|
|
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 85
25+ posts
|
|
25+ posts
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 85 |
Something else I'm noticing in this thread, if I may comment - the term "Judeo-Christian" and the way its being used.
I've personally never liked that term, because I find it to be inaccurate. People who use this term seem to feel that Judaism and Christianity see exactly eye-to-eye, especially when it comes to such things as sin and divine judgment and the role of religion.
Wikipedia has an excellent article analyzing similarities and differences between the two religions. There's far too much text to do a simple copy and paste, so I'm just going to post a link, and people can peruse it if they wish without having to clutter up the board.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparing_and_contrasting_Judaism_and_Christianity
Some of you may be surprised by what you read here. I certainly was.
"Just because I don't like to fight doesn't mean that I can't."
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 30,833 Likes: 7
The conscience of the rkmbs! 15000+ posts
|
|
The conscience of the rkmbs! 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 30,833 Likes: 7 |
Quote:
Methos said:
I've personally never liked that term, because I find it to be inaccurate. People who use this term seem to feel that Judaism and Christianity see exactly eye-to-eye, especially when it comes to such things as sin and divine judgment and the role of religion.
No one here has made any such claim that the two religions see, or have seen, "eye-to-eye".
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 85
25+ posts
|
|
25+ posts
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 85 |
Quote:
Pariah said:
Quote:
Methos said:
I've personally never liked that term, because I find it to be inaccurate. People who use this term seem to feel that Judaism and Christianity see exactly eye-to-eye, especially when it comes to such things as sin and divine judgment and the role of religion.
No one here has made any such claim that the two religions see, or have seen, "eye-to-eye".
Isn't that what the term "Judeo-Christian" implies? That the two are similar and share the same viewpoints? So if someone uses the term "Judeo-Christian," aren't they implying that Judaism and Christianity see eye to eye? At least on whatever issue they're talking about?
Besides, who said I was singling out people just from here?
"Just because I don't like to fight doesn't mean that I can't."
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 30,833 Likes: 7
The conscience of the rkmbs! 15000+ posts
|
|
The conscience of the rkmbs! 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 30,833 Likes: 7 |
No it doesn't. The term, in the context of this thread, is simply noting that one came from another and the two co-existed for quite awhile, albeit one was still growing back then. I'll concede that it does imply a sort of relation through deity alone, but not regarding interpretation of said deity.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 85
25+ posts
|
|
25+ posts
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 85 |
Quote:
Pariah said:
No it doesn't. The term, in the context of this thread
My mistake.
In other contexts I've heard the term used, however, their is an implication that the two do indeed see eye to eye on certain issues.
"Just because I don't like to fight doesn't mean that I can't."
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 85
25+ posts
|
|
25+ posts
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 85 |
Hmmm...much to my surprise, Wikipedia even has an entry for the term "Judeo-Christian." It's short, so I don't mind posting the entire article. Regardless of how valid the rest of you may feel the term is, you might find it worth a read.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judeo-Christian
Judeo-Christian
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
Judeo-Christian (also spelled Judaeo-Christian) is a term used to describe the body of concepts and values which are thought to be held in common by Christianity and Judaism, and typically considered a fundamental basis for Western legal codes and moral values.
Source of the term
Christianity emerged from Judaism in the century after the death of Herod the Great. Christians brought from Judaism its scriptures; fundamental doctrines such as monotheism; the belief in a Messiah, a term that is more commonly known as Christ (christos in Greek) and means 'anointed one'; form of worship, including a priesthood, concepts of sacred space and sacred time, the idea that worship here on Earth is patterned after worship in Heaven, and the use of the Psalms in community prayer. Christianity dropped some fundamental Jewish practices, however, particularly the Jewish covenant on male circumcision, and its most significant early prophet, Paul of Tarsus, himself a Roman citizen, made a point of preaching to the gentiles of the Roman Empire, leading eventually to the religion's modern popularity.
Users of the term Judeo-Christian, pointing out that Christians and Jews have many sacred texts and ethical standards in common, also generally hold that Christians and Jews worship the same God.
The term was invented in the United States of America in an attempt to create a non-denominational religious consensus or civil religion that, by embracing Judaism, avoided the appearance of anti-Semitism. The original uses of the term have faded, and it now usually refers to a general Western religious background. The term is commonly used by historians and academics as a shorthand for the predominant religious influences upon Western culture.
Problems with the term
The term Judeo-Christian has been criticized for implying more commonality than actually exists. In The Myth of the Judeo-Christian Tradition, Jewish theologian-novelist Arthur A. Cohen questions the theological appropriateness of the term and suggests that it was essentially an invention of American politics. [1]
Judaism and Christianity have many areas of agreement, as well as sharply defined ethical and religious systems that are in some areas opposites. Generally neither Jews nor Christians want to have their distinctive traits removed by an oversimplification. Opponents of this term claim that the concept collapses these important differences, and effects a modern appropriation of Jewish identity to Christian values. They point to the traditional Christian claim that Christianity is the logical progression of, and heir to, Biblical Judaism, as precedent.
The term Judeo-Christian is seen by some to imply a rejection of Islam, the third major monotheistic (Abrahamic) religion, though it is related to both. The term Judeo-Christian values is commonly used in the West, and many Muslim scholars view this term as emblematic of a disconnect between Western-culture Christianity and Islam. Attempts have been made to unite this split, followed closely by attempts to discredit them. The term Judeo-Christian-Islamic has been coined to describe the values shared by the common history of the three religions. This term has been used, for example, by Abrahamic faith gatherings held in various cities of the U.S., which are designed to promote mutual understanding, and have drawn the participation of Christians, Jews, and Muslims. Columbia University professor Dick Bulliet has an up-coming book about this topic called "Islamo-Christian Civilization,".
Others however denounce this inclusion, arguing that Islam lacks basic features in doctrine and anthropology that Christianity and Judaism share, and also because the common history of Jews and Christians has shaped the cultural settings of the West while Islam has been outside of this development. Some groups, such as the American Family Association [2], argue that this movement was promoted by "Muslim special-interest groups" to make "radical Islamist fundamentalism" appear mainstream and tolerant of Judaism and Christianity.
There are a few other links on that page to similar articles. Too many, however, for me to post.
Last edited by Methos; 2005-08-15 9:22 PM.
"Just because I don't like to fight doesn't mean that I can't."
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 5,000
5000+ posts
|
|
5000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 5,000 |
Quote:
Methos said:
Wikipedia has an excellent article analyzing similarities and differences between the two religions. There's far too much text to do a simple copy and paste, so I'm just going to post a link, and people can peruse it if they wish without having to clutter up the board.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparing_and_contrasting_Judaism_and_Christianity
Some of you may be surprised by what you read here. I certainly was.
I can't say that I was surprised by what the article says. I suppose I am a bit surprised at how accurate it is. Thank you for bringing this article to my attention.
<sub>Will Eisner's last work - The Plot: The Secret Story of the Protocols of the Elders of ZionRDCW Profile"Well, as it happens, I wrote the damned SOP," Illescue half snarled, "and as of now, you can bar those jackals from any part of this facility until Hell's a hockey rink! Is that perfectly clear?!" - Dr. Franz Illescue - Honor Harrington: At All Costs"I don't know what I'm do, or how I do, I just do." - Alexander Ovechkin</sub>
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 30,833 Likes: 7
The conscience of the rkmbs! 15000+ posts
|
|
The conscience of the rkmbs! 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 30,833 Likes: 7 |
I really don't understand why anybody's surprised--I learned all this in friggin' Sunday School. Figured it was common knowledge.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 85
25+ posts
|
|
25+ posts
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 85 |
Quote:
Pariah said:
I really don't understand why anybody's surprised--I learned all this in friggin' Sunday School. Figured it was common knowledge.
Not everybody goes to Sunday School.
"Just because I don't like to fight doesn't mean that I can't."
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 7,251
6000+ posts
|
|
6000+ posts
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 7,251 |
Quote:
theory9 said:
Quote:
PenWing said:
Methos, thanks for your comments. Please stick around the boards.
