Finally showing your real face...

[Niilo Paasivirta]

No, actually concubines are married to a True Christian man. Concubine is a woman living in a lawful marriage arrangement with a man, but whose status is regarded as being less than a wife. A concubine is especially recommended by the Bible if the wife is unable to have children (e.g. Sarah suggested that her husband Abraham take Hagar as a concubine i.e. Genesis 16:1-3).

We True Christians have a simpler, quicker marriage for adding concubines to a man. The concubine is expected to be equally chaste and loyal to the man as any true wife! However, concubines are not actual wives, so they can be released from service, or traded with another True Christian man if so desired.

No, actually concubines are not married to the man.
This is the definition of a concubine.
Concubine: A woman who cohabits with a man without being legally married to him.

That is a wrong definition.

You know Niilo you have committed a sin! You already have a wife yet you desire more! THAT IS LUST!! Not only do you desire more than one wife but you desire concubines too! SHAME ON YOU!!

Now where did you get LUST into this? I certainly did not say that I lust after concubines. Lust is a SIN! Strange how you can accuse other people of sin without any proof. Are you sure you are not bearing false witness against your neighbor (Exod. 20:16)? Or perhaps you have a beam in your own eye? (Luke 6:42)

The concubine was a wife of secondary rank. There are various laws recorded providing for their protection (Ex. 21:7; Deut. 21:10-14), and setting limits to the relation they sustained to the household to which they belonged (Gen. 21:14; 25:6). They had no authority in the family, nor could they share in the household government.

There are no passages in the Bible that condemn concubines. God was displeased with Solomon's approximately 1,000 wives and concubines. But it was not because of the polygynous arrangement. God was concerned that many of the women were foreigners, and worshiped foreign Gods. They eventually lead Solomon to stray from worshipping Yahweh. (1 King 11:1-6).

There is no indication that Jesus indicated disapproval of any other forms of marriage. He never criticized polygnyous marriages, levirate marriages, or any of the other marriage types mentioned in the bible.

John the Baptist criticized Herod's polygynous marriage to Herodias. (Matthew 14:3). But the criticism was based on the inappropriate choice of Heodias, since she was the wife of his brother Philip. John did not criticize the fact that it was a polygynous marriage.

Some interpret Jesus' comments on divorce in (Mark 10:2 & Matthew 19:3) as proof that Jesus supported only the usual "one man, one woman" type of marriage. But his response "So they are no longer two but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate" was in answer to a specific question from the Pharisees: whether "a man" was allowed to divorce "his wife." (Matthew 19:3). Jesus' response, which denied a man the right of a man to divorce his wife, does shows that at least Jesus acknowledged the nuclear, one-man-one-woman marriage. But it does not exclude support for the other types of family structure, listed above. Polygyny was less common during the 1st century CE than it was in earlier times, but it was still practiced. For example, Herod the Great had nine wives.

[American Girl]

That is a wrong definition.

No it's not. That was what was in the dictionary.

Now where did you get LUST into this? I certainly did not say that I lust after concubines. Lust is a SIN! Strange how you can accuse other people of sin without any proof. Are you sure you are not bearing false witness against your neighbor (Exod. 20:16)? Or perhaps you have a beam in your own eye? (Luke 6:42)

You DESIRE more concubines (whores) and wives. You are not happy with one, you desire more, that is lust.

The concubine was a wife of secondary rank. There are various laws recorded providing for their protection (Ex. 21:7; Deut. 21:10-14), and setting limits to the relation they sustained to the household to which they belonged (Gen. 21:14; 25:6). They had no authority in the family, nor could they share in the household government.

That's not what the laws say. If you do not obey the current laws then you are doing an illegal act.

There are no passages in the Bible that condemn concubines. God was displeased with Solomon's approximately 1,000 wives and concubines. But it was not because of the polygynous arrangement. God was concerned that many of the women were foreigners, and worshiped foreign Gods. They eventually lead Solomon to stray from worshipping Yahweh. (1 King 11:1-6).

There are LAWS that condemn 'concubines'.

There is no indication that Jesus indicated disapproval of any other forms of marriage. He never criticized polygnyous marriages, levirate marriages, or any of the other marriage types mentioned in the bible.

Then you would agree that Homosexual marriages are ok because Jesus never condemned them.

[Niilo Paasivirta]

That is a wrong definition.

No it's not. That was what was in the dictionary.

What is this "dictionary" which you (and only you?) believe is the greatest authority on the Bible?

You DESIRE more concubines

Where?

That's not what the laws say. If you do not obey the current laws then you are doing an illegal act.

Which laws are you talking about now? Are you familiar with Finnish law at all...?

