I am under God’s laws as to MY behavior…after the new testament was fulfilled by Christ’s death and ressurection…we were supposed to lead our life by following rules set forth by God and obey the law we are under as humans on earth.
I’m sure you can remember the render unto caeser and things of caeser and unto God the things of God…
Like I said before, common sense keeps it all in check…
As for your women are property statement…no women are vessels of love and purity…nowadays women are as big a sexual predator as the nearest sex offender under cover…we’ve all forgotten how to control emotions
I didn’t say women are property; the verses you quoted indicate that.
The idea that women are “vessels of love and purity” is a holdover of Victorian ideals. Victorian women were seen as the heart of the home, the teacher who instilled her children with moral values. (By contrast, Victorian men were allowed quite a bit more leeway to indulge in sexual indiscretion.)
Before that, in the 1700’s and before, women weren’t held in such an idealistic light. They were seen as evil, slutty, immoral creatures (Eve was responsible for the Fall, after all) in need of strict discipline and control. They could not be trusted to teach children morality, so this was the father’s responsibility.
Actually, it wasn’t until relatively recently that romantic love became the basis for marriage. When your marriage is based on political or economic decisions, it’s a bit easier in a way because those of us who married for love can be disappointed when the romance inevitably fades. (Love does not necessarily fade, but romance does: it’s impossible to maintain that exciting, falling-in-love feeling on a day to day basis as time goes on.) If your marriage wasn’t based on love in the first place, you’re never disappointed.
That is, if you’re a woman. Many of the good men mentioned in the OT had multiple wives and concubines. Only women were expected to maintain fidelity to one spouse.
Monogamy was a bit easier to accomplish when people could expect to die young. If you were married at age 15, you didn’t have to endure several years of sexual frustration before marriage. Plus, there was a good chance either you or your spouse would die within a relatively short time span. People rarely faced the prospect of spending several decades with the same spouse.
I would like to see you come up with a cite on this.
Women are generally shorter than men. They are also generally built less than men physically. Women also accrue muscle mass in a different fashion, and are often less strong than a man. Do tell us how women are as big a sexual predator as a man. Just because women are more open sexually now than they were 50 or 100 years ago, does not mean they equate to a sex offender. This strikes me as misogynist thinking from a woman who doesn’t appreciate the liberation of the contemporary woman.
Can you help everyone understand it better, or just understand it from your perspective?
That statement comes off as arrogant and condescending.
You may have your interpretation of the Bible, but that does not make you right, and does not mean you are the authority on the meaning of a passage of scripture.
It is nice that you have a monogamous marriage. But, if one’s integrity and commitment is strong, then one does not have to say they wouldn’t do something wrong because the Bible says not to do it. They just wouldn’t do it, and would feel that doing the right thing was sufficient in itself, which wouldn’t require absolving themselves of the credit or blame dependant on how things work out.
Here’s my short and certainly not all-inclusive list:
Ashur- (2) Helah and Naarah
David- Ahinoam and Abigail; he later took more
Shaharaim- (2) Hannah, Peninnah
Solomon- (700)
Rehoboam- (18 wives, 60 concubines)
Scriptures (King James Version):
Deut 21:15-16 "If a man have two wives, one beloved, and another hated, and they have born him children, both the beloved and the hated; and if the firstborn son be hers that was hated; then it shall be, when he maketh his sons to inherit that which he hath, that he may not make the son of the beloved firstborn before the son of the hated.
Judges 30-31 And Gideon had three score and ten sons of his body begotten, for he had many wives.
Being under God’s law after Christ’s death we are now a New Testament Church. We are to keep the commandments and some of the laws set forth in the Old Testament. There were many changes made for the new church in the New Testament. There were many people that had multiple wives in the Old Testament…but that was before God condemned it. Lots of times throughout the Old Testament God looked down on the earth with disgust as to what man had been up to…guess this is one of those things. Get saved…you’ll see the error of your ways, look in the new testament to find God condoning multiple wives/partners…it’s wrong…nuff said. There are too many athiests deists here for me…adios…stock up on marshmallows…I hear they come in handy in Hell.
I’m not clear on this. “That was before God condemned it”? So it was okay for men to have many wives before that- or did “God look down on the earth with disgust” at the practice the whole time? He either accepted up until some point when he changed his mind, or he condemned it all along. Which is it?
I’ve read many passages in the Bible where God set down rules for men to deal with their multiple wives, how to treat them and so on. If he was disgusted with the practice of polygamy, he would have just said, “You can only have one wife!” So it seems clear to me that once upon a time, God didn’t have a problem with men having multiple wives and concubines. Apparently, he abruptly changed his mind and decided that sex was always bad, but if you have to do it, it must be within the confines of (monogamous) marriage (according to the New Testament).
