All Women Belong to The King sounds Polygamist

[Twinky]

If one cares to read in the OT, there's very good reasons why a man was permitted to have more than one wife.  In one particular case, it was where a man had died without issue (probably, without having a son).  His brother was to marry the widow. 

(1)  The first child then born of that union would be credited to the deceased brother, to keep his name in Israel and to inherit his portion of the land.

(2) The widow would also be provided for - remember, no widows' pension arrangements in the OT.

Remember the story of Onan - who "cast his seed on the ground"?  I'll let you "research" or even just plain re-read that.

And the man's "duty" to his second or subsequent wives was to be exactly the same as to the first wife.  She was not to lack food, raiment or care - specifically, sexual pleasure.  (Certainly in modern Judaism, did you know that sexual satisfaction is considered to be the right of the wife - not the right of the husband?)

David married his second wife, Abigail, wife of Nabal the Carmelite, who had just dropped dead, to protect her in a time when women had few protections.  Don't know why he married the others - lust? political unions? I have no idea how he could provide equally for al his wives, much less his unfortunate concubines. 

And just because he had all these women, don't be thinking for one second that that was God-sanctioned.  God's idea is one man with one wife.  Says that at the beginning of the bible, and is repeated in the epistles.

[Bolshevik]

31 minutes ago, Twinky said:

If one cares to read in the OT, there's very good reasons why a man was permitted to have more than one wife.  In one particular case, it was where a man had died without issue (probably, without having a son).  His brother was to marry the widow. 

(1)  The first child then born of that union would be credited to the deceased brother, to keep his name in Israel and to inherit his portion of the land.

(2) The widow would also be provided for - remember, no widows' pension arrangements in the OT.

Remember the story of Onan - who "cast his seed on the ground"?  I'll let you "research" or even just plain re-read that.

And the man's "duty" to his second or subsequent wives was to be exactly the same as to the first wife.  She was not to lack food, raiment or care - specifically, sexual pleasure.  (Certainly in modern Judaism, did you know that sexual satisfaction is considered to be the right of the wife - not the right of the husband?)

David married his second wife, Abigail, wife of Nabal the Carmelite, who had just dropped dead, to protect her in a time when women had few protections.  Don't know why he married the others - lust? political unions? I have no idea how he could provide equally for al his wives, much less his unfortunate concubines. 

And just because he had all these women, don't be thinking for one second that that was God-sanctioned.  God's idea is one man with one wife.  Says that at the beginning of the bible, and is repeated in the epistles.

The Bible only mentions one man with multiple women?

Obviously there's numerous other combos, and they are growing in number with "relaxed social norms".

I noticed it in the area, was surprised, and wonder "Well no wonder VPW was doing it, seems everyone in the cornfield is".

[OldSkool]

52 minutes ago, Twinky said:

If one cares to read in the OT, there's very good reasons why a man was permitted to have more than one wife.  In one particular case, it was where a man had died without issue (probably, without having a son).  His brother was to marry the widow. 

(1)  The first child then born of that union would be credited to the deceased brother, to keep his name in Israel and to inherit his portion of the land.

(2) The widow would also be provided for - remember, no widows' pension arrangements in the OT.

Remember the story of Onan - who "cast his seed on the ground"?  I'll let you "research" or even just plain re-read that.

And the man's "duty" to his second or subsequent wives was to be exactly the same as to the first wife.  She was not to lack food, raiment or care - specifically, sexual pleasure.  (Certainly in modern Judaism, did you know that sexual satisfaction is considered to be the right of the wife - not the right of the husband?)

David married his second wife, Abigail, wife of Nabal the Carmelite, who had just dropped dead, to protect her in a time when women had few protections.  Don't know why he married the others - lust? political unions? I have no idea how he could provide equally for al his wives, much less his unfortunate concubines. 

And just because he had all these women, don't be thinking for one second that that was God-sanctioned.  God's idea is one man with one wife.  Says that at the beginning of the bible, and is repeated in the epistles.

Awesome post, thanks, ya just educated me there Twinky!

[chockfull]

17 minutes ago, Bolshevik said:

The Bible only mentions one man with multiple women?

Obviously there's numerous other combos, and they are growing in number with "relaxed social norms".

I noticed it in the area, was surprised, and wonder "Well no wonder VPW was doing it, seems everyone in the cornfield is".

