I believe God is not opposed to Polygamy and Polyandry

puzzles

New member
I am atheist, so bare with me...but aren't there multiple men mentioned in the bible with more than one wife? It's in their religious book, yet society seems appalled by shows like Big Love and Sister Wives. If it was cool back then, then why is it not now??

Now again, I don't believe in a god, but doesn't most religions teach you that you were made in your god's image? Or teach you that your god loves all his/her creatures?

What I'm trying to say is, you are who you are. Live life however you see fit, and whichever way makes you happy. Be true to yourself and don't try to live under anyone else's expectation of what you should and shouldn't be. But also (and most importantly) don't judge others for living their lives differently than you live yours.

If being in a plural marriage is what you want, then more power to you. I don't think your god or anyone else's will look down on you for fulfilling your wants/desires in life.
 

AphroditeGoneAwry

New member
I am atheist, so bare with me...but aren't there multiple men mentioned in the bible with more than one wife? It's in their religious book, yet society seems appalled by shows like Big Love and Sister Wives. If it was cool back then, then why is it not now??

Now again, I don't believe in a god, but doesn't most religions teach you that you were made in your god's image? Or teach you that your god loves all his/her creatures?

What I'm trying to say is, you are who you are. Live life however you see fit, and whichever way makes you happy. Be true to yourself and don't try to live under anyone else's expectation of what you should and shouldn't be. But also (and most importantly) don't judge others for living their lives differently than you live yours.

If being in a plural marriage is what you want, then more power to you. I don't think your god or anyone else's will look down on you for fulfilling your wants/desires in life.


Right on.
 
Last edited:

kdt26417

Official Greeter
Staff member
If there is (a) God/dess/es, then I'm sure He/She/It/They is/are perfectly cool about polygamy (such as polygyny and polyandry). As long as all of the people in the arrangement are treated kindly and fairly, of course.

It certainly blows a hole in modern Christianity's monogamy-centric culture when you consider ancient patriarchs like Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, etc. ... and how about that Solomon?? for crying out loud. Yes, it was quite fine (prestigious in fact, I think) to have lots of wives in the Old Testament.

Unfortunately, polyamorists can't use the Bible with vigor because the Bible *only* condones patriarchal polygyny; it does *not* condone polyandry. Men could have multiple wives, but women couldn't have multiple husbands. The bottom line is that the Bible only supports a kind of poly that makes men superior to women. Indeed, in Biblical culture, women were generally thought of as glorified cattle. As polyamorists, I think we'll want to avoid associating ourselves with that kind of thinking. So, while we can use the Bible to shoot holes in modern Christianity's monogamy-centric culture, we can't use it to advance the kind of thinking we want to encourage in today's world.

We need people to embrace polygamy -- and polyamory -- for the purpose of making things more fair and enlightened for both men and women -- not for the purpose of going backwards into Old Testament values (where women were mere chattels).

Hopefully it's not too late to reclaim the word polygamy, which is supposed to denote multiple husbands as well as multiple wives. The word for just multiple wives is polygyny (with polyandry for multiple husbands). Patriarchal polygyny is still practiced in the Middle East and many other parts of the world, so that part of the Old Testament lives on. Polyandry is practiced in a few places.
 

AphroditeGoneAwry

New member
If there is (a) God/dess/es, then I'm sure He/She/It/They is/are perfectly cool about polygamy (such as polygyny and polyandry). As long as all of the people in the arrangement are treated kindly and fairly, of course.

It certainly blows a hole in modern Christianity's monogamy-centric culture when you consider ancient patriarchs like Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, etc. ... and how about that Solomon?? for crying out loud. Yes, it was quite fine (prestigious in fact, I think) to have lots of wives in the Old Testament.

Unfortunately, polyamorists can't use the Bible with vigor because the Bible *only* condones patriarchal polygyny; it does *not* condone polyandry. Men could have multiple wives, but women couldn't have multiple husbands. The bottom line is that the Bible only supports a kind of poly that makes men superior to women. Indeed, in Biblical culture, women were generally thought of as glorified cattle. As polyamorists, I think we'll want to avoid associating ourselves with that kind of thinking. So, while we can use the Bible to shoot holes in modern Christianity's monogamy-centric culture, we can't use it to advance the kind of thinking we want to encourage in today's world.

We need people to embrace polygamy -- and polyamory -- for the purpose of making things more fair and enlightened for both men and women -- not for the purpose of going backwards into Old Testament values (where women were mere chattels).

Hopefully it's not too late to reclaim the word polygamy, which is supposed to denote multiple husbands as well as multiple wives. The word for just multiple wives is polygyny (with polyandry for multiple husbands). Patriarchal polygyny is still practiced in the Middle East and many other parts of the world, so that part of the Old Testament lives on. Polyandry is practiced in a few places.

Thank you so much for your response.

It has given me much to think about. I believe fully that the Bible of old is still relevant and wonderful today, in all of its aspects, old testament and new.

You have corroborated for me, and brought to light something I knew but could not yet see, that polygyny is condoned by God but polyandry really is not. It is also interesting to note that God has not expressly forbidden women sleeping with women, only men with men. So polygyny might provide ample opportunities for women to practice 'poly' in a God-sanctioned marriage with their co-wives. Whereas polyandry would lead to temptation and sin as men might become sexual partners. Plus, anecdotally, men usually state one of their primitive and deep desires is to see two women together. I suspect this ties in with polygyny being the Godly choice.

Indeed, I am recalling something about Celtic cultures being the ones most likely to practice polyandry? That would not surprise me as Celtic cultures are pagan and paganism is as far removed from God as it gets, and is actually a precursor to devil-worship.

