sixth_heretic
Member
amen brother................................
-
Biblical Families is not a dating website. It is a forum to discuss issues relating to marriage and the Bible, and to offer guidance and support, not to find a wife. Click here for more information.
Concubines vs. Wives
- Thread starter sixth_heretic
- Start date
Andrew,
No offense, but I think what you posted is related differently than the article that chaplain posted. Social standing and servant-hood/slavery are two different things. There have even been cultures where some slaves at times had it better than actual free citizens of the culture. Status and class are two different things.
I definately have to disagree with your third point as well. A wife is a woman who has taken a vow and made a covenant to a man in marriage. The "state" or "government" has nothing to do with the legitimacy of marriage even though they like to think they do. Marriage is a heaven ordained institution. Therefore any woman that is married is a wife. According to the article that Chaplain posted and considering the fact that we no longer have slaves/un-paid servants, I don't really see how any woman within the country of "America" could be considered as a concubine.
I just had to laugh when I read your second point. I assume you were being sarcastic when you wrote about the "hypothetical" situation. I could very easily go on a rant along with what you wrote. I'm very conservative and don't like the direction that the government is going or the condition that the government and society is in.
No offense, but I think what you posted is related differently than the article that chaplain posted. Social standing and servant-hood/slavery are two different things. There have even been cultures where some slaves at times had it better than actual free citizens of the culture. Status and class are two different things.
andrew said:
I definately have to disagree with your third point as well. A wife is a woman who has taken a vow and made a covenant to a man in marriage. The "state" or "government" has nothing to do with the legitimacy of marriage even though they like to think they do. Marriage is a heaven ordained institution. Therefore any woman that is married is a wife. According to the article that Chaplain posted and considering the fact that we no longer have slaves/un-paid servants, I don't really see how any woman within the country of "America" could be considered as a concubine.
andrew said:
I just had to laugh when I read your second point. I assume you were being sarcastic when you wrote about the "hypothetical" situation. I could very easily go on a rant along with what you wrote. I'm very conservative and don't like the direction that the government is going or the condition that the government and society is in.
Well, well... It's good to see this forum is still alive and running. It's been a while since I last visited. Are we now required to include a real photo of ourselves for membership? There may even be a few here who would recognize my mugshot if I put mine in. :::chuckles::: What a cerebral discussion! All this wives and concubines stuff — my, my. Well, I sorta thought that ALL WIVES were the servants of their husbands (the husband of course, being the least of servants.):lol: Please correct me if I am mistaken. You know how it is with Canadians... We have so many cultures in our country that it's really hard to know what is written in stone; but I like what the Duke has to say about it anyway and it's good to see a young fella exercising a little discernment concerning these things before stepping in to offer his personal P.O.V. — discretion being the better part of valour. If that's his mugshot it's no wonder the ladies are chasing him! :mrgreen:
There are some other things about Canada that I think differ considerably in the U.S.A. with respect to marriage. Up here, we have something called the "EQUIVALENCY TO MARRIED ACT". I find this little legal clause answers a good deal of our manifest taxation problems concerning various benefits, duties, parental rights, obligations etc. connected to marriage and families. The majority of Canadians no longer marry by writ of civil contract today anyway and CANADA recognizes COMMON LAW marriage as LAWFUL marriage from sea-to-shining sea. * This is also likely one of the main reasons why most Canadians were in not really in much of an uproar over the "same-sex marriage" issue. From coast-to-coast in Canada same sexes may legally "marry" by writ of civil contract and I don't think this about to change soon; so I don't think it will be long before LEGALIZED BIGAMY by writ of CONTRACT will also be on the agenda. Up here, in CANADA, discrimination walks when money talks. Perhaps it is the same way in the good ole u.S.of A. If ya'll want to see change just do what the gays do: LOBBY, LOBBY, LOBBY!!!
Most Canadians merely view the writ as a piece of paper you sign if you have an abundance of wealth to protect and pre-nups are becoming commonplace when accompanied with the writ. Children born to parents outside of contractual marriage may still carry their father's last name as long as the father gives his legal consent.To be frank, marriage licenses are not so much for the COMMON MAN anymore. For the last twenty years I've been watching this approach to marriage in Canada grow stronger every year. Up here, in the west, we refer to a man's wife as his "wife" if she's living with him — not because she has his last name or because they signed a civil contract. Now that much I know for a fact. If she has his children and she lives with him it's pretty much written in stone: She is his wife. Admittedly, cultures vary from place to place but I know that this is how it is certainly regarded in western Canada. Perhaps in the east it might be different. Most folks are just fed-up with the contractual marriage thing these days in Canada. Most here "marry" for the sake of a WEDDING because they want to honor their spouses in the public eye. What CANADA really needs is more pastors willing to perform WEDDING CEREMONIES without the writ. I mean, who wants to cast in their lot alongside Sodomites and Catamites except Sodmites and Catamites?
