-
Biblical Families is not a dating website. It is a forum to discuss issues relating to marriage and the Bible, and to offer guidance and support, not to find a wife. Click here for more information.
2 Timothy 2:14
- Thread starter Nikud
- Start date
I wouldn't hide or deemphasis the forum too much. Life is complicated and lots of people have situations and questions that don't fit neatly into boxes. That and the personal connection and resources here on the forum is probably your strongest resource. People matter. A lot of folks won't make the leap until the have a chance to hash things out in conversation or see that there are faithful, normal sounding Christians who believe this.
I can. There are a couple books out there I haven't had the time to read which go into depth on the history of marriage and polygamy. Is there anyone here who has read them who could consult with me? I'll do the brunt of the work, just looking for someone to bounce ideas off and make sure I fit this appropriately in the greater history.
I think it is a good idea to break the two up. However there may be some linkages between them. For example, if someone brings up the Rom 13 objection, you can give them a theological answer, but also point them to an answer on the 'other objections' page showing it's not actually illegal under current US jurisprudence. A lot of the objections will be cultural, or will seem Biblical but actually have cultural underpinnings.
Ya, controversy aside, its just a complicated subject. Interesting as an advanced topic but not appropriate at the intro level. This subject isn't my hobby horse; I was just brainstorming in-depth ideas and it was something I'd studied.
It could be useful at the intro-level though to point out that, whatever concubines are, they represent +1 women and were regulated, not condemned under the law. Additional evidence that having multiple women isn't condemned. Without even defining concubine, it's a quick and easy disproof of the idea of 'one many and one woman' (exclusively, both ways). But I see what you are saying about distraction; presentation matters. It is rhetorically far more important on the website to deal with the common cultural objections to PM.
Another thing to think about in all this is search engines. A website rich in content will bring eye-balls. And if you have in-depth articles with a lot of content on the website end (as opposed to the forum which are often indexed differently) people searching for PM info will more easily find you. This also applies to how you encode the underlying html w.r.t. header tags, meta tags, and the like.
I can. There are a couple books out there I haven't had the time to read which go into depth on the history of marriage and polygamy. Is there anyone here who has read them who could consult with me? I'll do the brunt of the work, just looking for someone to bounce ideas off and make sure I fit this appropriately in the greater history.
I think it is a good idea to break the two up. However there may be some linkages between them. For example, if someone brings up the Rom 13 objection, you can give them a theological answer, but also point them to an answer on the 'other objections' page showing it's not actually illegal under current US jurisprudence. A lot of the objections will be cultural, or will seem Biblical but actually have cultural underpinnings.
Ya, controversy aside, its just a complicated subject. Interesting as an advanced topic but not appropriate at the intro level. This subject isn't my hobby horse; I was just brainstorming in-depth ideas and it was something I'd studied.
It could be useful at the intro-level though to point out that, whatever concubines are, they represent +1 women and were regulated, not condemned under the law. Additional evidence that having multiple women isn't condemned. Without even defining concubine, it's a quick and easy disproof of the idea of 'one many and one woman' (exclusively, both ways). But I see what you are saying about distraction; presentation matters. It is rhetorically far more important on the website to deal with the common cultural objections to PM.
Another thing to think about in all this is search engines. A website rich in content will bring eye-balls. And if you have in-depth articles with a lot of content on the website end (as opposed to the forum which are often indexed differently) people searching for PM info will more easily find you. This also applies to how you encode the underlying html w.r.t. header tags, meta tags, and the like.
It's already here:
http://archive.biblicalfamilies.org/biblical_polygynists?sid=df2c6e959a9a0d42b7777c2078caa351
Just needs formatting and reposting
The more I have pondered concubinage, the simpler it has become. From the ancient Jewish references @Kevin (I think) gave in a recent discussion, it became very clear that concubinage is simply a no-paperwork relationship. If you see "marriage" as being something where there's paperwork, and "concubinage" as being the same thing where there isn't, it translates directly into modern thinking, because they become synonyms for "marriage" and "de-facto". And scripture doesn't really distinguish between them, treating both identically except possibly with some minor inheritance details, which comes back to the contract anyway so isn't anything religious just a practical matter. With that viewpoint, every time "concubine" is mentioned becomes a reminder "hey, all this biblical stuff about marriage even applies to YOU and that woman you're sleeping with, you can't think it doesn't just because you haven't decided you're 'married' yet, you might have more obligations than you thought"... It's suddenly completely relevant, and really really simple.
My point is not to sidetrack this productive discussion into a debate over concubinage. My point is that issues that seem really complex, the longer you study them, often end up really simple.
For many of these articles, if we find whoever has managed to attain the simplest view of the subject, and get them to write the article, they'll probably be most likely to be correct. And it will be easiest for them to write the article, as they see it as easy. And the article will end up short enough to be readable, an important consideration...
If only you could feel the flood of relief rolling off of me to finally see a concubinage comment that I can let slide with a clear conscience...
@FollowingHim , agreed. Concubinage is very simple: married with no contract/ketubah. She has ALL the rights and protection of a covenant wife except inheritance, and he has ALL the responsibilities. Where Christendom gets hubg up is the errant idea that she is a sex slave or object of his passion. When compared to defacto/no contract marriage, the stigma melts away.
Okay, I'll start on it.
Before anyone else takes this further into being a thread about concubines, @FollowingHim, what say you add that excellent paragraph, verbatim, into the big thread on that topic (this one, I think) and then point there with a link?
Would it be worth setting up a forum, possibly private to a particular group, in which authors could submit articles for review and comment before having them publishing to the site?
YES!!
I suppose that could go for blog articles as well. It's only going to be a subset of us who enjoy writing that are going to be interested in participating, and I believe it could work (worth an attempt, in any event) as a collegial body. Webpage articles could be held to a higher standard of consensus; blog articles could leave more room for personal opinion or speculation.
Just brainstorming....
Just brainstorming....
Yes. Such a good idea I've done it immediately, so as to keep the discussion rolling.
Private, I think that's wise for various reasons. Best to limit discussion only to those actively working on the site to avoid distractions. Also, there may be some articles whose draft versions & background discussion are sensitive or able to be misconstrued.
To get started I've added only those people who appear to be already working on things for this or who have been asked by @andrew to do so in this thread: @Slumberfreeze, @Verifyveritas76, @rockfox and @Ancient Paths. You should find a new forum called "Website" near the bottom of the forum index page.
Andrew, to add anyone else to this, just put them in the "Website team" usergroup.