God points us in the right direction if we but listen, but He does not make us choose the right way. It is actually self-righteous Christians who have made monogamy the moral code, and enforced that with man-made law. It bears mentioning that it is not God doing that!

It is important to note that Adam, Noah, Job, and Isaac only had one wife and they were highly esteemed men who walked with God. God does not favor polygyny for all men nor women, yet He does not make it a sin within the realm of marriage. Also, some men have terrible problems associated with their polygamy, such as Jacob, whose sons sold their own brother into slavery due to jealousy!

Also, you must not do much Bible study because God obviously loves women and sets them apart. Again, if women have been treated as chattel, it has been men over the millenia who have decided on their own to do that. God made women to be men's help-mate and equal. Jesus reinforced that and made it right where Moses and men had gotten it wrong (like in divorcing your wife without real thought as to her well-being). God gave the gift of life to women, not men. God loves women. Just because sinful and hateful men have denigrated God's word and intent, that has nothing to do with the sovereignty or beneficence of monotheism or God.
 
Last edited:

Magdlyn

Moderator
Staff member
It has given me much to think about. I believe fully that the Bible of old is still relevant and wonderful today, in all of its aspects, old testament and new.

OK, good to know. Then why on earth do you name yourself after a pagan goddess, Aphrodite? And how are you awry?

You have corroborated for me, and brought to light something I knew but could not yet see, that polygyny is condoned by God but polyandry really is not. It is also interesting to note that God has not expressly forbidden women sleeping with women, only men with men. So polygyny might provide ample opportunities for women to practice 'poly' in a God-sanctioned marriage with their co-wives.

Unless they happen to be straight and not bisexual!

Whereas polyandry would lead to temptation and sin as men might become sexual partners. Plus, anecdotally, men usually state one of their primitive and deep desires is to see two women together. I suspect this ties in with polygyny being the Godly choice.

Well, no. It means (most) men are horny bastards and love to watch 2 women fuck each other, or to get a bj from 2 women at once, or have 2 vaginas to go back and forth between. There is a lot of fun stuff to do sexually rather than one on one MF "missionary" position. I don't think it has anything to do with what "Yahweh wants or sanctions."

Indeed, I am recalling something about Celtic cultures being the ones most likely to practice polyandry? That would not surprise me as Celtic cultures are pagan and paganism is as far removed from God as it gets, and is actually a precursor to devil-worship.

Ohh girl. Do not even go there. Your attitude is from an antiquated book where there was a severe rift between monotheists and polytheists. And there was a shift from a female centered pantheon where Asherah (in that region) was supreme. Women worshiped this female fertility god. Women were associated with constancy, whereas male gods were associated with crops. Tammuz or Baal were considered Asherah's young consorts, who died and rose again with the growing season. Jesus is a similar god, who is born, dies, and rises again. The 2 Marys are a double sided goddess who represent the constancy of Asherah, and her fertile powers (sex and birth). Christianity is not really monotheistic at all.

God points us in the right direction if we but listen, but He does not make us choose the right way. It is actually self-righteous Christians who have made monogamy the moral code, and enforced that with man-made law. It bears mentioning that it is not God doing that!

Well, being that the Pauline Epistles are the first Christian writings we have, and Paul promoted celibacy, and marriage with one other person only as a last resort (since he imagined the world as we know it was about to end), Christianity got off to a bad, sex-negative start. Also in the canonical Bible (the canon was chosen, by Rome, out of hundreds of other gospels and acts for political reasons), Jesus is mostly depicted as celibate, but actually Mary Magdalene's role as sex partner is apparent if you look closely. And it is obvious in non-canonical books. She is considered above the other apostles, with more gnosis in her little finger than they had between the 12 of their dunderheads.

I am sure Jews of that time still practiced polygyny, but it takes $ to do that, and Jews were persecuted and most probably couldn't afford to support more than one wife much by that point. And the rulers of the Empire and Judaea, the Romans/Greeks, well, they were living in a culture that was quite homosexual, and marriage with women was often just for breeding.

Also, you must not do much Bible study because God obviously loves women and sets them apart.

Kevin has done a ton of Bible study and so have I. It turned him from a Mormon to an atheist. I was raised Christian, left the church, ended up in my own spiritual comfort zone that embraces certain aspects of many religions. I have studied the New Testament and Old Testament Bible, and the Jewish take on their Tanakh, and the alternate Christian gnostic gospels and acts considered heresy by Rome, as well as Egyptian, Babylonian, Assyrian, Persian, Greek, Roman, Norse, Hindu, Buddhist and Celtic religions.

Again, if women have been treated as chattel, it has been men over the millenia who have decided on their own to do that. God made women to be men's help-mate and equal.

Yahweh cursed Eve for listening to the serpent (who is actually Asherah, btw, not "the devil." The Jews had no devil in those days). Yahweh told Eve her husband would rule over her, and her desire would (should) be to her one husband only. How is that fair? How is she his equal if she is his subject/submissive? How is it fair if he can have multiple wives but she can't have multiple husbands?

Jesus reinforced that and made it right where Moses and men had gotten it wrong (like in divorcing your wife without real thought as to her well-being).

Well, yeah, but Jews had already gotten to that point, making divorce difficult, protecting the woman who had no livelihood unless supported by a man. Read some Jewish "rabbinical" lit from that time. It was nothing new Jesus was saying, about divorce or anything else, really.

I know the Prophets in Tanakh disagree about whether all of the laws Moses was said to have gotten on the mountain actually were Yahweh's will or not. One prophet says God doesn't want sacrifices at all, even though precise laws for sacrifice are in Leviticus, and Yahweh says he wants the sweet smoky savor. The Bible is confusing, no doubt, because it reflects many different takes on what god wants and what people need to live good lives.