Well, that's how I see it, anyway. GOD BLESS YOU ALL
Edward
03/02/08 * CORRECTION: There is no more Common-Law Marriage at the Federal level in Canada that is recognized as lawful marriage any longer. The new "same-sex" marriage laws changed all of this in 2007. Some of it has yet to trickle down to the provincial laws. I suppose 90% of the government registered churches of Canada owe the "same sex marriage" people a BIG NOTE OF GRATITUDE for this. It really makes little difference to me now, considering my realization that a secular certificate of marriage holds as much sanctification as the TP in my washroom. . . The Sodomites did a good job proving as much. *Tips hat*
There are some other things about Canada that I think differ considerably in the U.S.A. with respect to marriage. Up here, we have something called the "EQUIVALENCY TO MARRIED ACT". I find this little legal clause answers a good deal of our manifest taxation problems concerning various benefits, duties, parental rights, obligations etc. connected to marriage and families. The majority of Canadians no longer marry by writ of civil contract today anyway and CANADA recognizes COMMON LAW marriage as LAWFUL marriage from sea-to-shining sea. * This is also likely one of the main reasons why most Canadians were in not really in much of an uproar over the "same-sex marriage" issue. From coast-to-coast in Canada same sexes may legally "marry" by writ of civil contract and I don't think this about to change soon; so I don't think it will be long before LEGALIZED BIGAMY by writ of CONTRACT will also be on the agenda. Up here, in CANADA, discrimination walks when money talks. Perhaps it is the same way in the good ole u.S.of A. If ya'll want to see change just do what the gays do: LOBBY, LOBBY, LOBBY!!!
Most Canadians merely view the writ as a piece of paper you sign if you have an abundance of wealth to protect and pre-nups are becoming commonplace when accompanied with the writ. Children born to parents outside of contractual marriage may still carry their father's last name as long as the father gives his legal consent.To be frank, marriage licenses are not so much for the COMMON MAN anymore. For the last twenty years I've been watching this approach to marriage in Canada grow stronger every year. Up here, in the west, we refer to a man's wife as his "wife" if she's living with him — not because she has his last name or because they signed a civil contract. Now that much I know for a fact. If she has his children and she lives with him it's pretty much written in stone: She is his wife. Admittedly, cultures vary from place to place but I know that this is how it is certainly regarded in western Canada. Perhaps in the east it might be different. Most folks are just fed-up with the contractual marriage thing these days in Canada. Most here "marry" for the sake of a WEDDING because they want to honor their spouses in the public eye. What CANADA really needs is more pastors willing to perform WEDDING CEREMONIES without the writ. I mean, who wants to cast in their lot alongside Sodomites and Catamites except Sodmites and Catamites?
Well, that's how I see it, anyway. GOD BLESS YOU ALL
Edward
03/02/08 * CORRECTION: There is no more Common-Law Marriage at the Federal level in Canada that is recognized as lawful marriage any longer. The new "same-sex" marriage laws changed all of this in 2007. Some of it has yet to trickle down to the provincial laws. I suppose 90% of the government registered churches of Canada owe the "same sex marriage" people a BIG NOTE OF GRATITUDE for this. It really makes little difference to me now, considering my realization that a secular certificate of marriage holds as much sanctification as the TP in my washroom. . . The Sodomites did a good job proving as much. *Tips hat*
Tlaloc said:
Alberta Rose country here. Land of the hard-core conservatives... Canada's Texas. Though I think I'm done voting PC. There has to be something wrong with a Prime Minister who doesn't care when Canadian citizens are bombed in another Country. I'm so sick of this war.
Tlaloc
Member
Ha, polyticks eh?
Yeah, PC has flaws, but if Layton got his hooks in the country it would be like BC ten years ago, he knows how to kill an economy if nothing else. Libs arnt good, I dont even have to mention the BQ...
I want to be party to the Christian Heritage Party, but the CHP's policies seem to personify the kind of Christianity that is the worst enemy of anyone here.
I guess well both just have to put ourselves on the ballets and run as independents, or better yet, the poly party of Canada! Betya we could get more votes than the marijuana party at least
Yeah, PC has flaws, but if Layton got his hooks in the country it would be like BC ten years ago, he knows how to kill an economy if nothing else. Libs arnt good, I dont even have to mention the BQ...
I want to be party to the Christian Heritage Party, but the CHP's policies seem to personify the kind of Christianity that is the worst enemy of anyone here.
I guess well both just have to put ourselves on the ballets and run as independents, or better yet, the poly party of Canada! Betya we could get more votes than the marijuana party at least
:lol: MERCY ME! YOU BROUGHT TEARS TO MY EYES, I was laughing so hard.
LET'S DO IT! We need to find a nice, handsome young man... Someone who looks a bit like the Duke there... Set up a campaign commitee... He's got to be able to speak in that silver, Obama Nation, New-Speak tongue and think on his feet just as fast. . . A real baby kisser with a record of good deeds longer than a tapeworm on steriods. Then perhaps we'll stand a chance. . . Pro-Babies, Pro-Family, Pro-Healthcare... I know what Canada wants . . . Leave the speeches to me. I'll write them. . . Let's do something original ... I know... CHANGE! "CHANGE" will be our platform, and if we fail, well hey, we can always blame the people for not backing us to help us affect change. It's the perfect cop-out and the best game in town.
The LIBERTARIAN POLY-PARTY OF CANADA!
LET'S DO IT! We need to find a nice, handsome young man... Someone who looks a bit like the Duke there... Set up a campaign commitee... He's got to be able to speak in that silver, Obama Nation, New-Speak tongue and think on his feet just as fast. . . A real baby kisser with a record of good deeds longer than a tapeworm on steriods. Then perhaps we'll stand a chance. . . Pro-Babies, Pro-Family, Pro-Healthcare... I know what Canada wants . . . Leave the speeches to me. I'll write them. . . Let's do something original ... I know... CHANGE! "CHANGE" will be our platform, and if we fail, well hey, we can always blame the people for not backing us to help us affect change. It's the perfect cop-out and the best game in town.
The LIBERTARIAN POLY-PARTY OF CANADA!
Tlaloc
Member
The Libertarian Poly Party of Canada! Now THAT word completes it.
You got it right on the money there. I'd do it too, but I need more experience, you're good to go having been through so much but I know I need more skills to be a politician, and need to be a lot closer to that perfection to be a polotico and not get corrupt. This year I am going to try to go before a Camp board and convince them to run the camp for free and invite anyone of any denomination to help and anyone at all to come. If that goes flies any higher than a lead balloon then perhaps I can be useful.
You've got the party lines right. Do you have any idea how much work it is to start a party? You seem to have looked into quite a bit of Canadian law. It might be a worthy project if any hope can be found in it.
You got it right on the money there. I'd do it too, but I need more experience, you're good to go having been through so much but I know I need more skills to be a politician, and need to be a lot closer to that perfection to be a polotico and not get corrupt. This year I am going to try to go before a Camp board and convince them to run the camp for free and invite anyone of any denomination to help and anyone at all to come. If that goes flies any higher than a lead balloon then perhaps I can be useful.
You've got the party lines right. Do you have any idea how much work it is to start a party? You seem to have looked into quite a bit of Canadian law. It might be a worthy project if any hope can be found in it.
^_^
Member
We might all be free in messiah, but every time I go to work, I'm reminded how much in bondage I am.Nathan7 said:
Might I also remind you that Paul recognised slavery in the new testament, and while I'm not a proponent of slavery as has been practiced, I might would consider slavery for myself. Biblical slavery where I sold myself basically for hire to cover debt.
Come to think of it, the bank owns me. And the IRS.
^_^ said:We might all be free in messiah, but every time I go to work, I'm reminded how much in bondage I am.Nathan7 said:
Might I also remind you that Paul recognised slavery in the new testament, and while I'm not a proponent of slavery as has been practiced, I might would consider slavery for myself. Biblical slavery where I sold myself basically for hire to cover debt.
Come to think of it, the bank owns me. And the IRS.
HEY ^_^ Check out the LIBERTY link I just put up. I'm beginning to think I have an idea of what a concubine is and I could be wrong but I think I might have considered an often overlooked factor. The word is so stretched out of shape I don't even know if there is much definition left to it. That appears to be the problem with many words in our language today. In some cases one definition is the antonym of another definition for the same word! Eg./ PIOUS. Now how does one work with that? Confusion is the Devil's game and the Devil plays into the Hand of GOD in the end... EVERY TIME.
http://www.biblicalfamilies.org/forum2/viewtopic.php?f=22&t=387
from what i have gleaned along the way reading many different sources marriage was not the black and white issue that it is today.
a marriage is based on a covenant. the covenant defines the marriage. the covenant can be written in any way that the parties involved agree on. it can cover a bride-price and the disposition thereof. it can be a form of pre-nup spelling out the rights of inheritance and all of the concerns of the various parties. many times these were negotiated over extended periods of time with the yenta (matchmaker)
there were various levels and degrees of marriage, but it seemed to be legal standing as well as social. concubinage being a marriage of lesser degree with the children not always being heirs. Is 4:1 would be an example of a marriage in which it is agreed up front that the husband will not be required to fully support the applicant
a marriage is based on a covenant. the covenant defines the marriage. the covenant can be written in any way that the parties involved agree on. it can cover a bride-price and the disposition thereof. it can be a form of pre-nup spelling out the rights of inheritance and all of the concerns of the various parties. many times these were negotiated over extended periods of time with the yenta (matchmaker)
there were various levels and degrees of marriage, but it seemed to be legal standing as well as social. concubinage being a marriage of lesser degree with the children not always being heirs. Is 4:1 would be an example of a marriage in which it is agreed up front that the husband will not be required to fully support the applicant
please understand that i am not some kind of scholar on any of this, nor am i a writer. i do enjoy giving my opinion now and then though and will continue as time permits. my passion for some years has been to learn how to walk the walk in the way it should be walked.
^_^ said:
???????????? please forgive me but i do not understand your question.i could make assumptions but that may not be helpfull.
after thinking about your question for a while i realized that you may be asking if the jews would consider it not too far out of the realm of possibility that a man could marry 7 women in one swell foop. i would enjoy exploring that subject with you.
^_^
Member
hi steve, I was referring to your earlier post, and just basically commenting that in todays society, at least the western one we live in, tends to view marriage the traditional 'christian' way. for instance, it's fairly 'normal' for the man to go work and the woman stays home and does the housework, or even if she does work outside the home, she still is expected to do most of the 'housework'. these are what most of us consider normal.
it's also considered normal to go to a state courthouse and ask permission from the state before getting married
it's pretty normal for marriage to involve only one man and one woman
it's normal for the couple to actually live together all the time, as in both in the same house
it would appear that back in the day, these might not have been 'normal' at all
for instance, with Abraham being a wanderer and sheepherder, how often was he at home with Sarah. after all, he had how many servants to look after, and how much territory did his flocks and herds need? ever think about it that's why Sarah didn't get pregnant so soon? Abraham was a busy guy
also, consider David, he was a wanderer and warrior, did he take his wives out when he was fleeing from Shaul? he married 2 while he was on the run, did they go with him everywhere? I don't know it says, but I suspect they were in a protected area, and helped supply David's army.
anyway, I could go on, but what I'm saying is this: I do think that what we consider normal now would have been considered 'odd' back in the day. They would have thought nothing of a man having 7 wives scattered about the territory he covered, it's us that think all the wives have to be under 1 roof, living as an abnormal but 'normal' family according to our perspective.
personally, I'd not have a problem having wives several hours apart, or even states if I had a traveling job.
it's also considered normal to go to a state courthouse and ask permission from the state before getting married
it's pretty normal for marriage to involve only one man and one woman
it's normal for the couple to actually live together all the time, as in both in the same house
it would appear that back in the day, these might not have been 'normal' at all
for instance, with Abraham being a wanderer and sheepherder, how often was he at home with Sarah. after all, he had how many servants to look after, and how much territory did his flocks and herds need? ever think about it that's why Sarah didn't get pregnant so soon? Abraham was a busy guy
also, consider David, he was a wanderer and warrior, did he take his wives out when he was fleeing from Shaul? he married 2 while he was on the run, did they go with him everywhere? I don't know it says, but I suspect they were in a protected area, and helped supply David's army.
anyway, I could go on, but what I'm saying is this: I do think that what we consider normal now would have been considered 'odd' back in the day. They would have thought nothing of a man having 7 wives scattered about the territory he covered, it's us that think all the wives have to be under 1 roof, living as an abnormal but 'normal' family according to our perspective.
personally, I'd not have a problem having wives several hours apart, or even states if I had a traveling job.
i agree the the living possibilities in plural marriage are endless.
to me it comes down to what the goals of the relationships are.
i am an over-the-road truck driver. we are the ones that they pass bigamy laws against because of the abuses by men who have multiple fams all across the country. my wife (just one so far) and i refer to separated fams as multiple monogamy and it doesnt feel like anything we are drawn to. we have a vision of clan with multiple wives in a synergistic relationship doing home-based business. if we felt called to marry some across the country to provide headship and they needed to stay in that area we would not hesitate.
to me it comes down to what the goals of the relationships are.
i am an over-the-road truck driver. we are the ones that they pass bigamy laws against because of the abuses by men who have multiple fams all across the country. my wife (just one so far) and i refer to separated fams as multiple monogamy and it doesnt feel like anything we are drawn to. we have a vision of clan with multiple wives in a synergistic relationship doing home-based business. if we felt called to marry some across the country to provide headship and they needed to stay in that area we would not hesitate.