You run away because we question you and ask you to support your position? Is your faith so weak that you can only communicate with people who aren’t “atheists deists”?
If you run away with a sly parting shot (“stock up on marshmallows… I hear they come in handy in Hell”) don’t you think you’re just reinforcing our “atheist-deist” repugnance for the ignorance you’ve displayed here? If I remember correctly, didn’t Jesus preach love and tolerance? (Or haven’t you read the Bible? I have.)
Christian tolerance never fails to amuse me A question I had that wasn’t covered though is this: Although not monogamous, do you feel that a couple that subscribes to the lifestyle of swinging be cheating?
Turbo Dog: It can’t be “cheating” if both parties agree to swing.
Personally, I’ve never met a married couple who had an arrangement like that. I know my husband wouldn’t agree to it, but he’s considered having an affair.
Scared her away? Nahhhhhhhhhhhh… hehehehe… To actually answer the OP like I’d intended in the first place, rather that stir the pot a little more, I agree with Desmond. No, Yes, and Kinda. People are not naturally monogamous. If we were, we’d be like swans and doves and mate for life, end of story, regardless of outcome. Yes, boredom will happen. To expect your mate to never want to sleep with another for the rest of their life is unrealistic. Not to say that everyone will, but that it’s understandable when it happens. There’s a difference between sex and emotion, and it’s possible to have one without the other. Emotions, sex or not, is what constitutes an affair in my book. But I think that society has made monogamy the accepted practice, not for reasons of offspring, but because that is what religion has said is good. If a man or woman wants to boink someone they met at a bar after work before going home, who cares? When they start meeting for lunch just to talk however, it’s time to start watering your own lawn.
Yes, but even animals that mate for life frequently cheat on each other. (I think Cecil addressed this, didn’t he?)
I agree, and this is where people have their major hang-up. We’ve had the fantasy of “true love” so ingrained in us that any time we suspect that our partners are doing so much as glancing at someone of the opposite sex, we freak out. “True love” is supposed to mean that your mate will always be wildly in love with you, you will fulfill each and every one of each others’ needs, and every member of the opposite sex will become invisible.
It’s such an unrealistic ideal that most people who subscribe to it are bound to get hurt.
On the other hand, although I agree that sex and emotion aren’t necessarily intertwined, they can be and often are. Is this “natural” or is it a product of society?
Holly, I couldn’t agree more. I think that sex and emotion can both breed the other, but I think that it’s natural when they do mix just as much as when they don’t. Even one breed of monkey (I don’t recall which species exactly but will look, for the inevitable “site please”) engages in what can be termed prostitution, sex for food… (brings new thought to the monkey whorehouse and bag of bananas line). I think it is socially acceptable but not natural that you only have sex with the one you love. Yes, it can be done, but as you already pointed out, for some people, this can involve a lot of work. For some people it comes easily. Perhaps its a more a matter of individual choice and desire? Gonna have to think about this some more
But seriously, folks. From my observations, it seems that women are more likely than men to confuse sex with emotions. That is, it seems more men are capable of having sex without commitment and/or emotional involvement. Would you agree? If so, do you think this is a biological or cultural phenomenon?
In my opinion, it’s both. From a biological standpoint, women are better off being very choosy about their sexual partners because they have potentially many fewer offspring; each child a woman bears requires an enormous amount of time and resources. Women seek men who will make some sort of commitment/emotional attachment because the father’s contribution to the upbringing of the child is invaluable.
I think this is why women (tend to) take into consideration not only the man’s physical appearance, but also his social standing, wealth, intelligence, etc. Few women, no matter how liberated, will hop into the sack with just anyone.
Men can afford to chase any piece of tail they see because the more seeds they spread around, so to speak, the more likely a few of them will find fertile ground. I think this is why men are less likely to closely associate sex with love. Even so, a man may develop a close emotional attachment to a particular woman, thus giving their shared offspring a better chance of survival.
From a cultural standpoint, I think women are still constrained by the old double standard. “Nice” girls don’t get horny, but it’s almost okay if you’re “really in love”. Of course, “boys will be boys”.
Wranglerette, let’s forget about all the back-and-forth about religion and religious belief that followed, and focus on your original point:
My question for you is: What planet are you from? I’d say that easily 95% of my dates ended with “just” a handshake (well, more likely a hug or a kiss). And I think that’s the norm. Most dates don’t end in sex.
Before you fear the moral degeneracy of the country, make sure it’s happening first.
A question I had that wasn’t covered though is this: Although not monogamous, do you feel that a couple that subscribes to the lifestyle of swinging be cheating?