God gave the gift of life to women, not men.

Well, we share it. We do need that sperm. But yeah, men fear women's power in being able to give birth and breastfeed. It's really awesome. I think, however, women are more honored in many pagan religions than in Abrahamic ones. I am only comfortable with the Trinity if it's God, a female Goddess, and Jesus (the yin to whose yang is his wife Mary M), representing humanity.

God loves women. Just because sinful and hateful men have denigrated God's word and intent, that has nothing to do with the sovereignty or beneficence of monotheism or God.

Well, it was men wrote the Bible. Not women. Not "God." Men living in a fiercely patriarchal culture. Women WERE chattel with no more rights than a mooing cow. Chattel and cattle are the exact same word. Men OWNED women and children, they were no greater than slaves, with perhaps, even less rights than slaves of that time.

The modern polyamory movement exists because of feminism and breaking away from a literalist view of Bible. Now that we women can make a good living (sort of) and control our fertility, we ARE finally becoming more equal to men, unlike the previous 2000 years of being held back by blind belief in the Bible and sin. Therefore we demand, in poly-romantic relationships, the right to take 2 or more MEN as lovers and partners, if we so desire.
 

A2Poly

New member
Thank you, Mags. That was much more calm and well stated than anything I'd have been able to write.
 

AphroditeGoneAwry

New member
OK, good to know. Then why on earth do you name yourself after a pagan goddess, Aphrodite? And how are you awry?

I made that name when I was still a pagan, and it is more convenient to use it as my pseudonym now, than to make up a new one, for forums such as this.



Unless they happen to be straight and not bisexual!


It's all a subset of "sexual" though. Who you love is who you love, regardless of who you want to sex with.


Well, no. It means (most) men are horny bastards and love to watch 2 women fuck each other, or to get a bj from 2 women at once, or have 2 vaginas to go back and forth between. There is a lot of fun stuff to do sexually rather than one on one MF "missionary" position. I don't think it has anything to do with what "Yahweh wants or sanctions."

It's still a primitive desire that plays out in modern society. Another such manifestation is older men with younger women. Again, God seems to make that more accessible and desirable, as illustrated by it being very common in our world. I'm not sure why as I haven't explored this much (preferring younger men myself).



Ohh girl. Do not even go there. Your attitude is from an antiquated book where there was a severe rift between monotheists and polytheists. And there was a shift from a female centered pantheon where Asherah (in that region) was supreme. Women worshiped this female fertility god. Women were associated with constancy, whereas male gods were associated with crops. Tammuz or Baal were considered Asherah's young consorts, who died and rose again with the growing season. Jesus is a similar god, who is born, dies, and rises again. The 2 Marys are a double sided goddess who represent the constancy of Asherah, and her fertile powers (sex and birth). Christianity is not really monotheistic at all.

And what is your attitude from? At least my book has stood the test of time, and helped an infinite number of people find peace.

Christianity, and indeed monotheism itself (without Christianity), does inhabit many forms of the One God, so I would agree with you there.

The difference being that the pagans had many different gods based upon the region in which they lived, for many different events. This we know best as carried on by the Greeks and Romans in their many gods for many purposes. Just because some Christians might worship Mary, does not make Mary God.

Well, being that the Pauline Epistles are the first Christian writings we have, and Paul promoted celibacy, and marriage with one other person only as a last resort (since he imagined the world as we know it was about to end), Christianity got off to a bad, sex-negative start. Also in the canonical Bible (the canon was chosen, by Rome, out of hundreds of other gospels and acts for political reasons), Jesus is mostly depicted as celibate, but actually Mary Magdalene's role as sex partner is apparent if you look closely. And it is obvious in non-canonical books. She is considered above the other apostles, with more gnosis in her little finger than they had between the 12 of their dunderheads.

I agree. I dislike the course Paul led Christianity and monotheism down. I think if you use Paul as a guidebook, and not the word of God (which I don't believe it is), it can help many. Again, just because misguided Christians took monogamy out of his words and ran with it, does not mean God intended that sort of lifestyle for all. It is best to look to either the old testament or Jesus' words for guidance in what God truly wants for us.

As far as Mary Magdalene, she was in love with Jesus and a servant to Him. But there is a reason He was worshiped by many over these millenia, and not her. She was a follower, He a Lord. We should all, men and women, follow her example and try to follow as closely to Jesus as she did.

I am sure Jews of that time still practiced polygyny, but it takes $ to do that, and Jews were persecuted and most probably couldn't afford to support more than one wife much by that point. And the rulers of the Empire and Judaea, the Romans/Greeks, well, they were living in a culture that was quite homosexual, and marriage with women was often just for breeding.

Okay. I'm not surprised. They even partook in a form of pedophilia in their practice of pederasty. This is just more reason to realize they should not be who we consciously base our foundation upon. We should choose instead to be mindful of God, Jesus, and His Law.



Kevin has done a ton of Bible study and so have I. It turned him from a Mormon to an atheist. I was raised Christian, left the church, ended up in my own spiritual comfort zone that embraces certain aspects of many religions. I have studied the New Testament and Old Testament Bible, and the Jewish take on their Tanakh, and the alternate Christian gnostic gospels and acts considered heresy by Rome, as well as Egyptian, Babylonian, Assyrian, Persian, Greek, Roman, Norse, Hindu, Buddhist and Celtic religions.

