by AK - Jeff 46 Replies latest watchtower bible
I was never able to swallow fully the WTS's silly reasons on this one.
How could God require marital fidelity on one hand and allow his 'faithful ones' to engage in polygamy and in some cases in the OT the use of prostitutes to satisfy momentary needs? And on other the hand to condemn such?
No irreverance intended here - just an honest question.
Jeff
He didn't! The dirty old buggers who claimed to represent God allowed women to be abused in this way! Perverts!
Exactly my thoughts Gill. They're dirty old men past their prime. Why couldn't the faithful women of old have male concubines? Women have needs too.
Better question:
Why doesn't God still allow concubines among the faithful?
Only kidding...
SLim
He didn't! The dirty old buggers who claimed to represent God allowed women to be abused in this way! Perverts!
And that's the truth! The same dirty old buggers wanted to spread their oats around but didn't want any other guy to have sex with what they possessed! Let's face it, Judaism. Christianity and Islam are man-made and the man is held in superiority to the woman (even though both sexes are supposed to be equal). I have to confess it was an attractive reason to join the JWs, i.e. my book study conductor's wife (the PO's wife) told me that in JWism the wife is in subjection to her husband. Being such a possessive and jealous prat at the time, having Claire in subjection to me was an idea I quite enjoyed. When the PO's wife made a meal, she always gave him his meal first (they have two children), displaying subservience. She said my wife should do likewise!! (Claire never did, by the way). I genuinely think that's why a lot of men become JWs - because they are looked upon as 'heads', having their wives in subjection. Once husband and wife become JWs the wives, who may increasingly frown at finding just how much in subjection they are, realise it's too late. To go against the subservience is to go against Jehovah and that would bring down the wrath of the elders. Oh, yes, it's a man's world all right! Ian
The dirty old buggers who claimed to represent God allowed women to be abused in this way! Perverts!
Nothing much has changed then.
Men often wish to be in charge but God instituted a relationship that is counter to men's interpretation. Under Jesus' teaching the more responsibility you have the greater the servant you are. If you accept Jesus as your Saviour you are accepting His absolute sacrifice as your servant - He vicariously suffered for you. Just so in the marriage covenant man was required to serve woman and cherish her above all others - woman in response was asked to recognise that she is also depended upon man and should also serve him. When a couple use God's definition of marriage there is honour and complicit service. The recognition of an intrinsic difference between roles for men and women has long been a target of modern philosophical thinking just as the desire by evil seeking men to gain power and domination over women (and indeed in the wider aspect over others) also led to many perverting a sacred doctrine of service to one of slavery.
When God gave more than one wife to a man it was not suggesting that the woman was a commodity to be handed out but a recognition that a man has the capacity to provide and protect more than one woman while a woman's first and foremost protective instinct is to the child (not the husband). If a woman had multiple partners (as is seen often today) which father will/should step up and take responsibility for protecting and providing for the woman and child? Since women have children it is necessary to indicate exactly who the father is and make clear who the protector should be. I know of several circumstances (of which I am partner to) where children not born to the in situ father have a lesser bond than with the blood father. Polygamy can work well when a man has multiple wives but its opposite is a recipe for confusion. Also from a religious point of view , if God wanted His children to be born into His covenant then surely the more children a righteous man had the better it was.
Also from a religious point of view , if God wanted His children to be born into His covenant then surely the more children a righteous man had the better it was.
But how do you know those children would be righteous? The OT is littered with the names of kings who did bad in the eyes of YHWH.
Let's face it, it's just an excuse for men to subjugate and fertilise more women.
Ian
Don't fool yourself QCMBR! Women in those days, as they still are in mid eastern countries, are nothing more than cattle. The more women you own, the wealthier more powerful you were/are.
If God had wanted the women 'protected' as you so quaintly put it, he would have allowed only a monogamous relationship to exist. Polygamy, is by its nature, abusive. Just look at the countries where it is allowed or exists anyway, nowadays.
Let's face the facts here that the Jews were and are the Arabs. They had the same ways right down to child sacrifice, which no one would disagree is an extreme form of abuse.
The Israelites, chose to slaughter whole tribes and cities, and blamed it on their God. The Israelites chose to practice stoning and murder for all including petty criminals who broke laws. The Israelites chose to practice concubinage.
Would you look at Sharia law now and say that its fine and dandy because the Muslims claim that the law was given to them by God?
God, whoever he is, has nothing to do with any of this crap. If he did, then he should be sacked from his position right now!
Basically, it's as I said at the beginning. Dirty old buggers in charge of a corrupt man made and man favouring system.
Hey,
What about places where there is more wimenz than menz?
You has got to think this through logically the same ways God obviously has.
Slim
