Marriage is between man and woman

Originally posted by vivify
That's my point in asking. You don't have an answer. You're left with either putting up a childish front that pretends biblical marriage was some special, romantic thing, or deal with the reality, that yes, your god gave people he liked multiple wives as gifts.

Since by Oriental custom the wives and concubines of a king could only become those of his legal successor, Absalom, who demonstrated the greatest disrespect for David, tried to strengthen his efforts to get the kingship by having relations with the ten concubines of his father David. (2Sa 16:21, 22) After King Solomon was enthroned, Adonijah, an older brother of Solomon, who had already made an attempt for the kingship, approached Solomon’s mother, Bath-sheba, saying: “You yourself well know that the kingship was to have become mine,” and then asked her to request of Solomon, Abishag the Shunammite, who appears to have been viewed as a wife or a concubine of David. Solomon angrily answered: “Request also for him the kingship,” and then he ordered that Adonijah be put to death, indicating that he construed Adonijah’s request as an effort to get the kingdom.—1Ki 1:5-7; 2:13-25.

God did not see fit to restore the original standard of monogamy as he had established it in the garden of Eden until the appearance of Jesus Christ, but he did protect the concubine by legislation. Concubinage logically worked toward a more rapid increase of the population in Israel.—Mt 19:5, 6; 1Co 7:2; 1Ti 3:2

jw.org (peace be upon it)

Thus is becomes rather apparent that the reason that David was given Sauls concubines was because it served to publically legitimise Davids position as King because as the text states no one but a legally established King could be given the concubines of his predecessor. Now let us contrast this valid and legitimate reason with Vivifys flimsy and completely fabricated nonsense that it was because 'God gave multiple wives to people he liked', a statement that has no foundation in anything other than his anti religious bias.

We will be taking no more lessons in Biblical practice from rank amateurs like Vivify and Zhalanzi, persons too religiously biased to find out the specific reason why a practice was tolerated and instead simply seek to fabricate nonsense against the scared scriptures themselves.

i see discussing how a rapist is supposed to marry his victim is not interesting.

Originally posted by vivify

What are you talking about? I'm not talking about "David's failure". I'm talking about the fact that God gave David a harem, contrary to the popular Christian belief that marriage should be between one man and one woman.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Are you referring to Second Samuel 12:8 where God said He gave his master's wives into David's bosom ?

"And I gave you your master's house and your master's wives into your bosom, and I gave you the house of Israel and Judah ..."

Is this the basis of you saying God gave David a harem?

Originally posted by sonship
[b]What are you talking about? I'm not talking about "David's failure". I'm talking about the fact that God gave David a harem, contrary to the popular Christian belief that marriage should be between one man and one woman.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Are you referring to Second Samuel 12: ...[text shortened]... Israel and Judah ..." [/quote]

Is this the basis of you saying God gave David a harem?[/b]

Well he kinda did give him a hareem.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Since by Oriental custom the wives and concubines of a king could only become those of his legal successor, Absalom, who demonstrated the greatest disrespect for David, tried to strengthen his efforts to get the kingship by having relations with the ten concubines of his father David. (2Sa 16:21, 22) After King Solomon was enthroned, Adonijah, an old ...[text shortened]... olerated and instead simply seek to fabricate nonsense against the scared scriptures themselves.

Your argument breaks down in your first sentence: oriental custom.

Saul was the first king and David replaced him VERY soon after that. No rules for inheriting kingship were yet in place at that time. Both kings were chosen, they didn't inherit their position. Claiming that the Jews had some foreign system of government rather then an obvious theocracy (God fired Saul and chose David) is desperately gasping at straws.

God gave David a harem for no apparent reason other than they were buds.

Originally posted by sonship
[b]What are you talking about? I'm not talking about "David's failure". I'm talking about the fact that God gave David a harem, contrary to the popular Christian belief that marriage should be between one man and one woman.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Are you referring to Second Samuel 12: ...[text shortened]... Israel and Judah ..." [/quote]

Is this the basis of you saying God gave David a harem?[/b]

Yes. In that verse God reminds David of all the women he gave him. Having multiple wives, then, isn't where David failed.

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
i see discussing how a rapist is supposed to marry his victim is not interesting.

I'm going to quote as a reminder to theists here to not dodge this point.

