RE: Women + Monogamy = nature or nurture?

RE: Women + Monogamy = nature or nurture? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> General BDSM Discussion

Message

RCdc -> RE: Women + Monogamy = nature or nurture? (9/10/2007 12:51:59 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ShiftedJewel quote: ORIGINAL: Squeakers quote: Ok, "facts".... it was JUST Adam and Eve, according to the Bible. And they had two sons, Cain and Abel... according to the Bible. Then skip ahead some and do some assuming since there are no real "facts" concerning the issue... Cain and Abel took wives. Either there were more people there then just the Adam and Eve family or in the beginning incest was the going trend? Not to get off topic but I always wondered that myself---I have asked where did these others come from and was told they were just there. Could they (the others) have been the first? Because it was explained to me that incest did not happen. My theory is that perhaps Adam and Eve were the only two in the garden of Eden? And when they were cast out they met the others that had not been so "blessed"? Or maybe people just don't like to think about the incest thing. *Jewel* Do we have to add the disclaimer of 'as a christian'....[;)] So, as a christian, I am constantly surprised (really not sure why by now...[;)]) at peoples (ie other 'christians') lack of knowledge due to not reading books outside the old and new T. Does no one bother reading other books anymore?[8\|] Eve was not adams first 'wife' but his second. There were tribes from the previous relationship and I believe they were in the west (I think Aswad is a bit more up to date on that part than me) - I can't remember everything precisely, but this is presumably where Cain and Abel took wives from. Lilith was cast out of Eden for refusing to be subservient to Adam, which is why eve was made from him to guarentee submission. I dont believe that monogamy is natural for women. I believe it isnt natural for any sex or orientation. It is however more a heart led decision and a personal one, dependant on upbringing and preference. After all, a person can be poly until they find the one Person they feel the wish to be monogamous with. the.dark.

xoxi -> RE: Women + Monogamy = nature or nurture? (9/10/2007 3:23:23 PM)
I don't consider casual dating to be polyamorous. First of all it doesn't have the 'amorous' part. It's poly-going-out-and-doing-things-because-dating-is-fun. I don't sleep with people I'm casually dating, and if things are casual for long enough it's probably because I don't want a commitment with that person. I'll still go out and shoot pool with them or have dinner or go see a movie because they're fun to hang out with and talk to, but I'm not going to commit any part of myself to someone who I can't see a future with. In fact I don't even see sleeping around as polyamorous, more polysexual or simply slutty. Yeah I said slutty - most of the people who do this are proud to be called a slut, and for those of you who hate the word well...look up the definition. [;)] Polyamory in my eyes is commitment to a relationship that will develop over time with more than one person. I guess the biggest difference is that when you want to stop seeing them, if you are any sort of a decent person there is a 'break up' in volved. Nobody would think twice if you never called a one night stand, or even if you told a casual date "sorry I can't see you I have a boyfriend now."

RCdc -> RE: Women + Monogamy = nature or nurture? (9/10/2007 4:16:40 PM)
It doesn't matter if you 'think' casual dating isn't polyamorous - its just fact. Polyamory is a relationship that is sex+love+multiple. Who is talking casual relationships? When I spoke of poly, I am speaking of a continuous commited relationship that includes more than one partner. Sleeping around and dating numerous partners without sex isn't a polyamorous relationship. However, I am well aware of people who have been in commited poly relationship who come across someone who is mongoamous and who becomes an integral part of their life, so much so that they move into a monogamous relationship through personal choice. I do not believe that this shows that monogamy is natural, but that it is a chosen and conscious decision. Being gay is natural - being submissive to some people can be natural, but to be monogamous is a choice that we make, dependant on how we are raised and our own personal choice. And if you really want to get technical - you should be talking about polyandry... Peace the.dark.

xoxi -> RE: Women + Monogamy = nature or nurture? (9/10/2007 4:27:29 PM)
Ah I'm sorry then I misunderstood your comment. I thought you meant people who date around before committing were poly. I'm assuming instead you meant there are people who are poly for years and then meet someone they want to be monogamous with?

