principessa-yisraeliana wrote:Well, I guess there is a problem here in my way of thinking with the idea of the woman 'working outside the home' in a general sense. That brings up a few other issues about the couple's life and Torah walk in general. Most of us are guilty of this/these trangression(s).
I'll explain further:
I believe that we are in captivity - but especially so if we are in the 'system' and have a social security #, birth certificate, etc. I personally don't believe that a man has any business taking a wife or ESP. more than one wife unless he is obeying Torah in the sense of coming out of the Admiralty system. The man should not be participating in COMMERCE (someone with a birth certificate and SSAN is CHATTEL--property of the state.) We are not to be numbered, according to Torah. It also violates the law about being personally liable for our own acts, as the state causes us to engage in commerce (with fictitious entities/fictitious ships of Admiralty) and to participate in INSURANCE which limits our liability. If we use Federal Reserve Notes, we are also in violation of Torah because these are instruments of commerce (commercial paper) and are unjust weights and measures. He should have his own property not investments in the stock market, bank account, etc.
I don't agree with everything that this man, George Gordon, teaches, but he does have a lot of great teachings:
MARRIAGE SERIES by George Gordonhttp://db.georgegordon.com/view_prog.php?prog=188http://www.georgegordon.orgSo, unless a man is outside the system and is a man of substance who engages in private business and NOT commerce, I don't think it's profitable under the law to bring women and then children into the relationship. I do know of a situation where a man who was outside the system recently married a woman IN the system, but he is trying to get her OUT and they have land and are engaging in farming. As far as I know, they are not planning to be polygynous, and to me that would be multiplication/magnification of sin/iniquity if he did. FIRST THINGS FIRST!
We should not be engaging in COMMERCE, but rather PRIVATE BUSINESS. We should have PROPERTY that we can weigh or count, in order to be just. We should not be dealing in commercial paper of Federal Reserve Notes. So, to intend to marry a woman and send her out into commerce to earn a living, is unrighteous, in my opinion. This system is being judged, and it is not wisdom to marry and then propagate a clan of your own under you that will eventually be judged in the system. There are exceptions, I'm sure. But I see so many people, especially men, with polygyny on their lips who don't even have property of their own or even a job IN THE SYSTEM! That's insane, IMO! And in my mind, comes of evil. The man should not be using the wife's money to set himself up with another wife! He should be independently able to have his own property and THEN bring a wife into that prosperous setting.
PRIVATE BUSINESS by George GordonHOW TO BUY A HOUSE by George GordonMY BROTHER BUYS SILVER by George GordonCOMMON LAW part 1-7, by George GordonMAKING MONEY WITH HARD MONEY part 1-7, by George GordonUPCOMING DEPRESSION (some helpful ideas) by George GordonSo, I think that there are more factors to consider before taking a wife, bringing children into the world, etc. I do think that there are situations that are compromised that would be acceptable to the Father, like the situation with the man who married and is trying to get his wife OUT of the system. I don't think that they're planning on family at this point (don't know, haven't asked them), but he is surely not exacerbating the situation by marrying and is actually assisting her to be obedient. How noble!
All of this is just fine, but you are putting two issues together that don't belong. What if a man is already married, in any form, before he comes into this righteous knowledge? Should he then divorce his wives? No.
And to talk about "FIRST THINGS FIRST", a man can do all of these things above and still have a hard heart, and not be loving toward his wife or wives. A man can do all of that and still treat women like slaves. So "FIRST THINGS FIRST" in terms of taking a wife isn't about your monetary living status, it is about your loving and compassionate and heart status.
I think that this polygyny concept is an idol -- way out of priority in the scheme of things! I don't believe that it's unlawful, unless the man is breaking the Law in these areas that I've mentioned or others.
This is a contradiction! Polygynous can't be an "idol" and be "lawful" at the same time.
Eriq,
I don't know most of the people here - just some. I do know people in the Hebraic roots (catch-all term...for lack of another term) that DO make polygyny a primary doctrine that motivates them and is on their lips more than other things. I have a problem with this seeing as that they haven't even managed one wife well, and are considering another and her potential earning power. These issues are of concern to women who perhaps haven't considered all the applications of truth and are considering relocating to be married to such a man.
Maybe you would do well to just teach women to obey the Torah rather than being the "polygyny police".
I agree with you that these issues I bring up can affect all people and unions - but they are MULTIPLIED when you bring more people into the mix. Most men have trouble with one wife, let alone two or more. If a man is relying on a woman's income or labor, then he should not be considering marriage IMO--esp. polygynous.
A woman should be willing to give of all of herself and substance to the marriage and man should be able to depend on that. A woman should depend on a man to do the same thing. The point is, the old "what's mine is mine and what's his is mine" attitude isn't the way to go in a righteous marriage.
