Conference lgp30::christian-perspective

    Hi Richard,

    Nothing like a topic like this to start conversation, eh?
    Have you been saving it?  :-)

    There are practical reasons for polygamy and practical reasons
    for monogamy.  But I guess the gist is - will many wives help
    or hinder all involved in learning to love and celebrate God
    and all people.  For some: yes.  For others: no.  From a
    religious point of view I see nothing wrong with it in 
    theory.

    However, the opportunities for abuse are many.  A wife could
    become unpopular with the husband.  There's little incentive
    for the husband to reconcile with other wives around.  That
    sort of humiliation could get in the way of loving God, or
    at least make it difficult.

    It may work for some but for most of the rest of us I think
    it's a bad idea.

    Tom

.1  Yes, I agree, Tom.  The potential is there for abuse.  However, we know
that abuse is not prevented or eradicated by the enforcement of monogamy,
either.

I don't think I would be very successful at having a relationship with more
than one wife.  And if the tables were turned, I know I would have a problem
sharing my wife with another husband.

Peace,
Richard

    RE: .2 Richard

>.1  Yes, I agree, Tom.  The potential is there for abuse.  However, we know
>that abuse is not prevented or eradicated by the enforcement of monogamy,
>either.

    You have a point there.  I guess marraige is abused as well.

    I could handle drugs and prostitution being legalized.  I guess
    *I'M* not ready to see polygamy legal.

    The spector of some fat very rich guy having 6 or 7 wives galls me.
    That he should have many and some guys not have any.  It also gives
    the general impression that women are possessions.

    And what happens when a man wants to take another wife and his
    current wife is against it or dislikes the new wife or is related
    to the new wife?

    It puts women at an extreme disadvantage.

    If I had more than one wife I wouldn't be forced to look at what
    problems *I* had in a relationship.  If one wife didn't please
    me or was upset with me I'd just ignore her until she came around.
    Sounds like a great way to avoid personal growth.

    Tom

re: Note 755.3 by Tom "DOS with Honor!" 

>    And what happens when a man wants to take another wife and his
>    current wife is against it or dislikes the new wife or is related
>    to the new wife?

I caught a glimpse of the article, too.  One of the wifes made the point that 
a potential new wife was not only marrying the husband, but all the wives as 
well, and if she didn't relate well and fit in to the marriage, the wives 
could be "very nasty" (her words) and effectively reject her.

The gentleman who had 9 wives also had 4 divorces.

Peace,

Jim

    Why not add a few more husbands into the situation and then we could
    have a real group experience.
    
    I guess this subject irritates me just in the way it treats women as
    possessions.  How about an arrangement where one women has nine
    husbands.   How would you guys feel about participating in that kind of
    arrangement.
    
    
    Patricia

re: .5

I'd feel the same way about many husbands and one wife and many wives and
one husband, or many partners, or....  It's wrong. End of discussion (for
me at least 8-) ).


-- 
---
Paul		[email protected]
Gordon		[email protected]
Loptson		databs::ferwerda
Ferwerda	Tel (603) 884 1317



			
[posted by Notes-News gateway]

 If it meant that "honey do" lists grew with the number of wives, I'm 
dead set against it..

.5
	This may sound a bit surprising, Patricia, but I got the definite
sense from the report that the 9 wives actually "owned" the 1 husband more
than the reverse.  One wife even thought of it as liberating, because she
could devote as much or as little time and attention as she wanted to
her husband and the maintenance of a household.  Career could come first
for a wife, without the accompanying sense of guilt that some more
traditional wives experience.  The husband's time, on the other hand, was
practically never his own.

	Was this also your impression, Jim Kirk?

	Don't get the wrong idea, Patricia.  I've already stated polygamy
is not for me.

Peace,
Richard

    Polygamy is largely a cultural thing. While pockets of polygamy exist
    in cultures that generally don't support it this is not the usual case.
    And where it does occur it is generally found within a sub culture
    that is isolationist and internally self supporting. It requires a
    different mindset and view of the relationships between men and women
    in a marriage. Note that I don't think it's fair to assume that
    different equates to either better or worse.

    I've heard interviews with women in polygamous cultures who express
    sadness over the fate of women who live in monogamous societies. I've
    also heard men in polygamous societies who express the down side of
    supporting multiple wives. Most polygamous societies expect the male
    to be the bread winner except in purely agricultural societies where
    everyone works the fields. So polygamy often means more work for the 
    single sex member not less. I spent some time with a man who comes
    from a polygamous culture. He had one wife but had friends with
    several. He indicated that it took a lot of money to support multiple
    wives and was a very stressful situation. It's not the bed of roses
    that many American men like to think it is.