Sounds like you have spend some valuable time and some wasted time. As most of us have. :)

"And you shall not turn aside from any of the words which I command you today, to the right hand, or to the left, to go after other gods to serve them." ~Deuteronomy 28:14

"And so it may not happen that a person when cursed, blesses himself instead, saying, “I shall have peace, even though I walk in the imagination of my heart.” ~Deuteronomy 29:19

Yahweh cursed Eve for listening to the serpent (who is actually Asherah, btw, not "the devil." The Jews had no devil in those days). Yahweh told Eve her husband would rule over her, and her desire would (should) be to her one husband only. How is that fair? How is she his equal if she is his subject/submissive? How is it fair if he can have multiple wives but she can't have multiple husbands?

Everyone needs a master or Lord, if you prefer. Humans are like sheep, we will wonder off and get lost easily, if not led. Women and men need God as our Lord and Master. Subjugate to that is that woman serves her man, and man serves his Lord. It is a hierarchy created by God.

Eve was cursed with childbirth and having her husband rule over her, and Adam was cursed with having to always work.

How is it 'equal'? Well, it takes some opening of the mind to think in other-worldly terms here, because it is human nature to be very caught up in 'equality' as defined by society. We see being soft and malleable as being weak. We see serving as being less than leading. Yet using God as our framework, being servants to God, and humbling oneself to His Holiness, is the highest state one can achieve! It is called transcendence. (as you would agree many religions, like Buddhism, adopt this concept)

And leading, or being in charge, for a man, is WORK. Any master will tell you that it takes a lot of thought and effort to be a good and effective master, and to be in charge. So there are advantages and disadvantages to both.

Why is it fair? Because God made you and me. God chose who you would be. You did not make yourself. He is the One in charge, the One who makes the rules. Many things man sees as 'unfair' by our worldly definitions, like cancer, yet God has a plan we cannot see nor understand. And that Plan is much greater than we are, yet it involves us personally on a very deep level. That is the great paradox of God.



Well, yeah, but Jews had already gotten to that point, making divorce difficult, protecting the woman who had no livelihood unless supported by a man. Read some Jewish "rabbinical" lit from that time. It was nothing new Jesus was saying, about divorce or anything else, really.

I know the Prophets in Tanakh disagree about whether all of the laws Moses was said to have gotten on the mountain actually were Yahweh's will or not. One prophet says God doesn't want sacrifices at all, even though precise laws for sacrifice are in Leviticus, and Yahweh says he wants the sweet smoky savor. The Bible is confusing, no doubt, because it reflects many different takes on what god wants and what people need to live good lives.



Well, we share it. We do need that sperm. But yeah, men fear women's power in being able to give birth and breastfeed. It's really awesome. I think, however, women are more honored in many pagan religions than in Abrahamic ones. I am only comfortable with the Trinity if it's God, a female Goddess, and Jesus (the yin to whose yang is his wife Mary M), representing humanity.
Nice discussion. Best I've had in a long time. I have to go to work now. I will respond to the rest when I can! <3


Well, it was men wrote the Bible. Not women. Not "God." Men living in a fiercely patriarchal culture. Women WERE chattel with no more rights than a mooing cow. Chattel and cattle are the exact same word. Men OWNED women and children, they were no greater than slaves, with perhaps, even less rights than slaves of that time.

The modern polyamory movement exists because of feminism and breaking away from a literalist view of Bible. Now that we women can make a good living (sort of) and control our fertility, we ARE finally becoming more equal to men, unlike the previous 2000 years of being held back by blind belief in the Bible and sin. Therefore we demand, in poly-romantic relationships, the right to take 2 or more MEN as lovers and partners, if we so desire.
 

Magdlyn

Moderator
Staff member
I made that name when I was still a pagan, and it is more convenient to use it as my pseudonym now, than to make up a new one, for forums such as this.

Oh, I see. You are a new convert to Christian fundamentalism. With all the fanatacism and black and white thinking that goes with it. Well, I have no chance of de-converting you, but I'll respond since it's my hobby, this Bible stuff.

It's all a subset of "sexual" though. Who you love is who you love, regardless of who you want to sex with.

Straight women can love each other in a sororal way, but polygyny does not supply an "ample" amount of sexual romantic love for women in one man/several women plural marriages. So no, it wouldn't be any kind of sexual subset at all. That seems obvious.

It's still a primitive desire that plays out in modern society.

I find your use of the term "primitive" offensive. Anything but MF straight sex is "primitive" in your book I guess.

Another such manifestation is older men with younger women. Again, God seems to make that more accessible and desirable, as illustrated by it being very common in our world. I'm not sure why as I haven't explored this much (preferring younger men myself).

Ha! Younger women are drawn to older men because those men have had longer to amass a good income and savings. Another failing of the patriarchy.

Younger men are drawn to older women (like me and you) because I am not looking for marriage, and I am well experienced and uninhibited in the sack. And I am drawn to them for their youthful enthusiasm and cocks made of steel.:)

And what is your attitude from? At least my book has stood the test of time, and helped an infinite number of people find peace.

There are plenty of ancient religions that bring people peace. If you were living in Japan, chances are you'd be Shinto or Buddhist. If you were Indian, Hindu. If you were in the Middle East, a Muslima.

My spiritual attitude comes from educating myself on world religions, as I said upthread. Also I feel God in nature, and during sex, which is sacred to me, and I practice it as often and as intensely as ever I can.

The difference being that the pagans had many different gods based upon the region in which they lived, for many different events.

Well, sure. There were state gods in Rome, and there were more personal gods too, in the mystery religions of the day. But you still live in a culture highly influenced by Christianity, and therefore were drawn to it.

