The Newsweek Article
Making an lj-cut for those that are already tired of teh drama.
http://www.newsweek.com/id/172653
Let's see. In the first paragraph it mentions Abraham and Sarah. It neglects to mention some highly relevant culture context. Sarah, as the wife, would be blamed for her own infertility and not providing her husband an heir. She would have to live with that blame and shame in a culture where women are expected and value almost entirely for their ability to provide children and a male heir. Think of modern day Arab tribal cultures if you need a modern example. If Abraham slept with her maidservant, she could 'adopt' the child as hers and have some of her shame removed. She had an obvious reason to want him to sleep with another women for her own sake due to the sick culture. The article neglects to mention this whatsoever and puts it as 'Shall we look to Abraham, the great patriarch, who slept with his servant when he discovered his beloved wife Sarah was infertile?'
Or to Jacob, who fathered children with four different women (two sisters and their servants)? Abraham, Jacob, David, Solomon and the kings of Judah and Israel-all these fathers and heroes were polygamists.
The Bible is a -great- argument against polygamy. Over and over it gives examples of households torn apart or filled with strife to jealousy, pain and envy. It gives examples of sons rising up to destroy their fathers or brothers and on and on. The institution is never outlawed that I recall, but it's not overly endorsed either.
The article forgets to mention Elkanah and Hannah. He loved her, despite her barrenness and treated her with respect and love, despite the cultural value placed on her. (He had another wife, so no, he wasn't perfect). Moses had only one wife that I recall and Abraham had no other wives besides his beloved Sarah until after she died. Jacob tried to only marry Rachel originally, so it's hard to know what he would have done if he hadn't been tricked. Or if he would have taken another women in that case. As far as the maidservant sex goes, the wives were noted to be competitive and children via your made servant produced more children that (again) counted as your own.
In the New Testament: Joseph was married only to Mary, that I recall. Jesus was very clear about how to treat people, including one's wife. While he said that love and family should be extended to everyone, including the poor, widows, etc, I don't think that counts as an attack or making light of marriage. It's true that Paul wasn't a rousing endorsement, certainly.
And second, as the examples above illustrate, no sensible modern person wants marriage-theirs or anyone else's -to look in its particulars anything like what the Bible describes.
Quite a lot of people would like their marriage to look something like what's described in the NT (though many are religious it might be noted) or to be treated the way Jesus said -everyone- should be treated. There are even love stories in the Bible (if shaped by cultural context), which are utterly ignored here. The examples he did use were mis-used at best, except for perhaps Paul. As for men or occasionally people being abusive, I would note that modern times has hardly stopped this behavior, it's just changed the methods. On the plus side, it's given women far more freedom to escape though.
But as the Barnard University Bible scholar Alan Segal puts it, the arrangement was between "one man and as many women as he could pay for."
Often, but there's also a few examples of men having only one wife, such as Abraham originally (I'm not sure if Hagar counts entirely), Joseph and Mary, Moses (I think) and a few people in the OT and NT that I refuse to spend all night looking up. The polygamy examples are larger, more dramatic and frequent especially when the narratives involve royalty, but the others do exist. And again, one could effective argue that while cultural, the Bible shows why -not- to do it.
In its entry on "Homosexual Practices," the Anchor Bible Dictionary notes that nowhere in the Bible do its authors refer to sex between women, "possibly because it did not result in true physical 'union' (by male entry)."
That's a pretty lousy Biblical dictionary because I found a mention of it on google in .5 seconds. Romans 1:25-27 - As it's not a flattering mention, I shan't repost it here.
In the Christian story, the message of acceptance for all is codified. Jesus reaches out to everyone, especially those on the margins, and brings the whole Christian community into his embrace. The Rev. James Martin, a Jesuit priest and author, cites the story of Jesus revealing himself to the woman at the well- no matter that she had five former husbands and a current boyfriend-as evidence of Christ's all-encompassing love.
