A woman typically has more freedoms than she exercises in her marriage, however it is adultery if a woman has a carnal relationship with a man other than her husband and it is fornication if she even associates with another man without the permission of her husband not to mention that the man who permits his wife to have friendships with other men is a fool. A man is head of the woman and this should not be taken lightly.
For many men it is not a choice of whether to take another wife. It is a matter of physical and spiritual necessity. To be clear, it is not a sin to take an additional wife to "satisfy" ones own needs. Marriage was invented by God in order to satisfy the needs of man. For Adam there was found no suitable helpmeet, so God created woman. Now, in order to avoid immorality it is important that no preacher deny a man this right to have his own God given desires satisfied in a way that is appropriate before God. This means that in order to avoid immorality a man should not be discouraged from taking an additional wife that lives with him or even a wife who does not live with him.
39 comments
Your wife called, Pastor Don.
Boy Howdy, is she ever pissed!
(Seriously, this is what I was talking about here last week. Whatever a man does is okay, whatever a woman does is wrong and ungodly. Can someone please tell me why any woman still lives like this? Getting away from it is such a relief, words are inadequate to describe it.)
So Soloman with his thousand wives + concubines doesn't count, right?
Or Lot, getting seduced by not one, but two of his daughters is just dandy?
Many many more examples in the Bible of "righteous" sexual activity that people would be vilified for these days.
The country in which I live is 85% Muslim. A couple of weeks ago, a medieval imam came out with this sort of nonsense. He was howled down in the press, by the government and by every single political party in parliament. Back home there are people in the legislative (and maybe judicial) branch of government who think this is great stuff. Which one is closer to being a backward theocracy?
"For many men it is not a choice of whether to take another wife. It is a matter of physical and spiritual necessity. To be clear, it is not a sin to take an additional wife to "satisfy" ones own needs."
The worst thing about this sentence is the phrase "take a wife", as if a wife was something you pick up at grocery store.
anymore whenever I read the word "helpmeet" in one of these fundie posts I mentally replace it with something both more accurate and less tasteful like "f buddie" or something. That is really what they are saying.
That really puts that story in genesis in a new light when you consider that god paraded every animal in creation in front of adam and while he gave them all names, he was not satified he had found a good partner till god showed him something he could have sex with...
Last time I checked, it's also adultery if a man has a carnal relationship with a woman other than his wife.
Take another wife? Very, very few western countries have polygamy.
What about denying a woman her right to have her own "God given" desires satisfied?
What a misogynistic dolt!
the man who permits his wife to have friendships with other men is a fool.
Let me guess... you're totally insecure in your marriage and violently jealous of all other men?
This means that in order to avoid immorality a man should not be discouraged from taking an additional wife that lives with him or even a wife who does not live with him.
Please tell me more about how Christianity is more moral, doesn't oppress women, and how heterosexual marriage is good & moral while gay marriage is bad and immoral?
I'm guessing that in Don's scenario here the wife who lives with her husband is unaware of the wife who doesn't live with her husband.
It's not surprising that he seems to be totally unaware that females have sexual desires, too.
And even my old pastor, a Pentecostal, was evolved enough to teach that the whole "head of the woman" crap was only supposed to refer to spiritual matters, as in, leading in prayer.
"... it is fornication if she even associates with another man without the permission of her husband ..."
Dictionary says otherwise: no bangee, no fornee . What a lonely life "Christian" women must lead, cloistered in their houses and considered whores for just talking to another man, while men are out banging any woman they want because "men have needs".
While we're on the subject, "helpmeet " isn't really a word; it's modern Christians misunderstanding 17th-century English. But then again if Christians understood the language(s) of the Bible they wouldn't consider it the word of an omniscient god.
Now, in order to avoid immorality it is important that no preacher deny a woman this right to have her own God given desires satisfied in a way that is appropriate before God. This means that in order to avoid immorality a woman should not be discouraged from taking an additional husband that lives with her or even a husband who does not live with her. Because sauce for the goose . . .
Neither shall he multiply wives to himself, that his heart turn not away: neither shall he greatly multiply to himself silver and gold. (Deuteronomy 17:17)
Another example of cafeteria Christianity.
@ fmitchell :
In these Christians' defense, "helpmeet" isn't the first time a new word has entered the English language due to a misunderstanding.
What we call "horseradish" today comes from the French radiche du mer , meaning "radish of the sea". English speakers heard mer as "mare", and assumed it meant a horse.
@ Swede : You wrote:
"Last time I checked, it's also adultery if a man has a carnal relationship with a woman other than his wife."
Believe it or not, the Bible has a different definition of Adultery than this.
In the Old Testament (and presumably the New as well), it was only adultery if a man had sex with a woman who was married to another man. The man's marital status didn't enter in to the equation at all. A married man boinking an unmarried woman was perfectly acceptable -- hence Solomon's 400 concubines.
Well, at least he understands that polygamy was in the bible. Which, I guess, makes him more in line with his faith than the other fundies who scream "traditional marriage" without realizing that if marriage is based on the bible, then polygamy and a rapist marrying his victim would also be considered traditional marriage.
Does anyone ever notice how all the animals were tried out by adam first, then god, genius that he is, hit upon the idea of a 'woman'. Now you know where fundies got their bestiality argument.
So... you approve of swingers now? Or just unfaithful men? Wait a minute, a man can fuck around on his wife but she shouldn't even have friends he doesn't approve of?!
You're a pathetic, weak willed, inconsiderate, thoroughly miserable excuse for a hypocritical facsimile of manhood. If any woman has ever touched you I hope she she disinfected her hands and turned to lesbianity to meet her needs.
As far as I'm concerned, it was for the purpose of having children but, again, you can twist it to infinite.
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.