What's new
By:
Filters
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!

The Origin of Marriage

AlexBC said:
A little off topic but I was watching a debate between Richard Dawkins and an Australian priest last week.

When Dawkins mentioned all life having a common ancestor the priest seemed to think that that shared ancestor was some sort of monstrous chimera comprising elements of all species which subsequently emerged. That's a frightening image:eeeekkk

I think the idea of simple to complex forms was a little beyond him.

Anyway, back to topic:lol
Click to expand...
It wouldn't happen to be this video, would it?

[video=youtube;tD1QHO_AVZA]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tD1QHO_AVZA[/video]

Cardinal George Pell is Catholic. Painting mainstream Biblical Christianity with the same brush as Pell is a long bow to draw.

i have not seen that debate yet, but I hear Pell did not represent Evangelic Christianity well. Which is not surprising, considering he is not Evangelical or mainstream Christianity, but it doesn't look good for Christianity's image.
 
Nick said:
It wouldn't happen to be this video, would it?

[video=youtube;tD1QHO_AVZA]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tD1QHO_AVZA[/video]

Cardinal George Pell is Catholic. Painting mainstream Biblical Christianity with the same brush as Pell is a long bow to draw.

i have not seen that debate yet, but I hear Pell did not represent Evangelic Christianity well. Which is not surprising, considering he is not Evangelical or mainstream Christianity, but it doesn't look good for Christianity's image.
Click to expand...

He never made the claim that all christians were like that.

He was just commenting on ONE preist.
 
Atothetheist said:
He never made the claim that all christians were like that.

He was just commenting on ONE preist.
Click to expand...
Yeah, well the assumed implication was pretty clear to me.

Regardless, the program it's off - Q&A - is usually pretty good, so if anyone has an hour up their sleeve, the episode would most likely be worth a watch. I'll see if I can watch it tonight.

But let's keep this on the subject of marriage. This thread is already an off-topic offshoot of another thread! :lol
 
Nick said:
Yeah, well the assumed implication was pretty clear to me.

Regardless, the program it's off - Q&A - is usually pretty good, so if anyone has an hour up their sleeve, the episode would most likely be worth a watch. I'll see if I can watch it tonight.

But let's keep this on the subject of marriage. This thread is already an off-topic offshoot of another thread! :lol
Click to expand...

Well, I didn't get the implication at all.

He was just commenting on a debate with one preist.

I assume that Alex knows Barbarian, who is a quite impressive defender of evolution?

I think you may have been mistaken.

I was quite sad the program was off though, I did enjoy some of those.
 
Atothetheist said:
Well, I didn't get the implication at all.

He was just commenting on a debate with one preist.

I assume that Alex knows Barbarian, who is a quite impressive defender of evolution?

I think you may have been mistaken.

I was quite sad the program was off though, I did enjoy some of those.
Click to expand...
I'm trying to keep this off evolution, which is not the subject of this thread (see: science forum).

The program was off? What do you mean?
 
Speaking about marriage, I would like to know your interpretation of this, honestly curious:

■Marriage consists of one man and one or more than one woman (Gen 4:19, 4:23, 26:34, 28:9, 29:26-30, 30:26, 31:17, 32:22, 36:2, 36:10, 37:2, Ex. 21:10, Judges 8:30, 1 Sam 1:2, 25:43, 27:3, 30:5, 30:18, 2 Sam 2:2, 3:2-5, 1 Chron 3:1-3, 4:5, 8:8, 14:3, 2 Chron 11:21, 13:21, 24:3).

■Nothing prevents a man from taking on concubines or sexual slaves in addition to the wife or wives he may already have (Gen 25:6, Judges 8:31, 2 Sam 5:13, 1 Kings 11:3, 1 Chron 3:9, 2 Chron 11:21, Dan 5:2-3).

■A man might choose any woman he wants for his wife (Gen 6:2, Deut 21:11), provided only that she is not already another man’s wife (Lev 18:14-16, Deut. 22:30) or a relative (Lev 18:11, 20:17, Lev 20:14, Lev 18:18). The concept of a woman giving her consent to being married is not in the Bible.

■If a woman cannot be proven to be a virgin at the time of marriage, she shall be stoned to death (Deut 22:13-21).

■A rapist must marry his victim (Ex. 22:16, Deut. 22:28-29), unless she was already a fiancé, in which case he should be put to death if he raped her in the country, but both of them killed if he raped her in town (Deut. 22:23-27).

■If a man dies childless, his brother must marry the widow (Gen 38:6-10, Deut 25:5-10, Mark 12:19, Luke 20:28).

■Women must marry the man of their father’s choosing (Gen. 24:4, Josh.15:16-17, Judges 1:12-13, 12:9, 21:1, 1 Sam 17:25, 18:19, 1 Kings 2:21, 1 Chron 2:35, Jer 29:6, Dan 11:17).

■Women are the property of their fathers until married and the property of their husbands thereafter (Ex. 20:17, 22:17, Deut. 22:24, Mat 22:25).