Is this the book you are talking about: Chronicles of the Crusades?
You didn't warn him about the hazing...NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!
Oh, yea. I almost forgot.... Hey Mythos, Shut up, Whomod!
Putting the "fun" back in Fundamentalist Christian Dogma.
" I know God exists because WBAM told me so. " - theory9
JLA brand RACK points = 514k 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 85
25+ posts
|
|
25+ posts
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 85 |
Quote:
wannabuyamonkey said:
Oh, yea. I almost forgot.... Hey Mythos, Shut up, Whomod!
Whomod?
Someone's going to have to explain this one.
"Just because I don't like to fight doesn't mean that I can't."
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 5,000
5000+ posts
|
|
5000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 5,000 |
Whomod used to post here. He'd use all sorts of leftwing articles to argue his points, and when someone countered him, he'd just post more articles and links. Now, that's not the whole truth, but that's what Monkeyboy is joking about. Whomod did have some valid points and arguments, they just got lost in all the crap. Same can be said for some of the rightwing posters of he board. Just hang around long enough and it will all start to make sense. Or it will make you insane. Either way, you'll be one of us. 
<sub>Will Eisner's last work - The Plot: The Secret Story of the Protocols of the Elders of ZionRDCW Profile"Well, as it happens, I wrote the damned SOP," Illescue half snarled, "and as of now, you can bar those jackals from any part of this facility until Hell's a hockey rink! Is that perfectly clear?!" - Dr. Franz Illescue - Honor Harrington: At All Costs"I don't know what I'm do, or how I do, I just do." - Alexander Ovechkin</sub>
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 85
25+ posts
|
|
25+ posts
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 85 |
Quote:
PenWing said:
Whomod used to post here. He'd use all sorts of leftwing articles to argue his points, and when someone countered him, he'd just post more articles and links.
Now, that's not the whole truth, but that's what Monkeyboy is joking about.
Whomod did have some valid points and arguments, they just got lost in all the crap. Same can be said for some of the rightwing posters of he board.
Was there something whomodish about my post?
As for left wing and right wing nonsense...well, I think calling it nonsense pretty much sums up my feelings about it. I tend to ignore those sorts of debates - most lefties and righties have made up their minds on issues long ago and refuse to see points of view other than their own, so debate and discussion with them is often pointless. Even if they get their facts wrong, they'll never acknowledge it, so what's the point of brining it up?
Not that I don't crtiticize politicians - even after 5,000 years, politicians still manage to piss me off - but I tend to avoid most leftie-righty debates. I'll look them over because I find them amusing, but I'll rarely participate.
"Just because I don't like to fight doesn't mean that I can't."
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 30,833 Likes: 7
The conscience of the rkmbs! 15000+ posts
|
|
The conscience of the rkmbs! 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 30,833 Likes: 7 |
Quote:
Methos said:
Not everybody goes to Sunday School.
But you have been around for 5000 years.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 85
25+ posts
|
|
25+ posts
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 85 |
Quote:
Pariah said:
Quote:
Methos said:
Not everybody goes to Sunday School.
But you have been around for 5000 years.
You can't seriously expect me to remember every bloody minute detail of the past 5,000 years of human existence, can you?
"Just because I don't like to fight doesn't mean that I can't."
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 85
25+ posts
|
|
25+ posts
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 85 |
Quote:
Methos said:
Quote:
Pariah said:
Quote:
Methos said:
Not everybody goes to Sunday School.
But you have been around for 5000 years.
You can't seriously expect me to remember every bloody minute detail of the past 5,000 years of human existence, can you?
And besides, like the old saying goes - "You learn something new every day." Even for us old farts, that still holds true.
"Just because I don't like to fight doesn't mean that I can't."
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 7,251
6000+ posts
|
|
6000+ posts
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 7,251 |
Quote:
Methos said:
Quote:
wannabuyamonkey said:
Oh, yea. I almost forgot.... Hey Mythos, Shut up, Whomod!
Whomod?
Someone's going to have to explain this one.
