A
AlexBC
Guest
And besides, marriage existed long before Christianity came along.
Why do so many think marriage came from the Bible?
Why do so many think marriage came from the Bible?
Christian Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
-
Guest, Join Papa Zoom today for some uplifting biblical encouragement! --> Daily Verses
thisnumbersdisconnected
Member
Re: Chick-fil-A: True Censorship
Because it did? Seems obvious to me.
Genesis 2 NASB
22 The LORD God fashioned into a woman the rib which He had taken from the man, and brought her to the man.
23 The man said, "This is now bone of my bones,
And flesh of my flesh;
She shall be called Woman,
Because she was taken out of Man."
24 For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother, and be joined to his wife; and they shall become one flesh.
25 And the man and his wife were both naked and were not ashamed.
I don't know, I could be mistaken ... not!22 The LORD God fashioned into a woman the rib which He had taken from the man, and brought her to the man.
23 The man said, "This is now bone of my bones,
And flesh of my flesh;
She shall be called Woman,
Because she was taken out of Man."
24 For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother, and be joined to his wife; and they shall become one flesh.
25 And the man and his wife were both naked and were not ashamed.
Milk-Drops
Member
Re: Chick-fil-A: True Censorship
I think Alex should have just said that Marriage is something that spans multiple cultures and Christians aren't the only ones with a monopoly over it. Considering that Marriage by the original jewish Standards is nothing like modern legal marriages.
thisnumbersdisconnected
Member
Re: Chick-fil-A: True Censorship
Ceremonies are man-made. They should accomplish Adam's pronouncement, however, that "for this reason ... " The modern-day ceremony in both Jewish and Christian tradition does so.
A
AlexBC
Guest
Re: Chick-fil-A: True Censorship
Yep. That was what I should have said. Cheers.
And The idea of marriage goes back like 5000 years to the Sumerians. And the earliest records of any marriage are I think also pre-Christian. Have to check that fact.
Yep. That was what I should have said. Cheers.
And The idea of marriage goes back like 5000 years to the Sumerians. And the earliest records of any marriage are I think also pre-Christian. Have to check that fact.
A
AlexBC
Guest
Re: Chick-fil-A: True Censorship
Yeah, I worded my answer poorly.
My point was that the idea of two people joined by marriage is a concept that pre-dates the Bible, not that the Bible does not contain it's own idea of marriage.
Yeah, I worded my answer poorly.
My point was that the idea of two people joined by marriage is a concept that pre-dates the Bible, not that the Bible does not contain it's own idea of marriage.
A
Atothetheist
Guest
Re: Chick-fil-A: True Censorship
Nope, it didn't:
http://www.historyofmarriage.org/
The orginal marriages ever were GROUP PAIRING.
So, man and woman( exclusively two)were not even traditional.
Samesex marriage was considered OK back the too, considering guys could have married other guys.
Did you know that I could make up a book that claims the origins of marriage, but that doesn't make it true.
The Bible definition was common wayyyy before the bible was written, which means that the biblical writers would have only been exposed to Men and Women marriage.
You would think that a all knowing Deity would know the true origins of marriage, and not define it by a definition that fits the time that the bible writers would almost certainly take as the original.
Nope, it didn't:
http://www.historyofmarriage.org/
The orginal marriages ever were GROUP PAIRING.
So, man and woman( exclusively two)were not even traditional.
Samesex marriage was considered OK back the too, considering guys could have married other guys.
Did you know that I could make up a book that claims the origins of marriage, but that doesn't make it true.
The Bible definition was common wayyyy before the bible was written, which means that the biblical writers would have only been exposed to Men and Women marriage.
You would think that a all knowing Deity would know the true origins of marriage, and not define it by a definition that fits the time that the bible writers would almost certainly take as the original.
A
AlexBC
Guest
Re: Chick-fil-A: True Censorship
Wasn't the term "best man" even taken from the Sumerian marriage tradition?
Wasn't the term "best man" even taken from the Sumerian marriage tradition?
A
Atothetheist
Guest
Re: Chick-fil-A: True Censorship
From what I gather, that is correct.
The true orgins of marriage might be a product of evolutionary sexuality:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12496735
From what I gather, that is correct.
