholics. You might surprise yourself.

As for the slave trade, The evidence of the origins says otherwise as well. Power, money, technology has aways been the motive of deception , in my humble opinion. And to obtain those things , You would have to maintain control.

Thanks for the respectful dialogue. Respect and Peace

 

[blkbutterfly41]

QUOTE]Actually, the plural word for woman in Hebrew is "Nashim", which can either mean women or wives.[/QUOTE]

Thank you, For the correction.

Well, this was actually two different instructions given by God. You are correct in that one instruction, given to all of the Israelites (in 1Kings 11:2), was not to marry foreign women because they will turn their hearts from worshiping Him. But the other instruction was given to Solomon (in Deuteronomy 17:17), stating that he was not to take many wives. Period. There was no distinction or elaboration made here about foreign women or any exceptions made for Israelite women.

Ahhhhhhhhhh, Sis, But lets examine this a little closer. Who was he speaking too ??

**Israel did plead for a king to reign over them in I Samuel 8 . Samuel (judge of Israel), after conferring with God on the request, appointed their first king, Saul, to reign over them in I Samuel 10 . So he gave the guidelines for selecting a king to rule over Israel. He must be God-chosen, a home-grown Hebrew boy, not a gold digger, have a limited number of wives, not proud or conceited, and he better obey the law. As a matter of fact, he is to copy the law himself into his own book and read it daily as king. By the way, the practice of taking other Kings' daughters as wives ended up being the downfall of Solomon.

As you keep reading Deuteronomy , You will see whom was these instructions given. Keep in mind, these instructions are given to the people as they are preparing to go over and inhabit their new land. They will be spread out - decentralized for the first time in their history. The verses deals with appeals made to a higher court (so to speak). If you take a legal matter to the priest or to one of the judges in Israel for that ultimate level of mediation (criminal or civil), he's the man!

After he rules on a matter, if you disregard the ruling...it's a death sentence.

I want to be clear, Yes, They lived by the laws of the land as long as it wasn't disobeying God's laws. I question the "MUST' as you stated . Its not in my bible, Perhaps it's in the KJV. Putting that aside. The bible in interpreting must be balance ?? if you agree. Taking a look at the evidence after the laws was given to the King. If that was so why would god bless any union with multiple wives ??

Now, Please know I am not stating what "I" think. But what is written. Is God that fickle that he would say its a MUST yet years latee bless a union of Christian marriages that has multiple wives ?? If its forbidden, is forbidden forever ?? Or just forbidden for a short time ??

However, based on AFTER THESE laws was in effect . God rewarded his faithful servants with more Christian wives. God SUGGESTED that those that had duties in the "church" , do not have more then one wife.

Interpretation means everything.

A Command is FORBIDDEN in the eyes of God, And a suggestion is totally different, IMO.

I;ve never seen God minimize an COMMAND for the laws of the land ?? In fact, I believe it's the other way around.

Anything that is forbidden is stated. Laws etc. If polygamy was forbidden . Like everything else it would have stated so. Nowhere in the bible was it forbidden and God himself, rewarded a couple of his servants with more wives. So if he only wanted man to have one wife , Why would he reward his servants with more ?? Example : Leah

Well, we definitely know that God forbid deacons from having multiple wives (in Timothy 3:12) when He stated, "A deacon must be the husband of but one wife". Why would God forbid an accepted practice?

As far as God "rewarding" people with wives, Take David for example. It was common practice for newly appointed Kings to inherit the possessions of his predecessor, including his wives and concubines. Basically, when God "gave" David his kingship, the previous king's wives came along with the package, so yes, "technically" you could say that God gave them to him, but this practice was more a reflection of the laws of the land than an acceptance by God. As far as the other men who were "blessed" with wives, if you read further you will see that many of those relationships resulted in disaster.

As far as Leah goes, Leah clearly saw Jacob's marriage to Rachel as a betrayal (in Genesis 30:15) when she says to Rachel "Wasn't it enough that you took away my husband?" If polygamy was so accepted by all, then why would Leah take such offense to it and consider it a betrayal?

Leah isn't God. I am sure that even in those times there was no, One size fit all shoe. Nor is there any way of telling if they followed ALL God's laws as it pertains to marriage to see why jealousy came to root. His laws are there to protect us. Usually when you stray from his guidance we get in all sorts of trouble.

The only issues is should Polygamy be an option today. And the Fact that it's not forbidden by God, For those Christians that may want to examine that option.

Fact: With all mono God religions polygamy was the norm for over 4000 years. Verses 400 Monogamy was the norm.

The question that arises is Monogamy actually working ?? Or is it just an illusions or false image with monogamy. For all true Christians or those that TRY to follow the laws of God, under any faith may have an option Verses the practices of man.

Putting aside all emotions. selfish reasonings, Eurocentric teachings and examining both practices and evidence. Its clearly more practical, IMHO. I have not heard any good arguement for monogamy other then basically that is what we are taught. And Again , I am not saying that we all should change tomorrow . But its certainly should be an option for future generations as we break the western train of thought.

btw: GIve me a few, I will post evidence that polygamy was not just practiced amongst Egyptians Royalty. If anything they was the first to stop. Polygamy was practiced longest amongst the common folks for obvious reasons.