    Polyandry (one wife/multiple husbands) has always been rarer than the
    converse. I suspect that childbearing is the prime cause of that. No
    matter how many husbands a woman has she can only be carrying one
    pregnancy to term at a time. One man though seems to be able to make
    many women pregnant at the same time. :-) Generally polyandry happens
    only in cultures with a shortage of women. Because men tend to fight
    wars more often than women do and have a shorter lifespan anyway this
    situation is rare. A shortage of women is also generally temporary.
    What tends to happen in those cases in prostitution. This way men get
    their sexual needs filled and some women make a lot of money and leave.
    Whether they leave rich or leave burned out/dead depends on a lot of
    factors. Suffice it to say there are situations that result in both good
    and bad endings.

    Polygamy works when all parties have the same expectations. It doesn't
    work when one side takes unfair or unexpected advantage of the other.
    It appears to be a different sort of relationship than monogamy. I
    doubt I could handle two American women with American expectations.
    I'd be worn to a frazzle in no time at all. Their expectations are to
    high. Likewise I couldn't be in a polyandrous marriage as my
    expectations are too high on my wife. It's a cultural thing though.

    The Bible tells of many men with multiple wives. We don't read of any
    women complaining about it though. In the New Testament we read that
    a Bishop should be the husband of one wife. It doesn't say that
    multiple wives are wrong but it indicates that multiple wives are a
    disadvantage for a Bishop. This is a practical consideration rather
    than a moral one. I guess that's how I see polygamy - a practical
    rather than a moral issue. I know that the Quran sees it the same way.
    There multiple wives are approved only if a man can afford to take
    proper care of his wives. It doesn't say the wives have to be able to
    support the husband.

    			Alfred

    I think your " :-) " should be " :-( " .

    .9  Thanks, Alfred.  It sounds like you've done a bit of homework on
    the subject.
    
    Peace,
    Richard

re: Note 755.8 by Richard "Pacifist Hellcat" 

>	Was this also your impression, Jim Kirk?

That was my impression too.  Plus, everyone in the marriage seemed happy with 
the relationship.  There was no sense at all that anyone was forced into such 
an arrangement, they simply wanted no one (government) forcing them out.

I think Alfred also presented a clear overview of such relationships, both for 
multiple wives and multiple husbands.

And, for what it's worth, I doubt I'd be able to exist in a polygamist 
marriage.  

Peace,

Jim

    
    >.9  Thanks, Alfred.  It sounds like you've done a bit of homework on
    >the subject.

    Yep, one of the more interesting course us Sociology majors had to
    take was marriage and the family. The usual monogamous form seemed to
    easy and familiar so I looked more into the alternatives. I've done 
    a bit of reading since then as well. Especially into Arab/Moslem
    cultures and their take on marriage.

    			Alfred

    Two things that come to mind as I pondered this issue.  
    
    The first thing is the example of what could happen in a polygamous
    relationship.  This problem has already been alluded to but if you
    recall from 1st Samuel, Chapter 1., a man named Elkanah had two wives,
    Peninnah and Hannah.  Although Hannah gave birth to Samuel, she was
    barren for many years and it actually caused great strife between the
    two women.  Peninnah chastised Hannah continually because of this.  
    This caused a tremendous riff in this lovers triangle for quite some
    time.  Polygamy can be a miserable experience.
    
    What also came to mind is the book of Ecclesiastes, written by Solomon.
    Solomon had 800+ wives and concubines in his life.  This is pretty much
    the theme of his writings.
    
    "So, I was great, and increased more than all that were before me in
    Jerusalem: also my wisdom remained with me.  And whatsoever my eyes
    desired I kept not from them, I withheld not my heart from any joy; for
    my heart rejoiced in all my labor; and this was the portion of all my
    labor.  Then I looked upon all the works that my hand hath wrought, and
    on the labour that I laboured to do; and behold, all was vanity and a
    vexation of spirit, and there was no profit under the sun."  Eccles.
    2:9-11.
    
    Kind of Ironic how The Song of Solomon for example, is directed toward
    one woman, yet at the same time he had over 800 wives.  The beauty of
    Song of Solomon, a picture of God's love for Israel, in a way loses its
    credibility when we read the passages like the one above in
    Ecclesiastes.  Written in the passion of the moment if you will.
    Considering Solomon was a man of tremendous wisdom, wealth, and
    opportunity for his own "heaven" on earth with 800 wives, I tend to
    heed his warning that though the appearance is enticing, all can be
    vanity.
    
    -Jack
    
    P.S. Patricia, I agree with you on the property issue.  To marry one is
    to become the property of one (I am espoused to my wife), To be married
    to two connotes property such as cattle or objects.  Distasteful in our
    society!

        >    time.  Polygamy can be a miserable experience.

    So, I've heard, can monogamy. :-)

    		Alfred

    RE: .14

    800 wives?!?!?  How can you *possibly* remember all their
    aniversaries and birthdays?!?!

    Tom

    .14  While tradition has it that Solomon wrote Ecclesiates, many
    scholars disagree.  It is recorded elsewhere in the Hebrew Testament,
    however, that Solomon had an absurd number of wives and concubines. 
    Doubtlessly, some were political in nature rather than affection
    based.
    
    Peace,
    Richard
    

    Interesting point, you may be right.  I always assumed it was Solomon
    who wrote it.  Worth checking out!
    
    -Jack

    Richard,
    
    David and Solomon both had large numbers of wives and concubines. 
    Political or affection based, the fact that they were "possessions" of
    David and Solomon was the controlling reality in their lives.  These
    sisters were in effect slaves.  They had no freedom to choose their
    affectional relationship and no husband either.
    
    I believe we must accept first of all that the Bible is Patriarchal and
    then strive to use an imperfect history to get a glimpse at the lives
    and concerns of all people.  We can get a glimpse of womenhood in these
    times by putting ourselves in the position of one of these wifes or
    concumbines.  For instance, what does the commandment, Thou shall not
    commit adultery mean to one of these women?  Are they sinning or are
    they being raped?  What does this commandment mean to David or Solomon?
    Does the bible mandate a different set of rules for men and women?  If it 
    does, how do we as egalitarian people choose to deal with those facts?
    
    I hope that these questions can mean as much to the men reading this
    notes file as to the women?  How committed are we to a Body of Christ where
    in Christ their is no male of female, Greek or Jew, Slave or free,
    Where skin color doesn't matter
     
    
    

>    sisters were in effect slaves.  They had no freedom to choose their
>    affectional relationship and no husband either.

    Please correct me if I'm wrong but my understanding is that this
    has been the case throughout most of history, polygamy or monogamy.

    Before I get into even more hot water let me say this does the
    "dominant" gender no spiritual good.  Relating to women as peers
    and equils brings me much closer faster to the realization of
    the prime directive (Love God, Love neighbor) than treating them
    as inferior.

    Tom

    .19
    
    We're in agreement, Patricia.
    
    The Bible, *especially* the Hebrew Testament, was written *by* men
    and was written *for* a male audience.
    
    David and Solomon, while each possessing some admirable strengths,
    were complicated by their own human failings and shortcomings (sort
    of like the rest of us).  It's interesting they were both portrayed
    as being so human in the Bible.  Royalty of neighboring nations at
    the time were often either deified or quasi-deified.
    
    Peace,
    Richard

It wasn't God's first choice to have a king in charge of Israel. It was his
second best, but he allowed for it (like divorce). The kings were sinners
just all of us.

In Deuteronomy Moses specifically warns against the future kings taking
many wives when he outlines the requirements for a king.

-- 
---
Paul		[email protected]
Gordon		[email protected]
Loptson		databs::ferwerda
Ferwerda	Tel (603) 881-2060



			
[posted by Notes-News gateway]

    .22 I don't recall the section of Deuteronomy to which you're
    refering, Paul.  I Samuel comes to mind.  Could you supply the
    chapter(s) and verses?
    
    Peace,
    Richard

    
    
    755.9 Flannagan
    
    > slaves
    
      I don't think so. You are applying the 1990's politically correct
    version of interpretation to the past. As far as the bible being
    patriachal(sp), yep, but later on in the new testament Jesus nails
    the good old boys and tells them to behave. 
    
    David

>In Deuteronomy Moses specifically warns against the future kings taking
>many wives when he outlines the requirements for a king.

Deuteronomy 17:14-20

    .25  Thanks, Steve.
    
    I looked up the verses in the only version I have on hand.  It says
    the king is not to have "many" wives.  Rather vague.  I wonder if 
    Solomon thought he had "many" wives, or just "quite a few," or not
    too many for a king of such opulent greatness as he.
    
    Peace,
    Richard

Note 91.3043

>It is obvious that marriage is quite significant in God's plan.

I'll say!  And the Bible doesn't rule out polygamy, or porking your
wife's servant (Abraham and Hagar), or incest (Abraham and Sarah;
Jacob and his first cousins, Leah and Rachael; Lot and his two
daughters).

The Bible doesn't shy away from ambiguity.

Richard

    Richard,
    
    God wasn't ambiguous in the Bible.  But it determines from the pov you
    take when reading it.  The sexual encounters you cite if read in
    context with the whole story does not place God's blessing on them.  In
    fact there were many consequences in those cases for the action.
    
    On the point of polygamy...We live by the law, I'm not sure I consider
    monogamy the only blessed unions by God.  I know he says that a deacon
    is to be the husband of *one* wife... but he didn't make the decree for
    all marriages.  In fact based on the birth rate alone of women to men,
    it would appear that creation itself teaches polygamy.
    