This we know best as carried on by the Greeks and Romans in their many gods for many purposes. Just because some Christians might worship Mary, does not make Mary God.

Well, the 2 Marys, Virgin and Consort, are obvious archetypes of 2 aspect of the same energy. Mythologically speaking, there is a reason they share the same name. Just as Jesus shares the name (Yeshua/Joshua) with Moses' successor.


I agree. I dislike the course Paul led Christianity and monotheism down. I think if you use Paul as a guidebook, and not the word of God (which I don't believe it is), it can help many. Again, just because misguided Christians took monogamy out of his words and ran with it, does not mean God intended that sort of lifestyle for all. It is best to look to either the old testament or Jesus' words for guidance in what God truly wants for us.

But Paul invented Christianity. The Gospels were written as hagiographies of a certain Messiah type who may or may not have existed. Each Gospel differs on who and what he was. What he said? I don't believe anything written as coming from his mouth were his actual words verbatim. Bibical historians (like the Jesus seminar) found merely 18% of his words to be possibly historical (unique). And they were being generous. Others find nothing in his words that weren't common ideas found in Jewish and pagan cultures of that time.

As far as Mary Magdalene, she was in love with Jesus and a servant to Him. But there is a reason He was worshiped by many over these millenia, and not her. She was a follower, He a Lord. We should all, men and women, follow her example and try to follow as closely to Jesus as she did.

Actually she does have many cathedrals and shrines in Europe to this day. Of course Mariology is strong in the Catholic church. Women seem more approachable to many.

Gnostics wrote that God sent Mary Magdalene down to earth to help Jesus get his message across. She was his anointer. She made him holy.

Okay. I'm not surprised. They even partook in a form of pedophilia in their practice of pederasty. This is just more reason to realize they should not be who we consciously base our foundation upon. We should choose instead to be mindful of God, Jesus, and His Law.

Thanks for "witnessing" to me with your "shoulds." I think that is a bit off topic though. And please don't judge the Greeks by your own culture's standards. If it was OK for women to be chattel in your book, it was seen by the Greeks as best for older men to mentor the younger ones, and in those days, it was seen as OK for young people to have sex with older ones as well. Young men were also idolized by the Greeks. Hmm, it carries on today with some Catholic priests? At the time, the culture supported it.

I am not saying it was ideal, since if a guy wasn't actually gay, or attracted to his mentor, he didn't really have a choice to not have sex with him. But then again, women didn't marry who they loved back then, marriages were all arranged for economic reasons, or for tribal bonds. All of Solomon's wives (according to the myth) were pagan princesses from surrounding states. Women may or may not have been attracted to their assigned husband. But that was just their tough luck.

"And you shall not turn aside from any of the words which I command you today, to the right hand, or to the left, to go after other gods to serve them." ~Deuteronomy 28:14

"And so it may not happen that a person when cursed, blesses himself instead, saying, “I shall have peace, even though I walk in the imagination of my heart.” ~Deuteronomy 29:19

Right. Mind control and zenophobia at its best.


Everyone needs a master or Lord, if you prefer.

Well... not all people are kinky and into D/s!

Humans are like sheep, we will wonder off and get lost easily, if not led. Women and men need God as our Lord and Master. Subjugate to that is that woman serves her man, and man serves his Lord. It is a hierarchy created by God.

Ah well, I am not a sheep. I think for myself as much as possible. I get along fine without that hierarchy.

However, I am kinky, and a switch and I do like giving orders, or taking them, depending on my mood.

Eve was cursed with childbirth and having her husband rule over her, and Adam was cursed with having to always work.

haha like women don't work. The word often translated as pain for women and labor for men, is the exact same word. This was just an example of early Jewish civilization trying to explain why women should sit down and shut up. Previous to this, female goddesses were invoked during childbirth... Asherah in Canaan, Hathor in Egypt and so on. It seems weird to have a male god take over childbirth, but even in this day, men seems to want to control childbirth.

How is it 'equal'? Well, it takes some opening of the mind to think in other-worldly terms here, because it is human nature to be very caught up in 'equality' as defined by society. We see being soft and malleable as being weak. We see serving as being less than leading. Yet using God as our framework, being servants to God, and humbling oneself to His Holiness, is the highest state one can achieve! It is called transcendence. (as you would agree many religions, like Buddhism, adopt this concept)...

I like to humble myself while looking at the stars or the ocean crashing on a beach. Don't need a book or a male god to do that.

And leading, or being in charge, for a man, is WORK. Any master will tell you that it takes a lot of thought and effort to be a good and effective master, and to be in charge. So there are advantages and disadvantages to both.

Yes, but women can be, and are, leaders too. I am a Leader. You've led as well. Why should that be associated with males only!?

Why is it fair? Because God made you and me. God chose who you would be. You did not make yourself. He is the One in charge, the One who makes the rules. Many things man sees as 'unfair' by our worldly definitions, like cancer, yet God has a plan we cannot see nor understand. And that Plan is much greater than we are, yet it involves us personally on a very deep level. That is the great paradox of God.

Yeah, that's what people say. I don't buy it. It's bullshit to me and rings false.

I won't tell you my way is what should work for you, that is arrogant. We are all on our own personal spiritual journeys and end up with whatever gets us through the night.

Just still don't think you can be your sort of Christian and go after these young men you so "primitively" desire. Sorry.
 

Magdlyn

Moderator
Staff member

kdt26417

Official Greeter
Staff member
Oh Jeezh, I hope I didn't give any offense regarding the Bible. Like puzzles, I am an atheist, and sometimes I forget that others are believers (in things I once believed, long ago). I don't like it when people diss my belief system, and I don't want to treat anyone else that way either. So I ask your pardon if I did give any offense.

