Why did God allow concubines among the faithful? (page 4)

stillajwexelder

for the same reason he allows muslims 4 wives - the prophets of old knew men get horny. They were/are patriarchal societies - it just made sense

Let's just say Qcmbr , interpret the Bible however you like, it can be twisted to suit anything you want to say BUT if you can explain why there were no male concubines, I'd be interested to know this.

The excuse that this was something that belong to the past and so it's all fine and dandy is total BS!

God said , apparantly, DO NOT KILL and yet 'also apparantly' commanded huge massacres.

God said, apparantly, DO NOT COMMIT ADULTERY and yet allowed concubinage?

Something stinks to high heaven of BS!

If you can explain those contradictions convincingly I'd be fascinated to hear what you've got to say. In the end it just boils down to concentrated BullShit!

stillajwexelder

Something stinks to high heaven of BS! Most / all sacred books sadly

Dansk

In the end it just boils down to concentrated BullShit!

I beg to differ. There's nothing concentrated about it! It's all pure BS!

Ian

Gill

Stilla - I agree with you completely. Sometimes you just step back from it, for a few years, look at it all again and ask yourself, 'How did I fall into that manure?'

Qcmbr

Is their a poo fetish going on that I don't know about :)?

I'm in too minds as to whether I should start another thread but in a nutshell:

God's basic commandment is 'keep my commandments' - this means that a general commandment (thou shalt not kill) is superceded by a specific commandment (Abraham- go sacrifice your son, Moses- kill them all) and laid the way for Jesus to supercede the general laws given to Moses with specific post-Jesus commandments. It is of little benefit to apply previous commandments over and above current commandments or to debate the need for the first one or the relevance of the current. In my mind you just buckle down and get on with your current commandment and by so doing you'll flee from Egpyt when you need to and flee to Egypt when you need to. Since we are not ancient Israelites we do not have nor are under the same law as they. To reject the bible out of hand as fertliser (a not inappropriate metaphor if I'm being cheeky) is a knee jerk reaction. I reject non of the bible but I don't go out side the camp with my spade to deposit my own teddy legs either. I gain great guidance from the bible and see the work of God around me. I like it and see no great contradictions within as long as I remember who is speaking, to whom and can place that in context to me.

P.S. its kinda cool having a huge brit contingent discussing stuff here:)

james_woods

If you really take an objective analysis of many events recorded in the Old Testament, it is quite shocking how many things went on that were specifically forbidden by the law, but yet also tolerated or even condoned because it was "Jehovah's will".

In fact, there is hardly an important moral law which I can think of which was not deliberately broken by one or more of "God's Faithful" at one time or another...including murder, incest, adultery, sorcery, marrying 500 pagan wives, etc...

No matter how much you explain around these kinds of activity, it still remains a tremendous incongruety if you want to hold forth the Bible and God's Chosen People as the standard of moral authority.

Qcmbr

Can you give examples where the individual was not responsible? I don't see anywhere where scripture advocates that we place the example of someone as a pattern for our life except in teh personage of Jesus who as far as I can see never broke a law given by God in the OT.

The human condition is incongruous with the bible - 'be ye therefore pefect' stands in direct opposition to the human condition 'the whole have no need of a physician' - we are imperfect and we suffer for our imperfection from illness through to sin - the whole point of the bible is to document the process for us to be freed from this imperfection. Documenting failure to live a commandment does not weaken the commandment.

plmkrzy

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=1&chapter=30&version=31
Genesis 30 niv
1 When Rachel saw that she was not bearing Jacob any children, she became jealous of her sister. So she said to Jacob, "Give me children, or I'll die!"
2 Jacob became angry with her and said, "Am I in the place of God, who has kept you from having children?"
3 Then she said, "Here is Bilhah, my maidservant. Sleep with her so that she can bear children for me and that through her I too can build a family."
4 So she gave him her servant Bilhah as a wife. Jacob slept with her, 5 and she became pregnant and bore him a son. 6 Then Rachel said, "God has vindicated me; he has listened to my plea and given me a son." Because of this she named him Dan. [a]
7 Rachel's servant Bilhah conceived again and bore Jacob a second son. 8 Then Rachel said, "I have had a great struggle with my sister, and I have won." So she named him Naphtali. [b]
9 When Leah saw that she had stopped having children, she took her maidservant Zilpah and gave her to Jacob as a wife. 10 Leah's servant Zilpah bore Jacob a son. 11 Then Leah said, "What good fortune!" [c] So she named him Gad. [d]

15 But she said to her, "Wasn't it enough that you took away my husband? Will you take my son's mandrakes too?"
"Very well," Rachel said, "he can sleep with you tonight in return for your son's mandrakes."
16 So when Jacob came in from the fields that evening, Leah went out to meet him. "You must sleep with me," she said. "I have hired you with my son's mandrakes." So he slept with her that night.

They are competing with each other big time.

There is something very fickle about these self centered, jealous, angry people. If God kept her from having children then wanted to bless her because she was so jealous it was painful then why not let HER have children? What, God couldn’t figure that out? It really sounds as though God was used for many excuses.

james_woods

Qcmbr, of course these people were responsible for their various sins. However, I don't think that justifies the double standards shown by the Bible.

My point was the apparant indifference of the God of the old testament to some pretty horrific deeds, just so long as those deeds were done by the "right people" of Jehovah's choosing.

Sort of like the GB putting up with old Leo Greenlees and his "boys" all that time - and never really sanctioning him like any rank and file JW would have gotten...Ray Franz sure got the boot a lot harder and faster, and only for questioning some wrong teachings.

I think that it displays a definate moral ambiguity on the part of the bible characters, the writers, and indeed even of the deity to hold such dual standards as are displayed in numerous bible examples. No offense meant, but maybe you should review your own justification of multiple marriage (I think that was you who wrote in support of the practice?) in combination with present Christian teachings.

Why did God allow concubines among the faithful?

Share this