To expand on what PW said. After Whomod "left" he continued to grace our presence in the form of a few less than inconspicuous Alt IDs, so when responding to them (regardless of the ID) we'd just tell Whomod to shut up knowing that he was watching over us from above. Anyone without the "W" chip in thier forehead or right hand (and yes we all have such "marks") are suspect to being Whomod or one of his minions, but that's the most detailed response you'll ever get out of me, Whomod!
Putting the "fun" back in Fundamentalist Christian Dogma.
" I know God exists because WBAM told me so. " - theory9
JLA brand RACK points = 514k
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 30,833 Likes: 7
The conscience of the rkmbs! 15000+ posts
|
|
The conscience of the rkmbs! 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 30,833 Likes: 7 |
Quote:
wannabuyamonkey said:
After Whomod "left"
Hehe! Yeah, Whomod's always been "left" alright.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 14,203
1 Millionth Customer 10000+ posts
|
|
1 Millionth Customer 10000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 14,203 |
Quote:
Pariah said:
Quote:
Methos said:
Not everybody goes to Sunday School.
But you have been around for 5000 years.
closer to 5010 by now.
Bow ties are coool.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 85
25+ posts
|
|
25+ posts
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 85 |
Quote:
wannabuyamonkey said:
Quote:
Methos said:
Quote:
wannabuyamonkey said:
Oh, yea. I almost forgot.... Hey Mythos, Shut up, Whomod!
Whomod?
Someone's going to have to explain this one.
To expand on what PW said. After Whomod "left" he continued to grace our presence in the form of a few less than inconspicuous Alt IDs
What made them so obvious? I'm still not getting a clear picture of Whomod's tactics or why he seems to be on so many people's minds.
Was it because of his left-leaning views, the alternate ids, or something else?
Last edited by Methos; 2005-08-16 4:11 AM.
"Just because I don't like to fight doesn't mean that I can't."
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 7,251
6000+ posts
|
|
6000+ posts
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 7,251 |
Quote:
Methos said:
Quote:
wannabuyamonkey said:
Quote:
Methos said:
Quote:
wannabuyamonkey said:
Oh, yea. I almost forgot.... Hey Mythos, Shut up, Whomod!
Whomod?
Someone's going to have to explain this one.
To expand on what PW said. After Whomod "left" he continued to grace our presence in the form of a few less than inconspicuous Alt IDs
What made them so obvious? I'm still not getting a clear picture of Whomod's tactics or why he seems to be on so many people's minds.
Was it because of his left-leaning views, the alternate ids, or something else?
Don't play coy with me, Whomod!
Putting the "fun" back in Fundamentalist Christian Dogma.
" I know God exists because WBAM told me so. " - theory9
JLA brand RACK points = 514k
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 30,833 Likes: 7
The conscience of the rkmbs! 15000+ posts
|
|
The conscience of the rkmbs! 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 30,833 Likes: 7 |
What he said! You're perfectly aware of your crimes.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 85
25+ posts
|
|
25+ posts
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 85 |
Quote:
wannabuyamonkey said:
Don't play coy with me, Whomod!
If this almost-as-old-as-I-am gag is the best hazing the notorious RKMBs can come up with, I will be very disappointed.
"Just because I don't like to fight doesn't mean that I can't."
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 7,251
6000+ posts
|
|
6000+ posts
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 7,251 |
Quote:
Methos said:
Quote:
wannabuyamonkey said:
Don't play coy with me, Whomod!
If this almost-as-old-as-I-am gag is the best hazing the notorious RKMBs can come up with, I will be very disappointed.
Naw, this is is just fun and games. There isn't really much in the way of hazing arround here. The only people who get hazed are 12 year old kids and those IDs that may acctually belong to Whomod (most of wich turn out to be)
Putting the "fun" back in Fundamentalist Christian Dogma.
" I know God exists because WBAM told me so. " - theory9
JLA brand RACK points = 514k
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 85
25+ posts
|
|
25+ posts
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 85 |
Quote:
wannabuyamonkey said:
Quote:
Methos said:
Quote:
wannabuyamonkey said:
Don't play coy with me, Whomod!