Thanks so much for the thought provoking dialogue. I look forward to your response.

Peace to you, Sis

 

[CreativeGrl]

QUOTE]Actually, the plural word for woman in Hebrew is "Nashim", which can either mean women or wives.

Well, this was actually two different instructions given by God. You are correct in that one instruction, given to all of the Israelites (in 1Kings 11:2), was not to marry foreign women because they will turn their hearts from worshiping Him. But the other instruction was given to Solomon (in Deuteronomy 17:17), stating that he was not to take many wives. Period. There was no distinction or elaboration made here about foreign women or any exceptions made for Israelite women.



Anything that is forbidden is stated. Laws etc. If polygamy was forbidden . Like everything else it would have stated so. Nowhere in the bible was it forbidden and God himself, rewarded a couple of his servants with more wives. So if he only wanted man to have one wife , Why would he reward his servants with more ?? Example : Leah



Leah isn't God. I am sure that even in those times there was no, One size fit all shoe. Nor is there any way of telling if they followed ALL God's laws as it pertains to marriage to see why jealousy came to root. His laws are there to protect us. Usually when you stray from his guidance we get in all sorts of trouble.

The only issues is should Polygamy be an option today. And the Fact that it's not forbidden by God, For those Christians that may want to examine that option.

Fact: With all mono God religions polygamy was the norm for over 4000 years. Verses 400 Monogamy was the norm.

The question that arises is Monogamy actually working ?? Or is it just an illusions or false image with monogamy. For all true Christians or those that TRY to follow the laws of God, under any faith may have an option Verses the practices of man.

Putting aside all emotions. selfish reasonings, Eurocentric teachings and examining both practices and evidence. Its clearly more practical, IMHO. I have not heard any good arguement for monogamy other then basically that is what we are taught. And Again , I am not saying that we all should change tomorrow . But its certainly should be an option for future generations as we break the western train of thought.

btw: GIve me a few, I will post evidence that polygamy was not just practiced amongst Egyptians Royalty. If anything they was the first to stop. Polygamy was practiced longest amongst the common folks for obvious reasons.


Thanks so much for the thought provoking dialogue. I look forward to your response.

Peace to you, Sis

[/QUOTE]

Peace Blkbutterfly,
Excuse my delayed response. I was traveling for the holidays...

The only issues is should Polygamy be an option today. And the Fact that it's not forbidden by God, For those Christians that may want to examine that option.

Well, I do agree that different people interpret the Bible in many different ways. Take Mark 10:8 for example. Jesus was speaking to the Pharisees about God's definition of marriage, and he specifically says: "...and the TWO will become one flesh." (Not three, four, or five...but TWO.) That being said, anything over two may be considered adultery, therefore making it a forbidden act. Again, that's a matter of interpretation. But regardless, God's TRUE intention for marriage was made perfectly clear.
Regarding the word "must", I do have an NIV Bible, and yes, it does use the word "must". Now, the King James version says, "Let deacons be the husbands of one wife". But even though the word "must" is not used, I would never interpret this request to be optional because of the use of the word "Let". The word "Let" is an instruction, not a suggestion.

The question that arises is Monogamy actually working ?? Or is it just an illusions or false image with monogamy.

Does monogamy work? It does if you want it to. To say monogamy doesn't work is like buying something that requires assembly, not bothering to follow the instructions, then when it doesn't work, conclude that it was never meant to work to begin with. It works for those who choose to do what's required to make it work.
I mean, you could say that having laws against theft and murder don't work because people steal and kill every day. But is this a valid argument for legalizing theft or murder? Of course not. So why take this stance with polygamy?


Again, regarding God's "blessing" of men with multiple wives, the mere fact that God blessed them does not mean he supported their polygamy. If that were the case, then none of us would be blessed, seeing as we are all sinners in the eyes of God. David and Moses were both murderers, and God still blessed them. Does that mean that God condones murder? Of course not.

Putting aside all emotions. selfish reasonings, Eurocentric teachings and examining both practices and evidence. Its clearly more practical, IMHO. I have not heard any good arguement for monogamy other then basically that is what we are taught.

Selfish? The only reason men have for wanting multiple wives in today's society is so they can have sex with as many women as they want without the guilt of betrayal. It doesn't get any more selfish than that IMO. And practical? For who? Many men these days don't have the time, energy, or resources to handle one set of wife & kids, much less multiple sets. You think men have baby-mama drama now, just think of the drama there would be if all of those women were living with him under one roof. Instead of one nagging wife, you now have four! Instead of dealing with 1 or 2 yelling, screaming, running, fighting, hard-headed kids, you now have to deal with 8 or 10. (Men don't ever want to think about that part do they?)

As far as the Eurocentric thing goes; Now don't get me wrong, I have an extreme respect for my ancestors and for the origins of my people, but that doesn't mean that I want to live the same life that they lived. Just because my ancestors had a certain set of practices and traditions, doesn't make it appealing, practical, or appropriate for my life today. Not to knock anyone else's desire to live like ancient Egyptians, I'm just saying.... the whole man sharing thing just isn't gonna work for me.

(By the way: I appreciate having a civil conversation without it dissolving into a petty argument. Some people on discussion boards such as this lack the ability to disagree without becoming disagreeable. )

Peace