The true orgins of marriage might be a product of evolutionary sexuality:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12496735
thisnumbersdisconnected
Member
Re: Chick-fil-A: True Censorship
I really don't care what your secular website says or claims. I'm sorry you reject the origins of marriage, because quite clearly the concept of "pairing" comes directly from God, and is intended only to be for one man and one woman. Arguing against that concept, denying God established marriage, rejecting it as commanded by the Maker of the universe, is nothing more than futile fist-shaking at the heavens and crying out, "I think what I think and You have nothing to do with it." Been going on for millenia, and obviously continues today.
A
AlexBC
Guest
Oh....I was wondering whether i'd started sleep posting.
Phew.
Good idea Mike. It's a pretty good topic to start.
Phew.
Good idea Mike. It's a pretty good topic to start.
A
AlexBC
Guest
Re: Chick-fil-A: True Censorship
Well, as has already been stated, the Sumerians (who were not Christian) are documented as being the first culture to have marriage. You're now really arguing whether the Sumerians existed
And in the animal kingdom, some animals pair off for life while others do not. In this regard, Humans are not that unique in our desire to pair.
Well, as has already been stated, the Sumerians (who were not Christian) are documented as being the first culture to have marriage. You're now really arguing whether the Sumerians existed
And in the animal kingdom, some animals pair off for life while others do not. In this regard, Humans are not that unique in our desire to pair.
Danus
Member
Re: Chick-fil-A: True Censorship
I don't think Chick-fil-a or Christians are trying to say that Christians invented the institution of marriage. What the Christian community is saying is that God ordained marriage as an institution between one man and one woman.
Christians are not the only religious groups to also support the idea that Marriage is of God, or that marriage is between anything other than a man and a woman.
In any case, marriage, as an institution, has traditionally been upheld and supported as something between a man and a woman, not a man and a man, or a woman and a woman, or a man and a horse, or what have you.
We can say that pairs of species pair together, but that does not address the marriage, or what it means when we say God ordained marriage. when it comes to God and marriage, those who love God know what that means and those who do not, don't.
Well, as has already been stated, the Sumerians (who were not Christian) are documented as being the first culture to have marriage. You're now really arguing whether the Sumerians existed
And in the animal kingdom, some animals pair off for life while others do not. In this regard, Humans are not that unique in our desire to pair.
I don't think Chick-fil-a or Christians are trying to say that Christians invented the institution of marriage. What the Christian community is saying is that God ordained marriage as an institution between one man and one woman.
Christians are not the only religious groups to also support the idea that Marriage is of God, or that marriage is between anything other than a man and a woman.
In any case, marriage, as an institution, has traditionally been upheld and supported as something between a man and a woman, not a man and a man, or a woman and a woman, or a man and a horse, or what have you.
We can say that pairs of species pair together, but that does not address the marriage, or what it means when we say God ordained marriage. when it comes to God and marriage, those who love God know what that means and those who do not, don't.
A
AlexBC
Guest
Re: Chick-fil-A: True Censorship
I understand where you're coming from. While there are many Christians who DO think marriage does come solely from the Bible I know there are others who see it differently.
I think the question of whether the biblical view of marriage is an immutable law or not is important. Can't a papal decree become divine law? Isn't there precedent for the Pope to effect this change?
I understand where you're coming from. While there are many Christians who DO think marriage does come solely from the Bible I know there are others who see it differently.
I think the question of whether the biblical view of marriage is an immutable law or not is important. Can't a papal decree become divine law? Isn't there precedent for the Pope to effect this change?
Re: Chick-fil-A: True Censorship
No.
You're making a common mistake of confusing catholicism with the teachings of Christ & the Scriptures.
The marriage subject -
Starts at creation with the first man & first women. Even if you do not believe in God or his creation, you probably hold to the chaos theory of evolution. If so, then you realize at some point in time & space 1 unique homosapien male & 1 unique homosapien female had to come into existence together. At that point being the only pair their kind they would have to cling to each other for survival - marriage thus begins at the beginnings of man.
Christianity -
Is the fulfillment of all the promises from God from the beginning, even in His promise to Eve that the offspring of women will bring forth the Redeemer. We see the promise of substitutionary atonement when God Himself makes the sacrifice to cover Adam & Eve in animal skins. Not leather, or cloth, but skins which are not like leather in that they contain blood. We see Abel emulating God's sacrifice for the first pair with a lamb. We know by this that God covered Adam & eve in the Blood of the Lamb symbolizing the coming Christ. And we are still in the first few chapters Genesis.