RCdc -> RE: Women + Monogamy = nature or nurture? (9/10/2007 4:31:23 PM)
As you were talking about polyamory, yes. Longterm relationships, multiple in nature with sexual involvement and love male or female. Peace the.dark.

xoxi -> RE: Women + Monogamy = nature or nurture? (9/10/2007 5:01:58 PM)
Hmm...you're giving me hope then ;) So many hot guys I meet are poly, so I don't even bother pursuing things. Maybe though three years from now one of them will give me a call and say "so um..I was thinking maybe we could go out and not do the poly thing..." Heh. A girl can dream, can't she :P

Lashra -> RE: Women + Monogamy = nature or nurture? (9/10/2007 6:29:37 PM)
I think most humans are not monogamists naturally. We are nurtured to be that way for several reasons, most of them religious or childbearing. I think people should love who they love, whether it be one person or more than one. Some people are content with one mate and good for them if that makes them happy, but others need more than just the one. ~Lashra

SoulOfIron2007 -> RE: Women + Monogamy = nature or nurture? (9/10/2007 7:17:37 PM)
I think that there are some elements of both, and your opening statements provide a lot of food for thought. I would like to point out a couple of things, though. The first is that "nature" is a very difficult term to use, when applied to human beings. I hesitate to believe that instinct plays ANY major role in the life of the modern human. The history of our species has not been one of accordance with "the laws of nature" but of bending our own nature, and that of the world, to our wills. Human beings, more than any other animal (and yes, I believe we are animals, despite all of our civilization and technology, there is no shame attached to the word) are capable, through sociological thought and iteraction, of changing who they are in a very real way with relative ease. Human beings are not creatures of tradition, but of practicality. If something works for us, we will hold to it religiously. If it doesn't, we discard it without a second thought the second a better idea comes along. These are, of course, all subjective opinions, and quite generalized. My point is that I feel the question, at it's root, is only important academically. Those who are monogamous are monogamous for the same reasons that those who aren't are not... Because that is what works for them, and feels right to them.

BDsbabygirl -> RE: Women + Monogamy = nature or nurture? (9/10/2007 8:59:33 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL POST: Darcyandthedark So, as a christian, I am constantly surprised (really not sure why by now...[;)]) at peoples (ie other 'christians') lack of knowledge due to not reading books outside the old and new T. Does no one bother reading other books anymore? I can't speak for anyone else, but for me it depends on which books -- If you mean outside of the Bible, I do read other Christian books, but I read them with a grain of salt, since I take the Bible, and it only, as the final authority since I believe it was written through God's inspiration. Not to say that other non-Bible books aren't, but I only use the Bible to rely on and live my life by. If you mean the books in the apocrypha, I actually have thought about reading them, but, again, with a grain of salt. I believe they are not a part of the OT or NT because they were not proven as the reliable Word of God and were too contradictory with the rest of the Bible. Also, as the NT - Revelations to be exact - tells me not to add to or take from the Bible, I do not rely on anything that does just that, as I believe the apocrypha does...So with these two thoughts in mind, I didn't (and still don't) "know" about Adam's alleged first wife because she is not mentioned in the book I do rely on, the Holy Bible, OT and NT. So, what does that leave me with? The belief that it was incest (Oooooh, bad word!), which at that point wouldn't've had the ramifications it does today, as Adam and Eve's and their children's bodies were still relatively "perfect", close enough anyways to not cause defects by inbreeding. As for the post with all the "begets", it may seem like humans went from 'not okay' with multiple wives to 'okay' with it rather quickly, but if you read the ages of the fathers when they were doing all this begetting, they were usually older than fifty. Six generations to Lamech would be 300 years (or let's say 5 generations would be 250 years) and that's certainly enough time to change a society's outlook on things. Heck, just in my lifetime of 38 years, we've gone from no signs of homosexuals marrying when I was a child to its legality in some states less than 4 decades later. How much more can things change in 7x as long? In fact, even if they were begetting at 25, it's still over a century to go 6 generations and I'm less than half of one. Granted, the change could've come before Lamech, but he is the one that was mentioned, so that's who I went with.

HopeLost -> RE: Women + Monogamy = nature or nurture? (9/11/2007 12:44:41 AM)
pysically women were meant to be monogamous. for all the reasons stated in the the first post. its the call of our dna. yes there have been women who didnt want or didnt have children. they had the purpose of helping the women with children. yes society is changing womens sexual practices. if females follow this change long enough it can change the natural behavior.

Tristan -> RE: Women + Monogamy = nature or nurture? (9/11/2007 2:07:49 AM)
I think that the genetic testing of offspring has shown that monogamy is not something that is either genetic or socially ingrained in human or other females. It seems to me that many males and females have an optimistic nature at least in part. Males and females just express this nature in slightly different ways.

