Which Woman of the Bible Would You Most Like to Know?

Post Reply New Topic

Suppose, however, that you and your wife really wanted a child, but your wife was barren. Suppose further that your wife had a comely and sexy handmaiden, and that your wife offered you her handmaiden to produce a child.

Would knocking up the handmaiden represent a violation of stoic principles?

It's funny that so many seem interested in Eve before the fall.

The problem is not that Adam and Eve lacked a concept of sin. They knew what sin was because they were aware of at least ONE sin from the beginning.

The problem is that they lacked an inherent sinful nature. They were capable of committing ONE sin, and thus were able to choose whether their nature was sinful or good. Beyond that, they were otherwise incapable of sinning.

If someone could hypothetically make a move on Eve, she'd probably instinctively turn that person down since that would be one sin she (being good) was unable to commit.

A person who lacks a sinful nature can commit no evil, not even by accident.

I wonder if taking the fruit was itself an evil action and perhaps evil is the result of disobedience and separation from God rather than the cause of it...

There are no extant commandments against eating any particular fruits. Different meats, yes. But, no fruits. Back then, she could have roasted a pig and got away with it.

There were, as yet, no laws or commandments against either fornication or adultery. Therefore, there would have been no sin in Eve making the beast with two backs with someone new.

On top of that: until the effect of the fruit kicked in, Adam and Eve didn't see anything wrong with walking around buck naked.

I chose Deborah because God used her in an interesting way, especially for a women. Christians and those who become Christians will be able to meet these people one day. Although nothing can compare to meeting Jesus face to face.

Jael. Sister put a tent peg in a dude's head!

You're referring to Abraham, who went with that idea and Ismael was produced. Yeah, there's a good example to follow....


Anyway though, remember where Jesus talked about divorce and said,



So let's continue this: they twain shall be one flesh, so it is only the two - the one male and the one female - and not extra individuals of any sort who are to be married. Monogamy was the original design and it is what should be kept to. Polygamy is a deviation, a perversion, of the original good of marriage. It should not be. You can find loads of examples of people in polygamistic relationships in the Bible, yes, but you can find plenty recorded examples of other sin and deviations from what is nominative also. It does not make such right, it only means you're looking for an excuse to call evil good and to call good evil.

Okay. No divorce for Christians.


Monogamy wasn't the original design. Monogamy doesn't really get emphasized until Paul, who was a Hellenized Jew. Greeks and Romans tended to practise monogamy, which got absorbed into Christianity. Jews continued to practise polygamy until a millenium ago. One Jewish group in Israel wants to bring back polygamy.

http://www.jpost.com/JewishWorld/Jewish ... ?id=228736

It's relevant to more than merely divorce, but to monogamy as well. From the beginning that was the intended design. It's up there if you care to actually read rather than just seek justification for advocating anything contrary to the will of God.

This originates from



Of course I am interested in reading. The passsages don't say that a man cannot have another wife. You're just reading into it what you think is the Will of God. Jesus never personally rebuked anyone for polygamy. And, Jews continued practising polygamy for another thousand years afterwards.

If I were going to take this in the way the title seems to intend: Mary Magdalene, she's likely the most experienced.

Pand, thanks for this thread. You should go get some biblical self-knowledge.

Jesus didn't openly rebuke them, no, nor did God strictly forbid polygamy. However, going by the implication of the initial condition being normative, the way things were in the beginning being the way they should be and the deviations from such a standard being what they shouldn't be, monogamy is normative and polygamy is a perversion of the initial condition. Jesus was specifically referring to divorce using that heuristic, but the same goes for determining that polygamy is wrong.

How so? Your logic seems confused.

Whatever isn't explicitly prohibited is permitted.

That goes for the laws in America, too. You can't be prosecuted for violating a law that doesn't exist.

Judaism was a part of West Asian culture, and polygamy is still normative in many parts of that region of the world. I doubt that the initial condition for our species was monogamy.

Jacob enjoyed a rather happy polygamous marriage. Maybe the key is to marry sisters?

I've explained everything I need to explain for you to understand. You want to hear justification for things which are wrong regardless of whatever things you advocate, and such you shall not hear from me.

I'm just interested in your logic. Labelling polygamy as "wrong" based upon what you've explained just doesn't hold up to scrutiny.

Are you saying that everyone should live as Adam and Eve did, and any variation is "wrong" based upon being a "perversion of the original condition?"

Jesus never went so far as to lay that claim.

The "original condition" involved incest. Are you now in favour of incest?

Actually, if we are to consider the "initial condition being normative, the way things were in the beginning being the way they should be and the deviations from such a standard being what they shouldn't be", then, like Adam, I should have a woman formed for me from a body part. I hope not a rib--I really like my ribs. Maybe a fingernail clipping.

But, I don't think that I would get along very well with a female clone of myself. I can only imagine that she would come out looking like Godzilla with tits. And, having all of my quirks.

I vote for Eve before the whole eating of the apple.

Thats when she was still naked, right?