■The value of a woman might be approximately seven years’ work (Gen 29:14-30).

■Inter-faith marriages are prohibited (Gen 24:3, 28:1, 28:6, Num 25:1-9, Ezra 9:12, Neh 10:30, 2 Cor 6:14).

■Divorce is forbidden (Deut 22:19, Matt 5:32, 19:9, Mark 10:9-12, Luke 16:18, Rom 7:2, 1 Cor 7:10-11, 7:39).

■It is better to not get married at all—although marriage is not a sin (Matt 19:10, I Cor 7:1, 7:27-28, 7:32-34, 7:38).

This is a friend of mines observation, I would like to see something to respond to him back.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Nick said:
I'm trying to keep this off evolution, which is not the subject of this thread (see: science forum).

The program was off? What do you mean?
Click to expand...

I was kidding. Lol, I was showing you that I could joke as well,

Was it badly executed?
 
Nick said:
Ok...humour is obviously not conveyed well over the internet without emoticons. Still unsure....


---


I'll get back to you on your post #46. :yes
Click to expand...

I swear I am like a robot sometimes.
 
Without going back to the topic of evolution, I really wasn't painting Christianity with a broad brush stroke when I mentioned Pell. He's an idiot.

There are many intelligent and capable Christian members of this site who i'd much rather be sitting in his place in a debate like that. :thumbsup

Now, back on topic.

Post#46 raises some very good points about the way the Bible regards marriage. I'd love to hear some Christian opinions on some of those.
 
Ato, it's always helpful to distinguish God's plan from man's decisions. His design was and is always for 1 man and 1 woman. In some cases, He left them to "make their own bed" and suffer the consequences.

You can't point out decisions made by men as evidence of God's Will. This is how cults justify bizarre doctrine to control others. It's all about usurping God's authority then and now. Nothing new under the sun.
 
Mike said:
Ato, it's always helpful to distinguish God's plan from man's decisions. His design was and is always for 1 man and 1 woman. In some cases, He left them to "make their own bed" and suffer the consequences.

You can't point out decisions made by men as evidence of God's Will. This is how cults justify bizarre doctrine to control others. It's all about usurping God's authority then and now. Nothing new under the sun.
Click to expand...

But then the thing about a raped woman having to marry her attacker is listed among the 613 commandments. How do you distinguish between the commandments that reflect God's plan and ones which are man's decisions?

In other words, when were the guidelines about a man having more than one wife or the above example dropped and how do we know that God "left them to "make their own bed" and suffer the consequences"?

Surely, the general failure to follow these specific commands reflects the non-secular attitudes towards marriage and human interaction that have developed over the last few hundred years and which have affected the way that the Bible is interpreted.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Mike said:
Ato, it's always helpful to distinguish God's plan from man's decisions. His design was and is always for 1 man and 1 woman. In some cases, He left them to "make their own bed" and suffer the consequences.

You can't point out decisions made by men as evidence of God's Will. This is how cults justify bizarre doctrine to control others. It's all about usurping God's authority then and now. Nothing new under the sun.
Click to expand...

Ummm.... Mike. If it is ALWAYS one man and one woman, then Virus's should be able to sexually reproduce, yet they are Asexual.
 
Re: Chick-fil-A: True Censorship

Atothetheist said:
Please, give me a source.
Click to expand...

That is what all been waiting on as well - for the Evo's to illustrate in the fossil record & DNA.

Since all have been waiting on the Evo's to prove their postulations for over a century and so far have been unable to, why would you ask me to prove what you can not?
 
Atothetheist said:
Ummm.... Mike. If it is ALWAYS one man and one woman, then Virus's should be able to sexually reproduce, yet they are Asexual.
Click to expand...

Umm... I do not think science actually recognizes viruses as life... nor reproductive, so they are not considered sexual, asexual or otherwise. Viruses are considered acellular and replicate through the metabolism of it's host's cells.
 
TonkaTim said:
Umm... I do not think science actually recognizes viruses as life... nor reproductive, so they are not considered sexual, asexual or otherwise. Viruses are considered acellular and replicate through the metabolism of it's host's cells.
Click to expand...

You have a point there.
 
Re: Chick-fil-A: True Censorship

TonkaTim said:
That is what all been waiting on as well - for the Evo's to illustrate in the fossil record & DNA.

Since all have been waiting on the Evo's to prove their postulations for over a century and so far have been unable to, why would you ask me to prove what you can not?
Click to expand...

What evidence was it you were talking about again? That Humans simply interbred with other sub species?

I think we're going off topic again, too.:p
 
Re: Chick-fil-A: True Censorship

AlexBC said:
What evidence was it you were talking about again? That Humans simply interbred with other sub species?

I think we're going off topic again, too.:p
Click to expand...

I think you're correct.

We got derailed by Ato refusing to accept the necessity of a homosapien pair for the propagation of the species.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top