The Scriptures teach Christ from the Beginning, from Genesis to Revelation. Christianity is not a new religion. It is the teachings from the beginning. The only new about Christianity is the name, and that too is a fulfillment of ancient promises contained in the Scriptures.
If one has a very remote understanding of the simple language known as paleo-hebrew (the language which Moses wrote) One can see Christ proclaimed in Genesis 1:1 and in the name of God known as the tetragrammaton YHVH.
Hope this helps in your understanding.
No.
You're making a common mistake of confusing catholicism with the teachings of Christ & the Scriptures.
The marriage subject -
Starts at creation with the first man & first women. Even if you do not believe in God or his creation, you probably hold to the chaos theory of evolution. If so, then you realize at some point in time & space 1 unique homosapien male & 1 unique homosapien female had to come into existence together. At that point being the only pair their kind they would have to cling to each other for survival - marriage thus begins at the beginnings of man.
Christianity -
Is the fulfillment of all the promises from God from the beginning, even in His promise to Eve that the offspring of women will bring forth the Redeemer. We see the promise of substitutionary atonement when God Himself makes the sacrifice to cover Adam & Eve in animal skins. Not leather, or cloth, but skins which are not like leather in that they contain blood. We see Abel emulating God's sacrifice for the first pair with a lamb. We know by this that God covered Adam & eve in the Blood of the Lamb symbolizing the coming Christ. And we are still in the first few chapters Genesis.
The Scriptures teach Christ from the Beginning, from Genesis to Revelation. Christianity is not a new religion. It is the teachings from the beginning. The only new about Christianity is the name, and that too is a fulfillment of ancient promises contained in the Scriptures.
If one has a very remote understanding of the simple language known as paleo-hebrew (the language which Moses wrote) One can see Christ proclaimed in Genesis 1:1 and in the name of God known as the tetragrammaton YHVH.
Hope this helps in your understanding.
thisnumbersdisconnected
Member
Re: Chick-fil-A: True Censorship
No, but I'd argue that is incorrect, since it fails to take into account that Adam and Eve were married. You're not going to argue that Adam and Eve didn't exist, are you? (Knowing the answer before asking the question, of course.)Well, as has already been stated, the Sumerians (who were not Christian) are documented as being the first culture to have marriage. You're now really arguing whether the Sumerians existed
A
AlexBC
Guest
Re: Chick-fil-A: True Censorship
Indeed. But then again a growing number of people who believe in theistic evolution do aswell.
Indeed. But then again a growing number of people who believe in theistic evolution do aswell.
Last edited by a moderator:
A
Atothetheist
Guest
Re: Chick-fil-A: True Censorship
Any you, Sir, just displayed Confirmation bias.
You will except absolutely no evidence to the contrary simply because its "Secular."
Science is "Secular"
Historians who are brutally honest are "Secular."
The pairings were evoutionized.
Sexual reproduction wasn't even the original way to concieve offsrping, it was asexual.
Have already shown you that Marriage, the definition you hold onto, is not, and never was original.
Any you, Sir, just displayed Confirmation bias.
You will except absolutely no evidence to the contrary simply because its "Secular."
Science is "Secular"
Historians who are brutally honest are "Secular."
The pairings were evoutionized.
Sexual reproduction wasn't even the original way to concieve offsrping, it was asexual.
Have already shown you that Marriage, the definition you hold onto, is not, and never was original.
A
Atothetheist
Guest
Re: Chick-fil-A: True Censorship
Nope, not one Unique homo spapien and a unique homosapien women and man.
What happens is that they mated with the previous SUB species, whch probably was homo Erectus.
Over time, they might form homospaiens partners, but the two is not needed at all to start off humanity.
Your ignorance about our origins is shocking.
There was a (Mito)Eve, but she was far from being the first human.
There was an (Y-Chrome)Adam, but he was also far apart from the beginning.
In fact, they were thousand(s) of years apart from eachother.
Nope, not one Unique homo spapien and a unique homosapien women and man.
What happens is that they mated with the previous SUB species, whch probably was homo Erectus.
Over time, they might form homospaiens partners, but the two is not needed at all to start off humanity.
Your ignorance about our origins is shocking.
There was a (Mito)Eve, but she was far from being the first human.
There was an (Y-Chrome)Adam, but he was also far apart from the beginning.
In fact, they were thousand(s) of years apart from eachother.
Last edited by a moderator: