Prostitution vs adultery

[The Revolting Man]

This from the guy who calls other people inarticulate for allegedly not being able to write a cogent sentence!


I was damn tired a long time ago of you putting words in my mouth, and anybody else that you berate because you can't express whatever the hell it is that you believe coherently:

You, as usual, ignore Scripture which outlines your ignorance, and refutes your flatulence. Like the whole part in Ruth (ch 4:6-11, from "I cannot 'redeem it' to that whole bit about the sandal." Good grief.)



I took a firm stand on the most cogent precedent and single-verse explanation of marriage in the Book. And all you can do is pretend it doesn't matter. For idiotic reasons. I won't claim you're not as smart as anyone here who can see the obvious, just that you're blind. And proud of it.


I just did - again.


Clutch your own pearls and learn to write.

And if you are apparently claiming my marriages don't conform to you twisted understanding, at least learn to apologize:



You are truly a revolting excuse for a 'moderator.'

PS> I honestly don't think you even have a clue about what the word "precedent" even means.

Okay Mark. That’s fine. So I can assume that your marriages were negotiated by your father’s servant without your input in conjunction with the girls brother, who’s also your uncle? Because that’s the precedent. That’s what happened in that story. And I’ve left out the camels and the journey so I’m not even being as ridiculous as I could be.

 

[steve]

Something like this:

Hair Coverings for Married Women | My Jewish Learning

A discussion of Jewish law, custom, and communal standards concerning married women covering their heads.

www.myjewishlearning.com

I'm certain in ancient times there was something like this.

I went through the whole article and there was no special cloth mentioned.
In one spot it mentioned that some groups don’t cover if the women are not married. But it doesn’t address a betrothed woman at all.

So you can assume anything that you want, as usual.
If only there was a point to those assumptions.

 

[Mojo]

Funny because I'm always thinking the same of the opposition.

I merely proposed this to @The Revolting Man because he’s the most prominent and passionate proponent of his position.

I have no real “opposition”. I hope nobody else does either. Rather than hunkering down in their pill boxes to defend their positions, the discussion could focus more on WHY this is such an important topic for current or future polygynists.

If there’s no WHY, then I can’t understand why folks insist on division, rather than trying to find unity.

We don’t have to be uniform in our interpretation of scriptures, but it would do us all well to by unanimous in our desire to promote unity.

If folks can’t express WHY this is such an important topic, then it’s pointless to keep the thread going.

 

[FollowingHim]

Yes, the bare minimum to take a woman legitimately you have to make sure you’re not committing adultery and have sex with her. You’re saying it little differently but that’s been my stance all along.

Good. We have a foundation of agreement to build up from.

Second question, to tease out more precisely where we may differ or agree:

What does step 1 - determining if a woman is available to become your wife - practically involve? What might that look like in the case of three examples (ranked in increasing complexity in my personal opinion):
- A widow (as an example of an unattached and self-determining woman)?
- A virgin in her father's house, under her father's authority?
- A woman who claims to be divorced, whose former husband is still alive, and whose status is initially unclear to you and needs to be clarified?

Edit: I expect to ask a few such questions, and largely agree with you for at least the first few. I'm going through this in small steps to precisely find where our views just begin to diverge, as that is the point to focus on. Please just answer each step briefly or we'll be here forever!

 

[The Revolting Man]

A woman who claims to be divorced, whose former husband is still alive, and whose status is initially unclear to you and needs to be clarified?

This one is easy. She’ll have a divorce document. She’s free.

 

[steve]

The link between kinsmen redeemer and Levirate marriage is made up Steve. It’s not in there.

If you know what kinsman redeemer doesn’t mean, then you must know the actual definition. Please enlighten us with scripture and verse.
Or are you speaking ex cathedra, oh Pope Zec?

 

[FollowingHim]

Zec, what about the first two examples - the widow and the girl in her father's house?

 

[steve]

If you know what kinsman redeemer doesn’t mean, then you must know the actual definition. Please enlighten us with scripture and verse.
Or are you speaking ex cathedra, oh Pope Zec?

I probably need to abandon this part of the conversation because it is just a distraction from the main conversation.
So don’t bother, Zec.

But I will give a bit of information in my next post to show what is being misunderstood here.
Just for clarity.

 

[Mark C]

Okay Mark. That’s fine. So I can assume ...

You have never even pretended NOT to assume any ridiculous thing that makes you look good.

...I’m not even being as ridiculous as I could be.

There's not a living soul here that doubts THAT.

 

[Mark C]

Here, Samuel, is where I contend you list is incomplete:

To take a wife legitimately we must do two things:
1) Establish that she is available to become our wife, ie that she has no pre-existing commitments to any other man.
2) Have sex and become one flesh.

3) Do you not have to have her consent?*

And this is where I contend - again - that offer and acceptance are an essential part of the whole.

----------------------------------

* BTW: Which is not to say (for the terminally anal-retentive) that there are not exceptions, and that Scripture does not in fact distinguish between a 'bondservant-wife' (including the 'war bride', who at least has the choice to be perpetually UN-attractive) and one like the example of Yitzak and Rivka. Arguably, Chava/Eve didn't have too much of a choice, but she was BORN "one-flesh" already. And there has been no such case since.

 

[The Revolting Man]

Zec, what about the first two examples - the widow and the girl in her father's house?

The widow is self evident. I assume you mean the girl in her father’s house is a virgin so she available too.

 

[theleastofthese]

I merely proposed this to @The Revolting Man because he’s the most prominent and passionate proponent of his position.

If folks can’t express WHY this is such an important topic, then it’s pointless to keep the thread going.

What harm does @The Revolting Man's perspective actually cause other than a little discord on the forums? If anything, it emphasizes the value and sanctity of sex. I can understand the importance of it without needing Zec's personal feelings on the matter spelled out and who knows, others may feel the same way but chose to be less vocal. Regardless, I don’t believe the intent behind an argument should determine whether it’s worth discussing.

 

[The Revolting Man]

I merely proposed this to @The Revolting Man because he’s the most prominent and passionate proponent of his position.

I have no real “opposition”. I hope nobody else does either. Rather than hunkering down in their pill boxes to defend their positions, the discussion could focus more on WHY this is such an important topic for current or future polygynists.

If there’s no WHY, then I can’t understand why folks insist on division, rather than trying to find unity.

We don’t have to be uniform in our interpretation of scriptures, but it would do us all well to by unanimous in our desire to promote unity.

If folks can’t express WHY this is such an important topic, then it’s pointless to keep the thread going.

Being able to define marriage allows us to define adultery and to know when a woman is eligible for marriage. Since marriage factors into how we select our bishops and elders it does become important to have a common ground on the topic.

 

[Mojo]

What harm does @The Revolting Man's perspective actually cause other than a little discord on the forums? If anything, it emphasizes the value and sanctity of sex. I can understand the importance of it without needing Zec's personal feelings on the matter spelled out and who knows, others may feel the same way but chose to be less vocal. Regardless, I don’t believe the intent behind an argument should determine whether it’s worth discussing.

Defending one’s position regarding a worthy topic related to polygyny on this forum is absolutely beneficial. It’s essential.

I’m not even really taking a side.

But, if something ends up causing extensive discord to the point insults are hurled, intellect and motives are questioned, and hunkering down and invalidating input, then it ceases to be productive, and runs counterproductive to the whole purpose of the discussion. People will tune out what you have to say depending on how you say it.

There are ways to have productive conversations that actually edify the other participants. What I’m seeing is the sport of argument that’s lost the whole point of the purpose behind a worthy topic.

I’m not asking for Zec’s or anybody else’s personally feelings on the matter. That’s not what I’m trying to get at. People have now obviously taken sides and the purpose of the thread seems to be lost.

 

[Mojo]

Being able to define marriage allows us to define adultery and to know when a woman is eligible for marriage. Since marriage factors into how we select our bishops and elders it does become important to have a common ground on the topic.

And if common ground is not found? What then?

 

[theleastofthese]

I’m not even really taking a side.

But you are tagging one person and asking that one specific person to clarify why their stance is so important. I've yet to see someone other than Zec, ask the opposition the same question. Which goes back to my initial point...

 

[Mojo]

But you are tagging one person and asking that one specific person to clarify why their stance is so important. I've yet to see someone other than Zec, ask the opposition the same question. Which goes back to my initial point...

I think @The Revolting Man is big enough to speak for himself.

The fact that you feel obligated to call other people posting as “opposition” goes back to my initial point.

You now see people who don’t share the same viewpoint as “opposition”. We’re supposed to be on the same team.

 

[The Revolting Man]

And if common ground is not found? What then?

Denominational split!

 

[The Revolting Man]

But, if something ends up causing extensive discord to the point insults are hurled, intellect and motives are questioned, and hunkering down and invalidating input

I want the record to reflect that I let an absolutely hysterical troll go without using it.

 

[theleastofthese]

I think @The Revolting Man is big enough to speak for himself.

So I was summoned here for nothing? That's quite disappointing.

I suppose Samuel could’ve spoken for himself too, but that didn’t stop Mark, Steve, Frederick, and others from chiming in. Funny you didn’t seem bothered enough to make the same statement to them.

And just to clarify, I wasn’t speaking for Zec. I was speaking to you. Your original point questioned one side’s stance, and when I asked why that side’s stance seems to matter more than the opposing view, you doubled down and made it all about that one side yet again. If your intent wasn't to "choose a side" as you keep claiming then you're doing a poor job of that.

You now see people who don’t share the same viewpoint as “opposition”. We’re supposed to be on the same team

No need to make one word far more dramatic than it was intended to be.