What each has or acquires is brought the husbands table of benefit for the entire house.
If a man sins, then his transgression affects himself. If he sins with one wife, his sin is multiplied to affect her and her children. If he sins with more than one wife, the sin is multiplied all the more. Then you have a hotbed of activity that can be multiplied geometrically. This is surely of concern to the Father.
I believe that my points ARE relative to this topic. If the moderator directs me to begin a new topic, then I will gladly do so. Thanks for your post, Cherie
I didn't say they weren't relevant. you seemed to indicate that the topic of polygyny was insignificant and there were more important things to discuss. I merely suggested that you may want to start a discussion of more important things on a new thread.
If not, then by all means, continue with your personal womens liberation crusade!
Every woman can contract for what she wishes -- hopefully daughters of Sara will contract for a good situation (or their fathers will do so for them). There are men who might take a wife while in bond servanthood/slavery, and she remains the property of the master, as well as the children.
If that is her lot, so be it!
I would hope that women could see that that there is more than just settling to be a second-wife work horse for an unemployed man who has no income of his own. I have seen such a situation, and each woman must go in with eyes wide open.
I hope that no woman will be a "ONE WIFE work-horse".
Not only that, you talk about "being unemployed" and then talk about not being part of the system! If even if you have your own business, you can't have an income without doing business in the system.
It seems to me that you have women focused on "income", which to me isn't the most important thing. It is the same mindset of worldly women.
I don't think that a Proverbs 31 woman is a bad model - she has her own property and enterprise and yet she is all about the needs of her husband as well.
That's not correct. What the woman in Proverbs does is all about benefit her "house", not the empowerment of herself...
I never said that a woman should be all about materialism - but a daughter of Sara should be provided for and protected.
Wrong. A daughter of YHWH should "help" provide for her house and follow the leadership of her husband, insomuch as the husband follows the leading of the Holy Spirit.
Yeah, even Abraham failed in this regard when he had her lie about being his SISTER and nearly caused a catastrophe had YHVH not stepped in. Other than that, he seems to have taken care of her well and provided well for his family/clan. I haven't seen any modeling of this in those men's lives that I know want to embrace polygyny. Perhaps you or others here are the exception to this??
YHWH stepped in on Avraham's behalf because he loved him. If there had been "catastrophe", it would not have come upon Avraham or his house, but upon those who violated his house.
I understand that your limited experiences may have sparked your desire to crusade on behalf of oppressed women everywhere, but their empowerment doesn't come from "income" or "contracts" or any such thing. It comes from a dedicated and diligent relationship to YHWH and obedience to His Torah.
Shalom Eriq,
I would disagree about that - the Proverbs 31 woman was able to conduct her own enterprise. And then if the husband is displeased with her and wishes to send her away, her inheritance presumably remains with her father's clan although father would have to pay back the bride price if he gave her a bill of divorcement for legal cause.
You may disagree but you are wrong.
The woman in Proverbs 31 contributed her gain to the house. And if a man divorces a woman, the father doesn't have to pay back, the father only pays back if the woman wants to divorce HIM.
Solomon was disobedient and multiplied wives unto himself, but especially foreign wives so as to make compacts with foreign nations for political purposes. We forget the pragmatic, materialistic and contractual nature of marriage. Sure, a woman (her father) can bargain for and contract for anything from bondservanthood/slavery to a prosperous and productive relationship with a king who came forth from Abraham's and Sara's loins.
What are you talking about? Solomon had no negotiated "contract" with 1000 women! What Solomon had was a sexual appetite to big for his own good. And just like today, he exposed himself to gold digging whores that were all to willing to satisfy that appetite. The status they enjoyed or not enjoyed was the status he allowed them to have, not a part of some contract. Get real.
I would hope that women would contract for something good with a man who was Torah-observant in ALL areas and was a man of substance who managed his household and finance well before she came along. Not where she is eyed for her labor when he's not even working or is financially dependent upon Wife #1. I have seen this situation, and it would have to be corrected before taking a[nother] wife.
Remember - I am not saying that polygyny is not permissible or is unlawful. I believe that it is sometimes unprofitable and even not wise if the man is already out-of-order. Also, I am basing my posts here on some situations that I have personally seen. Perhaps you have other experiences that you have seen where it works super-well. I'm not arguing against polygyny in general!
But the nature of marriage is a CONTRACT and that is not being 'materialistic' in a sinful sense, IMO.
Wrong again. The nature of marriage is RELATIONSHIP and LOVE, not contract. To marry someone automatically implies a "contract" or "covenant" of loving relationship and communion. Finance, should not be a primary issue. That is a bad, bad premise to teach women and I hope women don't take heed to that message.