There are LAWS that condemn 'concubines'.

Hm...you must be talking about laws in the Bible then, since the Bible is the only authority in this. So, it should be easy for you to specify then. Or are you LYING or something?

[bengel]

It is very true that their are passages in the bible which do not condemn polygamy in itself. However, most christian denominations rely on those passages which condemn adultery to form their sexual ethics, claiming that having intercourse with a woman you are not married to, like a concubine, is a sin. I'm guessing it all depends on which interpretation suits one best.

[Niilo Paasivirta]

It is very true that their are passages in the bible which do not condemn polygamy in itself. However, most christian denominations rely on those passages which condemn adultery to form their sexual ethics, claiming that having intercourse with a woman you are not married to, like a concubine, is a sin. I'm guessing it all depends on which interpretation suits one best.

Except this case is clear: concubines are also married to their man (it's a lesser form of marriage), so it's not a sin.

[American Girl]

What is this "dictionary" which you (and only you?) believe is the greatest authority on the Bible?

A dictionary is a book you look at when you want to find definitions.

Where?

It is obvious that you desire concubines (whores), if you didn't then you would not have them.

Which laws are you talking about now? Are you familiar with Finnish law at all...?

I tried looking it up but no one cares enough to put it on the internet.

Hm...you must be talking about laws in the Bible then, since the Bible is the only authority in this. So, it should be easy for you to specify then. Or are you LYING or something?

The Biblical laws are not the only authority, if they where then there would be no governmnet.

[Niilo Paasivirta]

What is this "dictionary" which you (and only you?) believe is the greatest authority on the Bible?

A dictionary is a book you look at when you want to find definitions.

Which dictionary? Print? ISBN? Which page? Give the exact quote.

You believe in the Internet, so Merriman-Webster dictionary in the Internet side would probably do? It gives two definition of concubines, of which the latter is the original, biblical definition: "one having a recognized social status in a household below that of a wife". Note: recognized, and below that of a wife. Even a dictionary in the INTERNET agrees that concubines have a recognized (i.e. married) status!

Where?

It is obvious that you desire concubines (whores), if you didn't then you would not have them.

It's far from obvious. Give the exact quote that shows I "desire" concubines. Or, perhaps your argument has somehow now changed a bit? Perhaps you now equal "desire" with just simple "want", not LUST? Previously you accused me of LUST, which is a grave sin. Are you preparing to move the goalposts?

Which laws are you talking about now? Are you familiar with Finnish law at all...?

I tried looking it up but no one cares enough to put it on the internet.

So there were no laws, your claim was again proven wrong.

Hm...you must be talking about laws in the Bible then, since the Bible is the only authority in this. So, it should be easy for you to specify then. Or are you LYING or something?

The Biblical laws are not the only authority, if they where then there would be no governmnet.

In the eyes of God the Bible is the final authority. As True Christians, we strictly obey the Finnish law. There are no "concubine laws" in the Finnish law - even you admitted you didn't find any such laws. It seems you didn't even find the USAian laws about concubines! If you do, then please, give the exact quotes about concubine laws of US.

[The_Cantor]

It is obvious that you desire concubines (whores), if you didn't then you would not have them.

So you're calling my wives whores? Ad Hominem from them. And we don't desire anyone.

Which laws are you talking about now? Are you familiar with Finnish law at all...?

I tried looking it up but no one cares enough to put it on the internet.

Another false claim. http://www.laki24.fi/

[abimelek]

Which laws are you talking about now? Are you familiar with Finnish law at all...?

I tried looking it up but no one cares enough to put it on the internet.

Another false claim. http://www.laki24.fi/

Or http://www.finlex.fi/en/ in English.

[bengel]

There are no "higher" or "lower" types of marriage, not in those days, not nowadays. One is either married or not. According to my English dictionary Van Dale, a concubine is a woman which is indeed recognized as a woman, which means that she is not a slave, who sleeps with a married man occasionally. Famous concubines are the ones living in a harem of a very rich sheik. 

[American Girl]

Which dictionary? Print? ISBN? Which page? Give the exact quote.

You believe in the Internet, so Merriman-Webster dictionary in the Internet side would probably do? It gives two definition of concubines, of which the latter is the original, biblical definition: "one having a recognized social status in a household below that of a wife". Note: recognized, and below that of a wife. Even a dictionary in the INTERNET agrees that concubines have a recognized (i.e. married) status!

This Dictionary.http://dictionary.reference.com/
The VERY FIRST DEFINITION says: A woman who cohabits with a man without being legally married to him.
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=Concubine

Here is the Cambridge Dictionary, it says: A woman who, in some societies, lives and has sex with a man she is not married to, and has a lower social rank than his wife or wives
http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?key=15957&dict=CALD

I looked at your Meriamn-Webster Dictionary and you did not tell the whole truth about the definition! The first part of the definition is: A woman with whom a man cohabits without being married
http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/Concubine

Those are three different dictionaries that all say concubines are NOT married the the man.

It's far from obvious. Give the exact quote that shows I "desire" concubines. Or, perhaps your argument has somehow now changed a bit? Perhaps you now equal "desire" with just simple "want", not LUST? Previously you accused me of LUST, which is a grave sin. Are you preparing to move the goalposts?

Want is just another word for desire. Using your Meriman-Webster dictionary I looked up want and the 2a definition is: to have a strong desire for. http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/Want
So want is desire and desire is lust.

So there were no laws, your claim was again proven wrong.

There are no Finnish laws on the internet at all!

In the eyes of God the Bible is the final authority. As True Christians, we strictly obey the Finnish law. There are no "concubine laws" in the Finnish law - even you admitted you didn't find any such laws. It seems you didn't even find the USAian laws about concubines! If you do, then please, give the exact quotes about concubine laws of US.

Here is the United States standpoint on the filthy matter.

According to the United States Supreme Court, polygamy is not protected by religious freedom. "Laws are made for the government of actions, and while they cannot interfere with mere religious belief and opinions, they may with practices. ...it is provided that plural marriages shall not be allowed. Can a man excuse his practices to the contrary because of his religious belief? To permit this would be to make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land, and in effect to permit every citizen to become a law unto himself. Government could exist only in name under such circumstances."
--REYNOLDS v. U.S. 98 U.S. 145 (1878)

In many states it is a felony,
in all fifty states of America it is illegal.

It might seem odd that one Republican senator is catching holy heck in the national press for condemning homosexuality -- equating it with polygamy --

http://www.polygamyinfo.com/law.htm

Polygamy is HIGHLY frowned upon in United States society. If a person practices polygamy they are seen as trash.

[Niilo Paasivirta]

Which dictionary? Print? ISBN? Which page? Give the exact quote.

You believe in the Internet, so Merriman-Webster dictionary in the Internet side would probably do? It gives two definition of concubines, of which the latter is the original, biblical definition: "one having a recognized social status in a household below that of a wife". Note: recognized, and below that of a wife. Even a dictionary in the INTERNET agrees that concubines have a recognized (i.e. married) status!

This Dictionary.http://dictionary.reference.com/
The VERY FIRST DEFINITION says: A woman who cohabits with a man without being legally married to him.
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=Concubine

Why did you leave out the word "Law" from that definition? It's a very important word, you know. It limits that definition into ONE CONTEXT! And that is legal concept. Therefore the second definition in that dictionary is the common definition. If you try to "prove" things with a dictionary, you should read it. (A dictionary is not a proof, however...)

The common definitinion in that dictionary is says "woman contracted to a man as a secondary wife, often having few legal rights and low social status".

Here is the Cambridge Dictionary, it says: A woman who, in some societies, lives and has sex with a man she is not married to, and has a lower social rank than his wife or wives
http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?key=15957&dict=CALD

That is just a sample, we can't actually know what the complete description is. ALL other dictionaries also give the biblical description. So we can't rely on that.

I looked at your Meriamn-Webster Dictionary and you did not tell the whole truth about the definition! The first part of the definition is: A woman with whom a man cohabits without being married
http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/Concubine

Sure. But the second definition is the original definition, the Biblical one, which was defined first. Therefore it is the older and the proper description! We can clearly see that the order of definitions is from the latest to the oldest (it's certainly not an alphabetical order), and the modern definitions are almost always distorted by catholics and communists etc.

Those are three different dictionaries that all say concubines are NOT married the the man.

Nope. One incomplete dictionary sample claims that, and we have yet to see the complete story.

It's far from obvious. Give the exact quote that shows I "desire" concubines. Or, perhaps your argument has somehow now changed a bit? Perhaps you now equal "desire" with just simple "want", not LUST? Previously you accused me of LUST, which is a grave sin. Are you preparing to move the goalposts?

Want is just another word for desire. Using your Meriman-Webster dictionary I looked up want and the 2a definition is: to have a strong desire for. http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/Want
So want is desire and desire is lust.

Absolutely not. LUST is a deadly sin. You have not even TRIED to prove your accusations of lust.

I wonder why didn't you check the word LUST in that dictionary? Would your house of cards collapse? 

The final authority is King James Bible, not any dictionary, by the way. It's only you who can't accept the Bible, so YOU have to desperately seek other definitions for things clearly described in the Bible - and even that doesn't seem to go the way you hoped 

So there were no laws, your claim was again proven wrong.

There are no Finnish laws on the internet at all!

Why should they be in the internet? You can't possibly think you can prove any arguments by saying "it's not in internet". That is not proof about anything.

In the eyes of God the Bible is the final authority. As True Christians, we strictly obey the Finnish law. There are no "concubine laws" in the Finnish law - even you admitted you didn't find any such laws. It seems you didn't even find the USAian laws about concubines! If you do, then please, give the exact quotes about concubine laws of US.

Here is the United States standpoint on the filthy matter.

According to the United States Supreme Court, polygamy is not protected by religious freedom. "Laws are made for the government of actions, and while they cannot interfere with mere religious belief and opinions, they may with practices. ...it is provided that plural marriages shall not be allowed. Can a man excuse his practices to the contrary because of his religious belief? To permit this would be to make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land, and in effect to permit every citizen to become a law unto himself. Government could exist only in name under such circumstances."
--REYNOLDS v. U.S. 98 U.S. 145 (1878)

In many states it is a felony,
in all fifty states of America it is illegal.

Well, you have very hard tried to prove that concubines are NOT married to their husbands, so according to your claims, concubines would be LEGAL in USA  So are they or aren't they?

It might seem odd that one Republican senator is catching holy heck in the national press for condemning homosexuality -- equating it with polygamy --

http://www.polygamyinfo.com/law.htm

Polygamy is HIGHLY frowned upon in United States society. If a person practices polygamy they are seen as trash.

Those are not laws. "Supreme Court" opinions are not laws either, by the way.

(Oh, and by the way, here are some bad news for you: I am not currently wanting (which, according to you, is desiring and lusting) any additional concubines. Perhaps later, when I buy a bigger house in the countryside. It's obvious what you have been hinting at in these discussions...)

[Niilo Paasivirta]

And here's the Oxford English Dictionary (unabridged). It says, in the FIRST DEFINITION:

Concubine: In reference to polygamous peoples, as the ancient Hebrews and the Muslims: A ‘secondary wife’ whose position is recognized by law, but is inferior to that of a wife.

Clear enough?

[American Girl]

Why did you leave out the word "Law" from that definition? It's a very important word, you know. It limits that definition into ONE CONTEXT! And that is legal concept. Therefore the second definition in that dictionary is the common definition. If you try to "prove" things with a dictionary, you should read it. (A dictionary is not a proof, however...)

The common definitinion in that dictionary is says "woman contracted to a man as a secondary wife, often having few legal rights and low social status".

EXACTLY!! LAW!! THAT'S THE WHOLE POINT!!

Concubine is a woman living in a lawful marriage arrangement with a man, but whose status is regarded as being less than a wife.

That is just a sample, we can't actually know what the complete description is. ALL other dictionaries also give the biblical description. So we can't rely on that.

Oh so when the dictionary proves you wrong you can't rely on it? HA!

Sure. But the second definition is the original definition, the Biblical one, which was defined first. Therefore it is the older and the proper description! We can clearly see that the order of definitions is from the latest to the oldest (it's certainly not an alphabetical order), and the modern definitions are almost always distorted by catholics and communists etc.

The older definitions are from an era where people where not as educated as we are today, they are from an era that was more primitive. We are talking about law, not biblical descriptions. You said lawful marriage, all the definitions I have given you have been about law.

Absolutely not. LUST is a deadly sin. You have not even TRIED to prove your accusations of lust.

I wonder why didn't you check the word LUST in that dictionary? Would your house of cards collapse? 

The final authority is King James Bible, not any dictionary, by the way. It's only you who can't accept the Bible, so YOU have to desperately seek other definitions for things clearly described in the Bible - and even that doesn't seem to go the way you hoped 

I have proved my claims, you refuse to see the evidence. I looked up lust for you. Lust: An overwhelming desire or craving. I am not the only one who does not accept the bible, there are millions of people in the word who do not accept the bible. Atheists do not accept the bible and neither does anyone who is from a religion other than Christianity.

Well, you have very hard tried to prove that concubines are NOT married to their husbands, so according to your claims, concubines would be LEGAL in USA  So are they or aren't they?

Did you even read my post? Here let me highlight it for you.

According to the United States Supreme Court, polygamy is not protected by religious freedom. "Laws are made for the government of actions, and while they cannot interfere with mere religious belief and opinions, they may with practices. ...it is provided that plural marriages shall not be allowed. Can a man excuse his practices to the contrary because of his religious belief? To permit this would be to make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land, and in effect to permit every citizen to become a law unto himself. Government could exist only in name under such circumstances."
--REYNOLDS v. U.S. 98 U.S. 145 (1878)

In many states it is a felony,
in all fifty states of America it is illegal.

(Oh, and by the way, here are some bad news for you: I am not currently wanting (which, according to you, is desiring and lusting) any additional concubines. Perhaps later, when I buy a bigger house in the countryside. It's obvious what you have been hinting at in these discussions...)

What do you think it is I am hinting too? If you think I am hinting to the fact that you are disgusting then you would be right.

[Niilo Paasivirta]

Why did you leave out the word "Law" from that definition? It's a very important word, you know. It limits that definition into ONE CONTEXT! And that is legal concept. Therefore the second definition in that dictionary is the common definition. If you try to "prove" things with a dictionary, you should read it. (A dictionary is not a proof, however...)

The common definitinion in that dictionary is says "woman contracted to a man as a secondary wife, often having few legal rights and low social status".

EXACTLY!! LAW!! THAT'S THE WHOLE POINT!!

Concubine is a woman living in a lawful marriage arrangement with a man, but whose status is regarded as being less than a wife.

Do you have any idea which laws we are talking about here? It's a dictionary. It's not the law of any country. So, it talks about the laws in the Bible. So, you now agree with the biblical description of concubines. 

That is just a sample, we can't actually know what the complete description is. ALL other dictionaries also give the biblical description. So we can't rely on that.

Oh so when the dictionary proves you wrong you can't rely on it? HA!

Let's first see the full entry in that dictionary. Show it. All other dictionaries give at least two definitions. You rely on one incomplete entry while ALL other dictionaries had the proper definition.

Sure. But the second definition is the original definition, the Biblical one, which was defined first. Therefore it is the older and the proper description! We can clearly see that the order of definitions is from the latest to the oldest (it's certainly not an alphabetical order), and the modern definitions are almost always distorted by catholics and communists etc.

The older definitions are from an era where people where not as educated as we are today, they are from an era that was more primitive. We are talking about law, not biblical descriptions. You said lawful marriage, all the definitions I have given you have been about law.

Again, think what law the dictionary means. Is it USAian law? Do all the other law terms in a dictionary refer to USAian law? Nope, it's a dictionary. It means the biblical law, from which the definition of concubines comes from.

Absolutely not. LUST is a deadly sin. You have not even TRIED to prove your accusations of lust.
I wonder why didn't you check the word LUST in that dictionary? Would your house of cards collapse? 
The final authority is King James Bible, not any dictionary, by the way. It's only you who can't accept the Bible, so YOU have to desperately seek other definitions for things clearly described in the Bible - and even that doesn't seem to go the way you hoped 

I have proved my claims, you refuse to see the evidence. I looked up lust for you. Lust: An overwhelming desire or craving.

Prove your accusations of lust. You ACCUSED OTHER PEOPLE OF LUST and that's the thing you haven't even tried to prove. You can't possibly prove that by looking up different words in a dictionary! 

I am not the only one who does not accept the bible, there are millions of people in the word who do not accept the bible. Atheists do not accept the bible and neither does anyone who is from a religion other than Christianity.

Those "millions of people" are not True Christians, so what? What do you mean by "accepting" the Bible, by the way. Don't you agree it exists, or what?

Well, you have very hard tried to prove that concubines are NOT married to their husbands, so according to your claims, concubines would be LEGAL in USA  So are they or aren't they?

Did you even read my post? Here let me highlight it for you.

According to the United States Supreme Court, polygamy is not protected by religious freedom. "Laws are made for the government of actions, and while they cannot interfere with mere religious belief and opinions, they may with practices. ...it is provided that plural marriages shall not be allowed. Can a man excuse his practices to the contrary because of his religious belief? To permit this would be to make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land, and in effect to permit every citizen to become a law unto himself. Government could exist only in name under such circumstances."
--REYNOLDS v. U.S. 98 U.S. 145 (1878)

In many states it is a felony,
in all fifty states of America it is illegal.

You didn't answer the question. Are they or aren't they?

(Oh, and by the way, here are some bad news for you: I am not currently wanting (which, according to you, is desiring and lusting) any additional concubines. Perhaps later, when I buy a bigger house in the countryside. It's obvious what you have been hinting at in these discussions...)

What do you think it is I am hinting too? If you think I am hinting to the fact that you are disgusting then you would be right.

You seem to be very interested in the thought of becoming a concubine, you try to prove it is not a lesser form of a marriage - and as an atheist, you of course oppose marriage, so it obviously interests you greatly.