    Nancy��

    Nancy,
    
    	I didn't say God was ambiguous.  I said the Bible doesn't shy away
    from ambiguity.
    
    	Again, of the sexual encounters I cited from the Bible, which ones
    were denounced (by God or anyone else) as being wrong or sinful to
    those involved?  Granted, it's sort of a tacit approval and not exactly
    the same thing as a blessing.
    
    	I must say, yours is a more open-minded attitude towards polygamy
    than I would have anticipated you to have, Nancy. 8-}
    
    Peace,
    Richard

    Richard... 
    
    Since I believe the Bible to be the inerrant word of God, declaring the
    Bible ambiguous is the same as calling God ambiguous.. again, imb [in
    my belief].
    
    The best point of reference is to read the story of that person's life
    as accounted for and see what happened to their children as well.  I
    could use my concordance and look this up for you, but since you
    ��cited the cases, I assume you know where they are in the Bible.
    
    And don't be surprised Richard.  I happen to believe the Bible as God's
    word and therefore must believe it in whole and not in part.  Polygamy
    was a practiced and blessed status in the old testament.
    
    In His Love,
    Nancy

    Nancy,
    
    	The Bible is not God, nor is it the same as God.  In my belief,
    Christ is the Word of God.
    
    	I've read the stories I've referenced.  In each instance, no one
    experienced any consequences as a result of their sexual encounter,
    at least, not that the Bible reveals.  If you have evidence to the
    contrary, please provide it.
    
    Shalom,
    Richard

    .28  I've been meaning to get back to this.  Not only were deacons
    advised to have a limit of one wife, but bishops as well (I Timothy 3.2).
    
    I Timothy is traditionally attributed to Paul.  Some scholars assert
    that the letter was written sometime after Paul.
    
    Shalom,
    Richard

    Richard,
    
    Most scholars assert that Timothy was written sometime after Paul.
    
    Patricia

    .33  Yeah, I know.  But I didn't want to get into a who's-scholars-are-
    the-most-unbiased-and-least-PC debate.
    
    Peace,
    Richard

Did it occur to anyone else while looking through this polygamy topic
that "adultery" seems to be defined only as a married person having sex with 
someone else's spouse, and that the definition of adultery does *not* 
include sex with an unmarried person?

David and Solomon both had wives *and* concubines, so having sex with
a mistress seems permissible, even for someone who is married.  Richard 
brought up other things, like having sex with one's servant or slave, but even
if we just look at concubines, it seems that the Bible's definition of adultery
is quite different from the current U.S. definition of adultery. 

    Carol

In the Old Testament, the polygamy of patriarchs and kings was not condemned.
The Old Testament consists of books which give laws and books which record
history.  Historical records in the Old Testament must not be assumed to
record behaviour that is/was approved of by God.

By the time Jesus lived, God's People had realized that polygamy was an
offense against the equal dignity of men and women.  By this time, the
Jews had recognized matrimony as a total giving of the husband and wife
to each other with a love that is unique and exclusive.

Luke records Jesus as having taught "Anyone who divorces his wife and
marries another commits adultery."

Clearly Jesus considered it adultery for a man to take a second wife.

/john

re Note 755.36 by COVERT::COVERT:

> In the Old Testament, the polygamy of patriarchs and kings was not condemned.
> The Old Testament consists of books which give laws and books which record
> history.  Historical records in the Old Testament must not be assumed to
> record behaviour that is/was approved of by God.

        Granted that approval must not be imputed, but if the Old
        Testament is God's own word, why didn't God say something
        explicit (since silence is often understood as acceptance)? 
        Was it God who was afraid of insulting the leaders or of
        upsetting the political establishment?  That doesn't sound
        likely.  What does sound likely is a human author that was
        too timid to take on what he considered a "minor" offense by
        a powerful figure.

        As you say, Jesus wasn't afraid of making a clear and total
        statement on this subject.

        (I know that I'm not the only person who sees a different
        character is Jesus' words than in the words of the rest of
        the Scriptural texts.)

        Bob

.36

I disagree.  God in the Old Testament is incredibly silent about
the man having non-monogamous sex.

Jacob was clearly one of God's favorites.  Jacob was not chastized
by Yahweh in the Bible for marrying two women, let alone his first
cousins.

Solomon was no saint, but his and David's reigns were considered the
golden age of Israel.

Richard

re .-1

You say you disagree, but I see no disagreement.

/john

    God didn't have a very hard time getting through to Solomon when God
    wanted to get through to him.  If God thought Solomon's non-monogamy
    was a problem, God could have let Solomon know about it.
    
    Richard