The OT is a patriarchal society.  There are some cultures on earth that center around a matriarchal society.  One central woman is the main identity and force of a family.  

Neither culture is a guarantee for either truth or equity in treatment.

[Twinky]

24 minutes ago, Bolshevik said:

The Bible only mentions one man with multiple women?

No, I gave only one example, one commonly known to GSC residents.

There are many other records of men having multiple, contemporary, wives.  It's what men did.  It doesn't anywhere say that it is right with God except in context of preserving the name of a deceased male.

[chockfull]

1 hour ago, Twinky said:

If one cares to read in the OT, there's very good reasons why a man was permitted to have more than one wife.  In one particular case, it was where a man had died without issue (probably, without having a son).  His brother was to marry the widow. 

(1)  The first child then born of that union would be credited to the deceased brother, to keep his name in Israel and to inherit his portion of the land.

(2) The widow would also be provided for - remember, no widows' pension arrangements in the OT.

Remember the story of Onan - who "cast his seed on the ground"?  I'll let you "research" or even just plain re-read that.

And the man's "duty" to his second or subsequent wives was to be exactly the same as to the first wife.  She was not to lack food, raiment or care - specifically, sexual pleasure.  (Certainly in modern Judaism, did you know that sexual satisfaction is considered to be the right of the wife - not the right of the husband?)

David married his second wife, Abigail, wife of Nabal the Carmelite, who had just dropped dead, to protect her in a time when women had few protections.  Don't know why he married the others - lust? political unions? I have no idea how he could provide equally for al his wives, much less his unfortunate concubines. 

And just because he had all these women, don't be thinking for one second that that was God-sanctioned.  God's idea is one man with one wife.  Says that at the beginning of the bible, and is repeated in the epistles.

Nice to look at actual Biblical examples.  Marriage and blended families have existed for many centuries.  Loving and equitable laws and practices can be helpful there.

And it also can be another area for Pharisee intrusion and control.

Practically from what I saw in TWI dating it was 100% Pharisee action 0% loving and equitable laws and practices.

I never saw an area where the practices evident in a ministry so contradict the Bullshonta about it coming out their mouths.  And of course they can find a token normal couple to teach a class.

[Bolshevik]

1 hour ago, Twinky said:

No, I gave only one example, one commonly known to GSC residents.

There are many other records of men having multiple, contemporary, wives.  It's what men did.  It doesn't anywhere say that it is right with God except in context of preserving the name of a deceased male.

Cult is family.

In cases of one woman and multiple men, the biological father is of no consequence.

The "family structure" of TWI is The TWIG.  I guess you could say.  Some call it patriarchal but I don't know why.

1 hour ago, chockfull said:

The OT is a patriarchal society.  There are some cultures on earth that center around a matriarchal society.  One central woman is the main identity and force of a family.  

Neither culture is a guarantee for either truth or equity in treatment.

I can't say I know of any patriarchal families.  Women lead that aspect of this society.  The OT is for our learning lol.

[waysider]

10 minutes ago, Bolshevik said:

There are some cultures on earth that center around a matriarchal society.  One central woman is the main identity and force of a family.

Lots of them right here in the good old U.S.A.

[Bolshevik]

3 minutes ago, waysider said:

Lots of them right here in the good old U.S.A.

I think I'm quoted when Chockful should be.

But yes, polyandry is a thing here.  And in various forms 

[waysider]

6 minutes ago, Bolshevik said:

I think I'm quoted when Chockful should be.

But yes, polyandry is a thing here.  And in various forms 

I wasn't really referencing polyandry. I was talking about households that are held together by the matriarchal figure. Many times it's a matter of necessity in order to maintain family cohesiveness. It's fairly common in the lower socioeconomic strata of our society.

[Bolshevik]

4 minutes ago, waysider said:

I wasn't really referencing polyandry. I was talking about households that are held together by the matriarchal figure. Many times it's a matter of necessity in order to maintain family cohesiveness. It's fairly common in the lower socioeconomic strata of our society.

That situation I think is often pointed to as caused by the welfare system replacing the male component.  It was created.

[Bolshevik]

The Boomers I understand continue to divorce like crazy.  The younger generations see that and acknowledge one man/one women for life is absurd.

New dynamics are growing in place of that.