| Author | Comment | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
skepsi
|
Genesis 22:24 And his concubine, whose name was Reumah |
Lead | ||
|
Is it ok someone to have concubine and a child from her?
|
||||
|
|
||||
raphjd |
Re: Genesis 22:24 And his concubine, whose name was Reumah | #1 | ||
|
There are several stories in the bible that talk about men who have had a lot of wives, mistresses and knocking up their slave girls. God doesn't seem to mind this at all in the OT.
As far as the NT, goes I can't really think of it happening. So did god change his mind? Or is it still ok? No one seems to be sure on this. The only thing that is clearly stated is that you can't divorce a wife unless she committed adultry. If you divorce her without her committing adultry then you are committing adultry. You also can't have sex with a married woman, though I'm not sure if this applies to slave women as well. "If Homosexuals went back into the closet, then there would be no more Homosexuality in this world" - Tom DeLay, US Congressman R-TX |
||||
|
|
||||
Yark Hutprancer |
Re: Genesis 22:24 And his concubine, whose name was Reumah | #2 | ||
|
My guess is that polygamy was more or less accepted in many of the cultures in OT times. Thus, polygamous situations were viewed favorably by those making up religious stories. Eventually, societies evolved to generally prohibit polygamy.
It seems that by the time the New Testament was written, polygamy was kind of a thing of the past. I doubt that invisible superbeings had anything to do with any of it. "...the God I don't believe in is a good God, a just God, a merciful God. He's not the mean and stupid God you make him out to be." - Lt. Scheisskopf's wife, from Catch 22 by Joseph Heller |
||||
|
|
||||
Hawker Hurricane |
Re: Genesis 22:24 And his concubine, whose name was Reumah | #3 | ||
|
Roman/Greek custom, meet Hebrew/Middle East custom...
Romans (and Greeks) practiced monagamy (sort of, anyway), while Hebrew/Middle Eastern tribes practiced polygamy (if the husband could afford it). The OT, written by and for Hebrews follows Hebrew custom (of course), while the NT, trying to get Roman converts, calls for monagamy (or celibacy in some cases). God is
a. Omnipotent b. Omniscient c. Omnibenevolent Pick any two. |
||||
|
|
||||
Keith and Company |
Re: Genesis 22:24 And his concubine, whose name was Reumah | #4 | ||
Quote:Or more likely, was largely written by Roman converts, who inserted their own beliefs into the framework they were building. |
||||
|
|
||||
Yark Hutprancer |
My feeling as well | #5 | ||
|
"...the God I don't believe in is a good God, a just God, a merciful God. He's not the mean and stupid God you make him out to be." - Lt. Scheisskopf's wife, from Catch 22 by Joseph Heller |
||||
|
|
||||
raphjd |
Re: My feeling as well | #6 | ||
|
I agree with HH on this.
I think it was early christians trying to get Roman converts and that's why it changed. Look how some many other "facts" changed just to gain convert. The Resurrection was changed from Passover to the Easter festival {a pagan holiday}. The birth of Jesus is "supposed" to have actually happened in mid March, yet it was moved to the winter solstice{another pagan holiday}. IMHO it looks like they were just whoring for converts and changed whatever they thought they needed to, to get the most they could. "If Homosexuals went back into the closet, then there would be no more Homosexuality in this world" - Tom DeLay, US Congressman R-TX |
||||
|
|
||||
Yark Hutprancer |
Re: My feeling as well | #7 | ||
|
I generally tend to give the original framers of these religions the benefit of the doubt. I think that much of what they preached they actually believed. I think there was little intentional deception. I could be wrong, however.
"...the God I don't believe in is a good God, a just God, a merciful God. He's not the mean and stupid God you make him out to be." - Lt. Scheisskopf's wife, from Catch 22 by Joseph Heller |
||||
|
|
||||
Keith and Company |
Probably at least a little of both... | #8 | ||
|
It seems that monogamy would be something lost in a move to gain converts.
Foreskin removal not a requirement: Could be a move to gain converts, or a move BY converts to avoid the moel. Moving holy days to days already held holy by the Romans: Could be either. Dietary laws: lost as a recruitment tactic, or pushed out by swelling discontent among the converts. I can see relaxing the Jewish laws to make christainity more appealing to the converts, but i really feel that a second step of adopting Roman laws would have been a move made by the converts once they were christains, imposing their already-held-holy beliefs on the outcoming product of messianic judaism...i mean christainity. Consider the 'tales' told by military recruiters. They can't actually promise that you'll be laid in Tahiti by a wahine, but they do tell juicy stories about liberty ports. They don't point out the restrictions of the UCMJ that you'll be living under, or the loss of certain constitutional rights, but they lean heavily on moving out, getting paid, and not having to spend that salary on food or shelter. Party on, dude. As recruiters, you'd get more flies by telling men that God WANTED them to have more than one shorty in the crib. And even if they never wanted to actually acquire a spare wife, or were sure that wife number one wouldn't tolerate it, (see below, Mrs. BYU), the appeal of just knowing that it wasn't a sin to fantasize about it....well, that, for one, seems an imposed law, not a recruitment move. The legality of polygamy has been decided in the courts of our grand nation, but the fact of polygamy goes on, especially on the farms and in the enclaves across Utah. It is something mentioned in about every news story about 'mormon sepratists,' usually in connection with a shootout with the cops, that they are polygamists 'as god intended.' Brigham Young was married to Wife Number One before he got apprised by God that the secret to becoming a God in the next world was to have lots of babies that had lots of babies that had lots of babies in this one. The more descendents worshipping god THROUGH you, the more power you had, and the sooner you could make your own planet. Polygamy is merely a generational force-multiplier. Mrs. BYU didn't think much of the idea. Didn't see that Brigham should be in such an all-fired hurry to have that heavenly power. On the trek from Illinois to the ThisIsThePlace monument, Brigham's bodyguard, Porter Rockwell, had the main job of keeping him alive in the face of rather severe christain intolerance. After Salt Lake City was established, his mission statement creeped more over to making sure Brigham could visit his other....16 (IIRC) wives without getting caught by Wife #1. |
||||
|
|
||||
raphjd |
Re: Probably at least a little of both... | #9 | ||
|
I don't doubt that a lotof things were changed by the converts. BUT, they had to change a lot of things to get the converts in the first place.
"If Homosexuals went back into the closet, then there would be no more Homosexuality in this world" - Tom DeLay, US Congressman R-TX |
||||
|
|
||||
| Genesis 22:24 And his concubine, whose name was Reumah | 09/24/05 06:41:00 | skepsi |
| Re: Genesis 22:24 And his concubine, whose name was Reumah | 09/25/05 00:14:53 | raphjd |
| Re: Genesis 22:24 And his concubine, whose name was Reumah | 09/28/05 14:57:03 | Yark Hutprancer |
| Re: Genesis 22:24 And his concubine, whose name was Reumah | 09/29/05 08:16:34 | Hawker Hurricane |
| Re: Genesis 22:24 And his concubine, whose name was Reumah | 09/29/05 08:19:52 | Keith and Company |
| My feeling as well | 09/30/05 08:56:13 | Yark Hutprancer |
| Re: My feeling as well | 09/30/05 09:32:51 | raphjd |
| Re: My feeling as well | 09/30/05 09:43:30 | Yark Hutprancer |
| Probably at least a little of both... | 09/30/05 09:52:38 | Keith and Company |
| Re: Probably at least a little of both... | 10/02/05 14:28:56 | raphjd |