Originally posted by vivify
I'm going to quote as a reminder to theists here to not dodge this point.

What? That a rapist should marry his victim? Is that supposed to be a punishment for the rapist or the victim?

Originally posted by vivify
Your argument breaks down in your first sentence: oriental custom.

Saul was the first king and David replaced him VERY soon after that. No rules for inheriting kingship were yet in place at that time. Both kings were chosen, they didn't inherit their position. Claiming that the Jews had some foreign system of government rather then an obvious theocrac ...[text shortened]... asping at straws.

God gave David a harem for no apparent reason other than they were buds.

On the contrary I have explained why it legitimised David's rule in the eyes of the people, that there was no law and it was based on oriental custom does and cannot negate this. The scriptural references also demonstrate the importance of the harem and its relationship to legitimise a Kingship.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
On the contrary I have explained why it legitimised David's rule in the eyes of the people, that there was no law and it was based on oriental custom does and cannot negate this. The scriptural references also demonstrate the importance of the harem and its relationship to legitimise a Kingship.

What legitimized his rule in the eyes of the people was that he slayed a giant. What legitimized Saul's rule in the eyes of the people was that he was very tall. Look it up.

The Jews at the time were clearly very superficial. Your claim that David's rule was based on law or "customs" is wrong.

Originally posted by josephw
What? That a rapist should marry his victim? Is that supposed to be a punishment for the rapist or the victim?

That's it's super duper like totally not rad that a dude gets "punished" for raping his victim, while a dudette gets stoned (not the good kind) for getting laid. Like, what a gyp.

Originally posted by josephw
What? That a rapist should marry his victim? Is that supposed to be a punishment for the rapist or the victim?

these questions have obvious answers. what do you think those answers are?

Originally posted by vivify
What legitimized his rule in the eyes of the people was that he slayed a giant. What legitimized Saul's rule in the eyes of the people was that he was very tall. Look it up.

The Jews at the time were clearly very superficial. Your claim that David's rule was based on law or "customs" is wrong.

Now you are simply falling into fiction, Saul was still King, David was but a boy when he slew Goliath, in fact the only reason he was there was because he was sent up with provision for his brothers who were fighting the Philistines. The only reason that Saul's kingship ended was that God withdrew his support. I have not claimed that David's rule was based on laws or customs, what I have actually stated was that giving David Saul's concubines merely reinforced or legitimised his Kingship in the eyes of the people. David was anointed by Samuel as King at Gods direction. Sigh is this what you have been reduced to vivify, building pure straw arguments?

Rejected by God. Throughout Saul’s reign there were repeated battles against the Philistines and other peoples, including the Moabites, Ammonites, Edomites, and Amalekites. (1Sa 14:47, 48, 52) In the war against the Amalekites, Saul transgressed Jehovah’s command by sparing the best of their flock and herd as well as their king, Agag. When asked why he had not obeyed Jehovah’s voice, Saul disclaimed guilt and shifted the blame onto the people. Only after Samuel emphasized the serious nature of the sin and said that, because of it, Jehovah was rejecting him as king did Saul acknowledge that his error was the result of his fearing the people. After Saul pleaded with Samuel to honor him in front of the older men and in front of Israel by accompanying him, Samuel did appear with him before them. Then Samuel himself proceeded to put Agag to death. After that, Samuel parted from Saul and they had no further association.—1Sa 15:1-35.

jw.org

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Now you are simply falling into fiction, Saul was still King, David was but a boy when he slew Goliath, in fact the only reason he was there was because he was sent up with provision for his brothers who were fighting the Philistines. The only reason that Saul's kingship ended was that God withdrew his support. I have not claimed that David's rule w ...[text shortened]... After that, Samuel parted from Saul and they had no further association.—1Sa 15:1-35.

jw.org

isn't it nice that vivify provided you with an easy topic you can ramble on and on while moving farther and farther from the topic?


who wants to talk how rape victims were forced to marry their rapists anyway. that's such an unpleasant topic.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Oh well, after chiding us about not knowing our Bibles you now want a free Bible study? that's rich. . . .well well, who knows their Bibles now, us christians or you rascally materialists? Say 'You Christians are awesome', and I'll tell you.

"Us" Christians? Seriously? I thought your position was that JWs are the only real Christians.