If this almost-as-old-as-I-am gag is the best hazing the notorious RKMBs can come up with, I will be very disappointed.
Naw, this is is just fun and games. There isn't really much in the way of hazing arround here. The only people who get hazed are 12 year old kids and those IDs that may acctually belong to Whomod (most of wich turn out to be)
I see.
Curious as I am, I don't think I'm going to put too much thought into whomod and his alts. Based on the few posts I've read so far in the Iraq War thread I was linked to, I really don't see what the big deal is. He doesn't seem worse than most of the typical message board nuisances that are out there. But that's only based on a few posts - hardly enough to make an accurate judgment. In any case, I'm sure I can make better uses of my time than unravelling the "whomod" mystery.
However, I do appreciate the link to the Iraq War thread - a perfect example of the futility of trying to enage in any political discussion, especially on a message board.
"Just because I don't like to fight doesn't mean that I can't."
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 14,203
1 Millionth Customer 10000+ posts
|
|
1 Millionth Customer 10000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 14,203 |
Quote:
Methos said:
Quote:
wannabuyamonkey said:
Don't play coy with me, Whomod!
If this almost-as-old-as-I-am gag is the best hazing the notorious RKMBs can come up with, I will be very disappointed.
owner of a lonely heart
Bow ties are coool.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 30,833 Likes: 7
The conscience of the rkmbs! 15000+ posts
|
|
The conscience of the rkmbs! 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 30,833 Likes: 7 |
Quote:
Methos said:
Curious as I am, I don't think I'm going to put too much thought into whomod and his alts. Based on the few posts I've read so far in the Iraq War thread I was linked to, I really don't see what the big deal is
Then that proves it. You are indeed Whomod.
Or you just haven't read enough of the thread to truly encompass the breadth of Whomod's insanity.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 14,203
1 Millionth Customer 10000+ posts
|
|
1 Millionth Customer 10000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 14,203 |
Quote:
Pariah said:
Quote:
Methos said:
Curious as I am, I don't think I'm going to put too much thought into whomod and his alts. Based on the few posts I've read so far in the Iraq War thread I was linked to, I really don't see what the big deal is
Then that proves it. You are indeed Whomod.
Or you just haven't read enough of the thread to truly encompass the breadth of Whomod's insanity.
anyone who disagrees with Pariah is insane, but anyone who agrees with him completely is an idiot. it's the rkmb catch 22
Bow ties are coool.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 85
25+ posts
|
|
25+ posts
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 85 |
Quote:
Pariah said:
Quote:
Methos said:
Curious as I am, I don't think I'm going to put too much thought into whomod and his alts. Based on the few posts I've read so far in the Iraq War thread I was linked to, I really don't see what the big deal is
Then that proves it. You are indeed Whomod.
Or you just haven't read enough of the thread to truly encompass the breadth of Whomod's insanity.
Raise your hands if you saw this one coming. (Raises hand)
Just in case you are serious, and I doubt you are - I'm not reading that entire thing just to get inside the head of a single message board troll in a community of message board trolls. If he posts here under an alt id, I'll find out about him soon enough, won't I?
Out of curiosity, how much of it would I have had to read to get a clear picture of whomod? I only made it to the second page.
Last edited by Methos; 2005-08-16 4:54 AM.
"Just because I don't like to fight doesn't mean that I can't."
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 14,203
1 Millionth Customer 10000+ posts
|
|
1 Millionth Customer 10000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 14,203 |
Quote:
Methos said:
Quote:
Pariah said:
Quote:
Methos said:
Curious as I am, I don't think I'm going to put too much thought into whomod and his alts. Based on the few posts I've read so far in the Iraq War thread I was linked to, I really don't see what the big deal is
Then that proves it. You are indeed Whomod.
Or you just haven't read enough of the thread to truly encompass the breadth of Whomod's insanity.
Raise your hands if you saw this one coming. (Raises hand)
Just in case you are serious, and I doubt you are - I'm not reading that entire thing just to get inside the head of a single message board troll in a community of message board trolls. If he posts here under an alt id, I'll find out about him soon enough, won't I?
Out of curiosity, how much of it would I have had to read to get a clear picture of whomod? I only made it to the second page.
from what I've read of him, Whomod is a liberal person who likes to post articles and share his opinions.
Now, if a more conservative poster does that here, he's "sharing deep thought and news." But, if a liberal does that he's "a troll."
Bow ties are coool.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 2,289
2000+ posts
|
|
2000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 2,289 |
Well, Whomod is a little bit more hardcore than most of us liberals. then again, this doesn't seem to be a problem for the hardcore conservatives.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 5,000
5000+ posts
|
|
5000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 5,000 |
As fascinating as this discussion about Whomod and the politics of the Deep Thoughts forum is, can we please at least try to mask it within the discussione of whether or not religion is good for society? No?  Okay.  It was just a thought.  Please, carry on. 
<sub>Will Eisner's last work - The Plot: The Secret Story of the Protocols of the Elders of ZionRDCW Profile"Well, as it happens, I wrote the damned SOP," Illescue half snarled, "and as of now, you can bar those jackals from any part of this facility until Hell's a hockey rink! Is that perfectly clear?!" - Dr. Franz Illescue - Honor Harrington: At All Costs"I don't know what I'm do, or how I do, I just do." - Alexander Ovechkin</sub>
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 85
25+ posts
|
|
25+ posts
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 85 |
Quote:
r3x29yz4a said:
Quote:
Pariah said:
What "multiple wives in the Bible"?
Solomon. And it was a standard practice for lords of houses in the Bible to take many wives.
I have three more examples: Abraham, Jacob, and Elkanah.
When Sarah was still unable to conceive, she asked Abraham to marry Hagar, her handmaiden so that Abraham could have kids to pass down his legacy to. Abraham did so, and that's where Ishmael came from. Rumor has it that Keturah, the woman he married after Sarah's death was actually Hagar.
As for Jacob, he married both Leah and Rachel on account of his kinsman Laban pulling a fast one on him.
Elkanah, the father of the prophet Samuel, had two wives - Peninah and Hannah. Peninah had a bunch of kids, and Hannah did not until God granted her a son, Samuel.
So, that's three more examples of multiple marriages in the Bible. With the exception of Jacob, the purpose of multiple wives was so that if one wife couldn't have kids, the husband would marry another woman and have kids with her so the family line could continue.
"Just because I don't like to fight doesn't mean that I can't."
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 7,030
6000+ posts
|
|
6000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 7,030 |
Religion is neither absolutely good nor absolutely bad for society.
I think that should just about end the discussion.
You're welcome. Citizens, you may now return to your lives.
We all wear a green carnation.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 30,833 Likes: 7
The conscience of the rkmbs! 15000+ posts
|
|
The conscience of the rkmbs! 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 30,833 Likes: 7 |
Quote:
Methos said:
I have three more examples: Abraham, Jacob, and Elkanah.
When Sarah was still unable to conceive, she asked Abraham to marry Hagar, her handmaiden so that Abraham could have kids to pass down his legacy to. Abraham did so, and that's where Ishmael came from. Rumor has it that Keturah, the woman he married after Sarah's death was actually Hagar.
As for Jacob, he married both Leah and Rachel on account of his kinsman Laban pulling a fast one on him.
Elkanah, the father of the prophet Samuel, had two wives - Peninah and Hannah. Peninah had a bunch of kids, and Hannah did not until God granted her a son, Samuel.
So, that's three more examples of multiple marriages in the Bible. With the exception of Jacob, the purpose of multiple wives was so that if one wife couldn't have kids, the husband would marry another woman and have kids with her so the family line could continue.
Abraham didn't marry Hagar. He had a child by her, but he didn't marry her.
And none of these cases are endorsements of multiple marriage made by the Bible.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 5,203
betrayal and collapse 5000+ posts
|
|
betrayal and collapse 5000+ posts
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 5,203 |
Quote:
Methos said:
Quote:
theory9 said:
You didn't warn him about the hazing...NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!
What kind of 5,000 year old would I be if I didn't know about hazing?