Re (from AphroditeGoneAwry):
"Indeed, I am recalling something about Celtic cultures being the ones most likely to practice polyandry?"

Hmmm, interesting thought. I have no idea what sort of relationship models the Celtic cultures practiced.

Re: Isaac ... crap, I got that one wrong. Isaac did only have one wife. (Or only one that was recorded in today's Bible.)

According to Wikipedia, "The Hebrew Bible indicates that polygyny was practiced in ancient Israelite societies. Though the institution was not widely practiced, it was not unusual, and was not prohibited. On occasion polygamy was obligatory. It also is discouraged in the Bible [namely the Mosaic Law commands that kings should not have many wives (Deut. 17:17). When Solomon took 1000 wives and concubines, the Bible cites his polygamy as the reason of the fall of his faith, and for his kingdom being torn in two after his death (1 Kings 11:1-12)]. The Bible mentions approximately forty polygynists, including Abraham, Jacob, Esau, David and King Solomon, with little or no further remark on the institution."

Numbers of wives:

  • Abraham had one wife: Sarai a.k.a. Sarah, and one consort: Hagar.
  • Isaac had one wife: Rebekah.
  • Jacob had two primary wives: Rachel and Leah, and two secondary wives: Bilhah and Zilpah.
  • Esau had three wives? six wives? the Biblical text has some uncertainty.
  • David had eight wives: Michal, Ahinoam, Abigail, Maachah, Haggith, Abital, Eglah, and Bathsheba ... plus concubines.
  • Solomon had 700 wives and 300 concubines.
Re:
"God loves women."

I agree.

Re: men's tendency to fantasize about girl-on-girl action ... while I can't speak for other men, I personally don't have that particular fantasy (that I know of). Sometimes I wonder if it isn't propogated more by the porn industry than it is by real men, but I could be totally wrong about that.

Re: men's tendency to be horny bastards ... I might have to plead guilty on that charge. :)

Re (from Post #8):
"Everyone needs a master or Lord, if you prefer. Humans are like sheep, we will wonder off and get lost easily, if not led. Women and men need God as our Lord and Master."

That reminds me of something my oldest brother might say. He remains a faithful Mormon, and tends to view humans as basically evil creatures, who, without the leadership of God, are lost. My brother is the nicest man I've ever known, so, I try not to argue with him ... but I admit I am inclined to see humans as basically good inside, as long as they are not deceived by wicked doctrines.
 

Magdlyn

Moderator
Staff member
Kevin, why do you agree with the idea "God loves women," if you are an atheist? Which god? Do you mean Yahweh of the Old Testament loves women? Or something else?
 

kdt26417

Official Greeter
Staff member
Heh, I mean the hypothetical God/dess/es that might exist, the one/s I'd be the most inclined to believe in. One of my old Utah buddies is 100% atheist now; that is, he doesn't believe one bit in any God. I consider myself a 99% atheist -- technically agnostic but why call myself an agnostic over a mere 1%. There could be a God. Anything's possible. I just highly, highly doubt it.

My belief in the Yahweh of the Old Testament is about a millionth of 1%, and if that's the God that exists, then no, I don't think He is overly fond of women. No offense, that's just my perception.
 

Magdlyn

Moderator
Staff member
I mean the hypothetical God/dess/es that might exist, the one/s I'd be the most inclined to believe in... I consider myself a 99% atheist... There could be a God. Anything's possible. I just highly, highly doubt it.

My belief in the Yahweh of the Old Testament is about a millionth of 1%, and if that's the God that exists, then no, I don't think He is overly fond of women.

All right then. Much clearer, thanks.
 

AphroditeGoneAwry

New member
Oh, I see. You are a new convert to Christian fundamentalism. With all the fanatacism and black and white thinking that goes with it. Well, I have no chance of de-converting you, but I'll respond since it's my hobby, this Bible stuff.



Straight women can love each other in a sororal way, but polygyny does not supply an "ample" amount of sexual romantic love for women in one man/several women plural marriages. So no, it wouldn't be any kind of sexual subset at all. That seems obvious.



I find your use of the term "primitive" offensive. Anything but MF straight sex is "primitive" in your book I guess.



Ha! Younger women are drawn to older men because those men have had longer to amass a good income and savings. Another failing of the patriarchy.

Younger men are drawn to older women (like me and you) because I am not looking for marriage, and I am well experienced and uninhibited in the sack. And I am drawn to them for their youthful enthusiasm and cocks made of steel.:)



There are plenty of ancient religions that bring people peace. If you were living in Japan, chances are you'd be Shinto or Buddhist. If you were Indian, Hindu. If you were in the Middle East, a Muslima.

My spiritual attitude comes from educating myself on world religions, as I said upthread. Also I feel God in nature, and during sex, which is sacred to me, and I practice it as often and as intensely as ever I can.



Well, sure. There were state gods in Rome, and there were more personal gods too, in the mystery religions of the day. But you still live in a culture highly influenced by Christianity, and therefore were drawn to it.



Well, the 2 Marys, Virgin and Consort, are obvious archetypes of 2 aspect of the same energy. Mythologically speaking, there is a reason they share the same name. Just as Jesus shares the name (Yeshua/Joshua) with Moses' successor.




But Paul invented Christianity. The Gospels were written as hagiographies of a certain Messiah type who may or may not have existed. Each Gospel differs on who and what he was. What he said? I don't believe anything written as coming from his mouth were his actual words verbatim. Bibical historians (like the Jesus seminar) found merely 18% of his words to be possibly historical (unique). And they were being generous. Others find nothing in his words that weren't common ideas found in Jewish and pagan cultures of that time.