Very true, but he also tells her to go and sin no more, which means I can't have my harem. ._.
http://www.newsweek.com/id/172653
Let's see. In the first paragraph it mentions Abraham and Sarah. It neglects to mention some highly relevant culture context. Sarah, as the wife, would be blamed for her own infertility and not providing her husband an heir. She would have to live with that blame and shame in a culture where women are expected and value almost entirely for their ability to provide children and a male heir. Think of modern day Arab tribal cultures if you need a modern example. If Abraham slept with her maidservant, she could 'adopt' the child as hers and have some of her shame removed. She had an obvious reason to want him to sleep with another women for her own sake due to the sick culture. The article neglects to mention this whatsoever and puts it as 'Shall we look to Abraham, the great patriarch, who slept with his servant when he discovered his beloved wife Sarah was infertile?'
Or to Jacob, who fathered children with four different women (two sisters and their servants)? Abraham, Jacob, David, Solomon and the kings of Judah and Israel-all these fathers and heroes were polygamists.
The Bible is a -great- argument against polygamy. Over and over it gives examples of households torn apart or filled with strife to jealousy, pain and envy. It gives examples of sons rising up to destroy their fathers or brothers and on and on. The institution is never outlawed that I recall, but it's not overly endorsed either.
The article forgets to mention Elkanah and Hannah. He loved her, despite her barrenness and treated her with respect and love, despite the cultural value placed on her. (He had another wife, so no, he wasn't perfect). Moses had only one wife that I recall and Abraham had no other wives besides his beloved Sarah until after she died. Jacob tried to only marry Rachel originally, so it's hard to know what he would have done if he hadn't been tricked. Or if he would have taken another women in that case. As far as the maidservant sex goes, the wives were noted to be competitive and children via your made servant produced more children that (again) counted as your own.
In the New Testament: Joseph was married only to Mary, that I recall. Jesus was very clear about how to treat people, including one's wife. While he said that love and family should be extended to everyone, including the poor, widows, etc, I don't think that counts as an attack or making light of marriage. It's true that Paul wasn't a rousing endorsement, certainly.
And second, as the examples above illustrate, no sensible modern person wants marriage-theirs or anyone else's -to look in its particulars anything like what the Bible describes.
Quite a lot of people would like their marriage to look something like what's described in the NT (though many are religious it might be noted) or to be treated the way Jesus said -everyone- should be treated. There are even love stories in the Bible (if shaped by cultural context), which are utterly ignored here. The examples he did use were mis-used at best, except for perhaps Paul. As for men or occasionally people being abusive, I would note that modern times has hardly stopped this behavior, it's just changed the methods. On the plus side, it's given women far more freedom to escape though.
But as the Barnard University Bible scholar Alan Segal puts it, the arrangement was between "one man and as many women as he could pay for."
Often, but there's also a few examples of men having only one wife, such as Abraham originally (I'm not sure if Hagar counts entirely), Joseph and Mary, Moses (I think) and a few people in the OT and NT that I refuse to spend all night looking up. The polygamy examples are larger, more dramatic and frequent especially when the narratives involve royalty, but the others do exist. And again, one could effective argue that while cultural, the Bible shows why -not- to do it.
In its entry on "Homosexual Practices," the Anchor Bible Dictionary notes that nowhere in the Bible do its authors refer to sex between women, "possibly because it did not result in true physical 'union' (by male entry)."
That's a pretty lousy Biblical dictionary because I found a mention of it on google in .5 seconds. Romans 1:25-27 - As it's not a flattering mention, I shan't repost it here.
In the Christian story, the message of acceptance for all is codified. Jesus reaches out to everyone, especially those on the margins, and brings the whole Christian community into his embrace. The Rev. James Martin, a Jesuit priest and author, cites the story of Jesus revealing himself to the woman at the well- no matter that she had five former husbands and a current boyfriend-as evidence of Christ's all-encompassing love.
Very true, but he also tells her to go and sin no more, which means I can't have my harem. ._.