This isn't that old "hemlock" hazing that was a gas with the old Greek kids, I tell ya... 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 85
25+ posts
|
|
25+ posts
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 85 |
Quote:
Pariah said:
Abraham didn't marry Hagar. He had a child by her, but he didn't marry her.
The Bible - Genesis 16:3, to be more specific - says otherwise.
From http://www.utj.org/Torah/parshah/03Lech_Lecha.html
Quote:
16:3 And Sarai Abram's wife took Hagar the Egyptian, her handmaid, after Abram had dwelt ten years in the land of Canaan, and gave her to Abram her husband to be his wife.
As for the rest of your comments:
Quote:
Pariah said:
And none of these cases are endorsements of multiple marriage made by the Bible.
If you'll forgive my saying so, reading over the debate over multiple marriages, it didn't start out as a question of endorsing them. Maybe that's what it turned into, but that didn't seem to be the original intent when the discussion began. It was you questioning their existence within the Bible.
Quote:
Pariah said:
Quote:
r3x29yz4a said:
you're arguing morality based on modern standards. what about the multiple wives in the bible?
What "multiple wives in the Bible"?
As for the question of the Bible endorsing them, the Bible gives us a bunch of cases and examples where men have more than one wife, and those are presented as acceptable scenarios. Can't one therefore argue that it is indeed an endorsement - or at least that it's acceptable? Especially since Elkanah, who is not a king, is allowed to have a second in wife in post-Moses days?
And to some degree, the Bible does endorse multiple marriages, when it says that a king cannot have more than eighteen wives.
Speaking of which, I just remembered another guy with multiple wives: King David (how could I forget about him? I gate-crashed his wedding party when he got hitched to Bath-sheba. If only the caterer was an immortal like I am...)
Last edited by Methos; 2005-08-16 6:30 PM.
"Just because I don't like to fight doesn't mean that I can't."
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 30,833 Likes: 7
The conscience of the rkmbs! 15000+ posts
|
|
The conscience of the rkmbs! 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 30,833 Likes: 7 |
Quote:
Methos said:
The Bible - Genesis 16:3, to be more specific - says otherwise.
From http://www.utj.org/Torah/parshah/03Lech_Lecha.html
It doesn't say once that Hagar was taken as a wife. Maybe acted as a wife, perhaps, but beyond that she is never referred to as Abram's "wife". In fact, that term is completely monopolized by Sarah. And more than that, it is not said once, that it was legitimately allowed.
Quote:
Methos said:
If you'll forgive my saying so, reading over the debate over multiple marriages, it didn't start out as a question of endorsing them.
Yes it did. You're confused due to the lack of spoken context. r3x obviously referred to multiple wives in the Bible to make it seem like my views, taken from the Bible, were contradictory. Now, I already knew that there were cases of multiple wives in the Bible--However, the context he was implying was that it was proponed by the Bible. In which case, I've never heard of such a thing, so I asked him to point out his particular reference, which I expected to be something saying that multiple wives was allowed.
Quote:
Methos said:
As for the question of the Bible endorsing them, the Bible gives us a bunch of cases and examples where men have more than one wife, and those are presented as acceptable scenarios.
Where?
It was said that they had multiple wives and that they allowed themselves muliple wives, but where was such a "scenario" approved by God.
Don't get me wrong though, I'm actually open to the idea that back then, multiple marriages were allowed--Although I haven't actually seen any scripture in the Old Testament that gave precise instruction regarding the legitimacy of multiple marriage. However, whilst I can attune myself to the idea that it was allowed in the Old Testament, there are specific references in the New Testament that forbid it.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 5,000
5000+ posts
|
|
5000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 5,000 |
The Torah never says anything against multiple wives. This is where the oral tradition comes in. That doesn't say anything against it either. It does not advise it, however, as laws of marriage go, there is no difference between the first and second and third wife and so on. There is a union where the woman is not a wife but rather a concubine, and she is not entitled to the same benifits upon divorce (I think that's the difference). A man can have multiple wives, but he can only have relations with one wife at a time, so no orgies. Also, a man must be completely focussed on the woman he is with, and she upon him. That's getting unnecessarily detailed. Anyway, a bit over a thousand years ago, there was a rabbi with two wives, and one betrayed him out of jealousy, so he made a law which was accepted by the mainstream, with a thousand year limit, that a man can only marry one woman. The law has since expired, but it is still not accepted custom to have more than one wife. It is custom, not law. Again, the Torah doesn't say anything against it, and there are laws concerning it in the oral tradition (Talmud).
<sub>Will Eisner's last work - The Plot: The Secret Story of the Protocols of the Elders of ZionRDCW Profile"Well, as it happens, I wrote the damned SOP," Illescue half snarled, "and as of now, you can bar those jackals from any part of this facility until Hell's a hockey rink! Is that perfectly clear?!" - Dr. Franz Illescue - Honor Harrington: At All Costs"I don't know what I'm do, or how I do, I just do." - Alexander Ovechkin</sub>
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 85
25+ posts
|
|
25+ posts
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 85 |
Quote:
Pariah said:
Quote:
Methos said:
The Bible - Genesis 16:3, to be more specific - says otherwise.
From http://www.utj.org/Torah/parshah/03Lech_Lecha.html
It doesn't say once that Hagar was taken as a wife. Maybe acted as a wife, perhaps, but beyond that she is never referred to as Abram's "wife". In fact, that term is completely monopolized by Sarah. And more than that, it is not said once, that it was legitimately allowed.
It doesn't say it was disallowed either. God and Abraham were on quite close terms on account of Abraham's righteousness, and I don't think Abraham would do something that was improper in the eyes of God.
As for whether Hagar really did marry Abraham, I suppose that's just a matter of interpretation.
Quote:
Methos said:
If you'll forgive my saying so, reading over the debate over multiple marriages, it didn't start out as a question of endorsing them.
Yes it did. You're confused due to the lack of spoken context. r3x obviously referred to multiple wives in the Bible to make it seem like my views, taken from the Bible, were contradictory. Now, I already knew that there were cases of multiple wives in the Bible--However, the context he was implying was that it was proponed by the Bible. In which case, I've never heard of such a thing, so I asked him to point out his particular reference, which I expected to be something saying that multiple wives was allowed.
Well, since I still haven't read through this entire thread, I can't comment on context at this time, so I'll drop it.
Quote:
Methos said:
As for the question of the Bible endorsing them, the Bible gives us a bunch of cases and examples where men have more than one wife, and those are presented as acceptable scenarios.
Where?
It was said that they had multiple wives and that they allowed themselves muliple wives, but where was such a "scenario" approved by God.
Well, look at it this way. If multiple wives was considered improper in the eyes of God, he would have said so. The men with the multipe wives that I cited were incredibly righteous people. In the Bible, whenever a righteous person does something improper or even commits a sin, God lets them know that they've screwed up, either directly or through a prophet.
Examples:
Moses strikes a rock instead of speaking to it. God reads him the riot act and forbids him from entering the land of Israel.
King David arranges Uriah's death and steals his wife. God sends Nathan to tell him that what he has done is evil in God's eyes (i'm paraphrasing), and he will be punished for it.
King David conducts an illegal census, and God sends Nathan to tell him "you did a bad thing."
Since there's no record of God ever doing this to anyone just for multiple marriages, I can only assume that it wasn't anything he had an issue with.
The only exception I can think of is Solomon, who took one thousand wives, when the limit for a king was eighteen (plus he allowed his wives to lead him into idol-worship). As for the David/Bath-sheba/Uriah incident, that was more about David taking another man's wife and arranging his death than merely taking additional wives. So those may not even count.
Quote:
Don't get me wrong though, I'm actually open to the idea that back then, multiple marriages--Although I haven't actually seen any scripture in the Old Testament that gave precise instruction regarding the legitimacy of multiple marriage. However, whilst I can attune myself to the idea that it was allowed in the Old Testament, there are specific references in the New Testament that forbid it.
The New Testament isn't one of my areas of expertise, I must admit.
"Just because I don't like to fight doesn't mean that I can't."
|
|
|
|
|