Actually she does have many cathedrals and shrines in Europe to this day. Of course Mariology is strong in the Catholic church. Women seem more approachable to many.

Gnostics wrote that God sent Mary Magdalene down to earth to help Jesus get his message across. She was his anointer. She made him holy.



Thanks for "witnessing" to me with your "shoulds." I think that is a bit off topic though. And please don't judge the Greeks by your own culture's standards. If it was OK for women to be chattel in your book, it was seen by the Greeks as best for older men to mentor the younger ones, and in those days, it was seen as OK for young people to have sex with older ones as well. Young men were also idolized by the Greeks. Hmm, it carries on today with some Catholic priests? At the time, the culture supported it.

I am not saying it was ideal, since if a guy wasn't actually gay, or attracted to his mentor, he didn't really have a choice to not have sex with him. But then again, women didn't marry who they loved back then, marriages were all arranged for economic reasons, or for tribal bonds. All of Solomon's wives (according to the myth) were pagan princesses from surrounding states. Women may or may not have been attracted to their assigned husband. But that was just their tough luck.



Right. Mind control and zenophobia at its best.




Well... not all people are kinky and into D/s!



Ah well, I am not a sheep. I think for myself as much as possible. I get along fine without that hierarchy.

However, I am kinky, and a switch and I do like giving orders, or taking them, depending on my mood.



haha like women don't work. The word often translated as pain for women and labor for men, is the exact same word. This was just an example of early Jewish civilization trying to explain why women should sit down and shut up. Previous to this, female goddesses were invoked during childbirth... Asherah in Canaan, Hathor in Egypt and so on. It seems weird to have a male god take over childbirth, but even in this day, men seems to want to control childbirth.



I like to humble myself while looking at the stars or the ocean crashing on a beach. Don't need a book or a male god to do that.



Yes, but women can be, and are, leaders too. I am a Leader. You've led as well. Why should that be associated with males only!?



Yeah, that's what people say. I don't buy it. It's bullshit to me and rings false.

I won't tell you my way is what should work for you, that is arrogant. We are all on our own personal spiritual journeys and end up with whatever gets us through the night.

Just still don't think you can be your sort of Christian and go after these young men you so "primitively" desire. Sorry.


So much to argue, so little point.


:p
 

AphroditeGoneAwry

New member
My response is for all, I just chose to address you as I find your posting style the most inviting. I encourage all to address my post, as they wish.


Oh Jeezh, I hope I didn't give any offense regarding the Bible. Like puzzles, I am an atheist, and sometimes I forget that others are believers (in things I once believed, long ago). I don't like it when people diss my belief system, and I don't want to treat anyone else that way either. So I ask your pardon if I did give any offense.

Re (from AphroditeGoneAwry):


Hmmm, interesting thought. I have no idea what sort of relationship models the Celtic cultures practiced.

Re: Isaac ... crap, I got that one wrong. Isaac did only have one wife. (Or only one that was recorded in today's Bible.)

According to Wikipedia, "The Hebrew Bible indicates that polygyny was practiced in ancient Israelite societies. Though the institution was not widely practiced, it was not unusual, and was not prohibited. On occasion polygamy was obligatory. It also is discouraged in the Bible [namely the Mosaic Law commands that kings should not have many wives (Deut. 17:17). When Solomon took 1000 wives and concubines, the Bible cites his polygamy as the reason of the fall of his faith, and for his kingdom being torn in two after his death (1 Kings 11:1-12)]. The Bible mentions approximately forty polygynists, including Abraham, Jacob, Esau, David and King Solomon, with little or no further remark on the institution."

Numbers of wives:

  • Abraham had one wife: Sarai a.k.a. Sarah, and one consort: Hagar.
  • Isaac had one wife: Rebekah.
  • Jacob had two primary wives: Rachel and Leah, and two secondary wives: Bilhah and Zilpah.
  • Esau had three wives? six wives? the Biblical text has some uncertainty.
  • David had eight wives: Michal, Ahinoam, Abigail, Maachah, Haggith, Abital, Eglah, and Bathsheba ... plus concubines.
  • Solomon had 700 wives and 300 concubines.
Re:


I agree.

Re: men's tendency to fantasize about girl-on-girl action ... while I can't speak for other men, I personally don't have that particular fantasy (that I know of). Sometimes I wonder if it isn't propogated more by the porn industry than it is by real men, but I could be totally wrong about that.

Re: men's tendency to be horny bastards ... I might have to plead guilty on that charge. :)

Re (from Post #8):


That reminds me of something my oldest brother might say. He remains a faithful Mormon, and tends to view humans as basically evil creatures, who, without the leadership of God, are lost. My brother is the nicest man I've ever known, so, I try not to argue with him ... but I admit I am inclined to see humans as basically good inside, as long as they are not deceived by wicked doctrines.


Just for note: There is a law that states that a ruler shall not multiply wives for himself, nor shall his people multiply wives for him. It's not that polygyny was a sin, it wasn't, it was excessive polygyny which is a sin; which I think it can be argued both King David and King Solomon practiced.


God loves women so much. I'm not sure Moses' words in the Bible reflect this well, but blood is everything to God, and the power over life is His most sacred domain. Who does He entrust this to? Women. He does not say women cannot work, but that they will struggle to bear and raise children, which we do to this day. And that we will have difficult times as our men rule over us. He has Law which protects women and coddles them. A man is supposed to be excused from all work the first year of marriage....to make his wife happy! How cool is that? Does a feminist employer allow a male employee to take a year off, with pay, to please his wife? I doubt it. Yet this was how God's people lived for many eons.