RCdc -> RE: Women + Monogamy = nature or nurture? (9/11/2007 3:35:55 AM)
The Bible is the word of god - however it was constructed by roman scholars and if you really wish to be technical, you are studying a roman catholic book and interpretation of gods words - not christian. The apocrapha are merely the books that they left out because they didnt fit into the time and traditions but they all derive from the same sources. Lilith however is mentioned in the OT. This is also backed up by the dead sea scrolls which (surprise surprise) the vatican - ie the roman catholic scholars - have refused to 'authenticate' as yet. Because it doesn't fit in with the current time. We aren't talking mythical books or fables - in fact the bible is deemed just that by some people. But we are speaking books that stand up and support biblical scripture and in fact expound upon the parables and messages contained within the original books in the OT and NT. And that is what is a person should be doing when supporting a subject, science, spirituality or religion, not following a set of books that was only put together into one book by scholars of rome who had other agendas to follow through. Have a wonderful day. the.dark.

Aswad -> RE: Women + Monogamy = nature or nurture? (9/11/2007 3:41:13 AM)
Not all the apocrypha derive from the same sources, just as some of the canonical texts do not. There are presumed references to Lilith, but as I recall, she is not mentioned by name, rather being from rabbinical lore as the traditional first wife of Adam, who would not submit to him. That said, quite agree with the pointlessness of a single interpretation that has been shown to be clearly biased and at times erroneous. Health, al-Aswad.

xoxi -> RE: Women + Monogamy = nature or nurture? (9/11/2007 3:57:59 AM)
I agree completely. I was raised by two agnostics but went to a Catholic HS and university simply because they offered a great education. I was suprised by the fact that the lessons glossed over the fact that the books chosen for inclusion in the Bible were done so arbitrarily by a majority of (quite fallible) humans, at a time when there was great dissent over the nature of Christ. Certain books were chosen to support the idea that Christ was both fully human and fully divine. However at the time there were also sects that saw him as fully human, as well as some that saw him as fully divine. It's quite obvious that there was an agenda as the participants in the debate were often gambling with their lives for the reward of power, and the 'losers' (aka heretics) sometimes went through experiences that would make crucifixion seem pleasant. I read the Bible for various reasons, including historical perspective, wanting to better understand certain religions, and some of the stories (Ruth, Job), wisdom (proverbs) and poetry (psalms) stand up as quality work today. I don't believe it was handed down from God - and in fact that only applies to the OT. The NT is a collection of anecdotes (Gospels) and letters from evangelists to Christian communities (all the rest of it besides Rev.) - which is why it tends to be loosely translated. Once upon a time the OT was painfully copied by Hebrew rabbis entrusted to a sacred job - now it's translated by scholars with a decent grasp of ancient languages, and even more often is translated from one translation (such as King James) into a modern version of the language. This, combined with the fact that there are apocryphal books that we know about and most likely quite a few that have been lost to history forever makes me very hesitant to even consider the OT the infallible word of God, much less the whole thing. I mean come on, the word for "virgin" when describing Mary could also be translated to "maiden" - the Hebrew word "Almah" literally translates to "a young female maiden of marriageable age" - of course most of those women were virgins since they were 13 or so and sex before marriage was dangerous and frowned on but the word could have been used in the sense of "young maiden" in order to avoid the implications of using a word such as "fornicator" to describe the mother of Jesus. Combine that with the fact that in Isaiah it was prophesied that the Messiah would be born to a virgin (using the same word Almah) and it would be unthinkable to describe the young maiden Mary as anything but an "Almah" - irrespective of her technical virginity. Translation is a very tricky field and it's not hard to tweak a few words to give an entirely different impression than was originally intended. Edited because I want to clarify: The Gospels were written in Greek by speakers of Hebrew and/or Aramaic as well. When they chose what word to express the concept of "Almah" prophesied in Isaiah they would likely have chosen "virgin" rather than "maiden" although either could have sufficed - my point is that they wanted to emphasize the miraculous nature of Christ. The word used to describe Mary is a Greek word that I can't think of at the moment.

RCdc -> RE: Women + Monogamy = nature or nurture? (9/11/2007 4:00:53 AM)
Hello Aswad When I said 'the same' - I meant no different (like the canonical texts). I didnt mean the same people, but I am not sure if I am explaining myself properly. Apology for the mix up. As for lilith, I cant remember the interpretation(I know that King James left it out as did the NIV I believe) but she is mentioned by name in isaiah and ezekiel (I think - I would need to find the exact text but I remember it being there). Peace the.dark.

BDsbabygirl -> RE: Women + Monogamy = nature or nurture? (9/12/2007 4:03:07 AM)
Again, sorry to hijack the thread, but... re: the Bible's genesis (no pun intended) quote: The term "canon" is used to describe the books that are divinely inspired and therefore belong in the Bible...Ultimately, it was God who decided what books belonged in the Biblical canon. A book of Scripture belonged in the canon from the moment God inspired its writing. It was simply a matter of God convincing His human followers which books should be included in the Bible...Hebrew believers recognized God’s messengers, and accepted their writings as inspired of God...by A.D. 250 there was nearly universal agreement on the canon of Hebrew Scripture. For the New Testament, the process of the recognition and collection began in the first centuries of the Christian church...The first "canon" was the Muratorian Canon, which was compiled in A.D. 170. The Muratorian Canon included all of the New Testament books except Hebrews, James, and 3 John. In A.D. 363, the Council of Laodicea stated that only the Old Testament (along with the Apocrypha) and the 27 books of the New Testament were to be read in the churches. The Council of Hippo (A.D. 393) and the Council of Carthage (A.D. 397) also affirmed the same 27 books as authoritative. The councils followed something similar to the following principles to determine whether a New Testament book was truly inspired by the Holy Spirit: 1) Was the author an apostle or have a close connection with an apostle? 2) Is the book being accepted by the Body of Christ at large? 3) Did the book contain consistency of doctrine and orthodox teaching? 4) Did the book bear evidence of high moral and spiritual values that would reflect a work of the Holy Spirit? Again, it is crucial to remember that the church did not determine the canon. No early church council decided on the canon. It was God, and God alone, who determined which books belonged in the Bible. It was simply a matter of God convincing His followers of what He had already decided upon. The human process of collecting the books of the Bible was flawed, but God, in His sovereignty, despite our ignorance and stubbornness, brought the early church to the recognition of the books He had inspired... Taken from gotquestions.org, a nondenominational Christian website, but confirmed many times over as to how the Bible came about. I added the bold and italics as a way of answering/debating points brought up here...Next I will go over the apocrypha...

RCdc -> RE: Women + Monogamy = nature or nurture? (9/12/2007 4:32:10 AM)
BD - I would suggest you look at historical sources and not just a non denominational christian website for the reasons behind apoc books are with-held. It was NOT because of God, but because of man. For instance - How can a book be split? Why on earth would God bless christians with Psalms if some of those are convieniently left out? Have you even considered why some bibles have more books contained within them than others? But they are still bonafide bibles. And what about those books written by disciples and those close to Jesus (as portrayed in the NT etc) - are they less important than those books written by people who never even knew Jesus? Why was the apoch books removed as recently as the 15th/16th centuary from the King James? When will 'man' decide and stick to a standard set of teachings? They won't. Because they are 'told by God'? In which case I could just as easily claim that God spoke to me and told me to completely ignore the OT because they aren't the 'words or teachings of Jesus'. That however, because I am not in a heiracy or chosen set of scholars would be viewed as herasy. The apocrytha and its entire 'story' is nothing more than the classic case of picking and chosing down to man, not God, depending on which denomination of the church you are in at the time and which era or centuary your living in. And people wonder why non christians question the authority of such writings and double standards.[8\|] Peace the.dark. (editedbecausetyposandspellingssuck)