The thing about the Bible is that, for being such an ancient document, written down in like 600 BC, with its oral form circulating probably since the time of Abraham (or before) around 2000 BC, it is poetically phenomenal and scientifically accurate; and remarkably relevant. I find this intoxicating.

Was this what made me a believer? No. Because to have eyes to see this, or ears to hear this, you must already have been called by God to believe in Him. That is why I do not bother responding to people like Mag beyond once or twice, because I know an intellectual debate will never prove the existence of God, nor make someone understand where I am coming from.

What made me a believer was Him whispering in my ear, and wooing me, and making me feel better and more complete in my soul than anything or anyone on earth could ever make me feel.

I ask everyone: Is he whispering in your ear? If so, I encourage you to listen to what He has to say.


EDIT: Also, I see nothing in the Bible stating that Polyandry is a sin. Only men sleeping with men.
 
Last edited:

Magdlyn

Moderator
Staff member
Nice discussion. Best I've had in a long time. I have to go to work now. I will respond to the rest when I can! <3

So much to argue, so little point.


:p

I do not bother responding to people like Mag beyond once or twice, because I know an intellectual debate will never prove the existence of God, nor make someone understand where I am coming from.

Yes, many fundamentalists are anti-intellect.

You go on record here that you believe there is accurate science in the Bible. Like the flat earth, and the sky like a big dome overhead, with "windows" that open to let rain out of the "storehouses," and a sky that can roll up like a scroll, letting the stars fall to earth?
 

kdt26417

Official Greeter
Staff member
I think of the Bible more as a book that has some allegorical value, but its historical accuracy is limited, and its scientific accuracy barely exists. The Adam and Eve story can't be literally true if humans gradually evolved from earlier apes. The Noah's Ark story leaves a ton of questions unanswered. I personally don't think anyone (not even Jesus) could walk on water, turn water into wine, or raise Lazarus from the dead.

But the Biblical miracle that blows my mind the most is when the Israelites were fighting the latest bad guys, and they needed an extra hour of Sunlight to wipe all the bad guys out. So, the Sun "froze" in the heavens for an hour. Great googly moogly! That means God would have had to stop the Earth from rotating for one hour (without jarring the people and stuff on the Earth's surface), then restart it. Moving mountains has nothing on that. Not saying an omnipotent Being couldn't do it, but what an extravagant way to solve a problem with such simpler solutions (e.g., strike all the bad guys dead with lightning or meteors). I mean that miracle didn't even have efficient power to impress. The people of the time wouldn't have appreciated how much energy such a feat would require. I suppose you could argue God did it to impress humans who have modern scientific knowledge though.

I don't know if God whispers to me, or if my own mind whispers to itself. I'm inclined to believe it's the latter, though if others feel they've heard the voice of God calling them to be believers, I won't argue. I can't jump inside someone else's skin and know what they've experienced.

Interesting Law that a man has to take a year off to please his wife. I don't suppose you could direct me to the chapter and verse? I want to see if this is a paid year off, and whether one year can be used to please multiple wives. (If not, then Solomon couldn't have obeyed that Law.)

I could be wrong about the Old Testament God; what I think is only my impression based on what I've read (and I haven't read the Bible a million times). If it all makes sense in the end, and God can explain the seeming inequities (and the bloodshed -- heavens did God ever want the good guys to kill a lot of people, including women and children), then I'll be glad to have been wrong about what I perceived.
 

Magdlyn

Moderator
Staff member
Deuteronomy 24:5


English Standard Version
When a man is newly married, he shall not go out with the army or be liable for any other public duty. He shall be free at home one year to be happy with his wife whom he has taken.

I bet that law wasn't often followed.
 

Magdlyn

Moderator
Staff member
I could be wrong about the Old Testament God; what I think is only my impression based on what I've read (and I haven't read the Bible a million times). If it all makes sense in the end, and God can explain the seeming inequities (and the bloodshed -- heavens did God ever want the good guys to kill a lot of people, including women and children), then I'll be glad to have been wrong about what I perceived.

Kevin, you're so optimistic. As if Yahweh the god of the ancient Israelites has anything to do with an ex-Mormon living on a continent no one had ever heard about 2000 years ago!

Yahweh was a son of El, the god of Babylon. That is in the Bible. Yahweh was assigned to a certain small tribe of nomads, the Israelites. The laws, or blessings, in Leviticus and restated in Deuteronomy later, were meant for this group. Ask any Jew, they will tell you Jews think it's very weird Gentiles try to follow laws meant for them.

Yahweh was a war god. He was thought to lead this struggling tribe of nomads into battle. In the myths in Genesis and Exodus the enemies were the Egyptians and Canaanites-- Moab, Edom, the Amalikites. Later the enemies were Assyria and Babylon.

Yahweh was also depicted as a fire god, who spoke from a burning bush and an erupting volcano, and was contained in a brazier which was carried by the escaping Israelites in their wanderings. Elijah called down Yahweh's fire to show off to the Asherah worshipers and burn them up.

It's primitive tribal stuff. Later of course, much was accreted to Yahweh about his law, his care, his wisdom, how to sacrifice to him, what he wanted his Temple to look like, etc.

What does this tiny nation from 2 millenia have to do with you today? Why would you expect an ancient tribal war and fire god to speak to you?

Now, the gnostics (early Christians) thought Jesus was talking about an entirely different god. His "Father" was the actual supreme god, and Yahweh was a bumbling junior god (or demon) who was called the Yaldabaoth, the demiurge.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demiurge#Yaldabaoth
 
Top