BDsbabygirl -> RE: Women + Monogamy = nature or nurture? (9/12/2007 4:44:16 AM)
quote: The nation of Israel treated the Apocrypha / Deuterocanonical books with respect, but never accepted them as true books of the Hebrew Bible. The early Christian church debated the status of the Apocrypha / Deuterocanonicals, but few early Christians believed they belonged in the canon of Scripture. The New Testament quotes from the Old Testament hundreds of times, but nowhere quotes or alludes to any of the Apocryphal / Deuterocanonical books. Further, there are many proven errors and contradictions in the Apocrypha / Deuterocanonicals -- Tobit (Tobias) -1 historical error - 9 pgs (says Tobit saw the revolt of the northern tribes (997 BC.); he was deported to Ninevah with Naphtali (740 BC.) yet he only lived 102 years); Judith -14 historical errors -14 pgs (Nebuchadnezzar was the King of Babylon; he did not rule from Ninevah / The Moabites and Ammonites were descendents of Lot; they were not Canaanites...); Additions to Esther -2 historical errors - 4 pgs (Haman was an Agagite, not Macedonian...); Wisdom of Solomon -2 contradict doct. -19 pgs; Sirach (Ecclesiasticus) -8 contradict doct. -44 pgs; Baruch -4 historical errors - 7 pgs; Song of the 3 Holy Children (in Daniel) - 2 pgs; Susanna (in Daniel) - 2 pgs; Bel & the Dragon (in Daniel) -1 error - 2 pgs; 1 and 2 Maccabees -2 historical errors -41 pgs...Biblical scholar Dr. Rene Pache comments, "Except for certain interesting historical information (especially in 1 Maccabees) and a few beautiful moral thoughts (e.g., Wisdom of Solomon), these books contain absurd legends and platitudes, and historical, geographical and chronological errors, as well as manifestly heretical doctrines; they even recommend immoral acts (Judith (9:10,13)."...The Apocrypha undermines a doctrine of inerrancy because these books contain historical and other errors. Thus, if the Apocrypha is considered Scripture, this identifies error with God's Word. This is why neither the Jews, Jesus, the apostles, nor most of the early Church fathers ever accepted the Apocrypha as Scripture. Information obtained from gotquestions.org, biblequery.org, and johnankerberg.org, but I added the italics. Didn't feel the need to go over each and every inconsistency, just used those as examples... Did I hear someone mention the Dead Sea Scrolls? Coming right up...

BDsbabygirl -> RE: Women + Monogamy = nature or nurture? (9/12/2007 4:52:10 AM)
What about the Dead Sea Scrolls? quote: The Dead Sea Scrolls comprise a vast collection of Jewish documents written in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek, and encompassing many subjects and literary styles. They include manuscripts or fragments of every book in the Hebrew Bible except the Book of Esther, all of them created nearly one thousand years earlier than any previously known biblical manuscripts. The scrolls also contain the earliest existing biblical commentary, on the Book of Habakkuk, and many other writings, among them religious works pertaining to Jewish sects of the time The legends of what was contained in the Dead Sea Scrolls are far beyond what was actually there. There were no lost books of the Bible or other literature that there was not already other copies of. The vast majority of the Dead Sea Scrolls were simply copies of books of the Old Testament from 250-150 B.C. A copy or portion of nearly every Old Testament book was found in Qumran. There were extra-biblical and apocryphal books found as well, but again, the vast majority of the scrolls were copies of the Hebrew Old Testament. The Dead Sea Scrolls were such an amazing discovery in that the scrolls were in excellent condition and had remained hidden for so long (over 2000 years). The Dead Sea Scrolls can also give us confidence in the reliability of the Old Testament manuscripts since there were minimal differences between the manuscripts that had previously been discovered and those that were found in Qumran. Clearly this is a testament to the way God has preserved His Word down through the centuries, protecting it from extinction and guarding it against significant error. Again from gotquestions.org shrugs So what about the Dead Sea Scrolls. They're just confirmation of the Bible. As for my sources, that website is not my only source; it's [nearly] the only one I quoted from because it was more concise than my textbooks from Youngstown State University (where I went to school), other websites, and various books on how and when the Book was written. But re: the website - you are right to be concerned about who's writing this stuff, so here's a little about them...

BDsbabygirl -> RE: Women + Monogamy = nature or nurture? (9/12/2007 4:57:36 AM)
quote: We are Christian, Protestant, conservative, evangelical, fundamental, and non-denominational...Our writing staff includes pastors, youth pastors, missionaries, Biblical counselors, Bible/Christian College students, Seminary students, and lay students of God's Word...All of our answers are reviewed for Biblical and theological accuracy by our President and Founder, S. Michael Houdmann. He possesses a Master's degree in Christian Theology from Calvary Theological Seminary and a Bachelor's degree in Biblical Studies from Calvary Bible College. Not to mention that they themselves refer to various books written on the subjects, so they're not just spitting out answers they like. Need I name some of their sources?

Page: << < prev 3 4 5 [6] 7 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875