The Origin of Marriage

[Danus]

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.

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?

The Christian view of marriage is more than just biblical. It includes, and transcends, common natural sense to that which we know in an innate - Inborn; natural part of our spiritual relationship with God as his creation.

So it really does not matter what other definitions others want to place on what they want to call a marriage, or even when such other definitions are documented.

You asked; "Can't a papal decree become divine law? Isn't there precedent for the Pope to effect this change?" This is not about the pope. I have no idea what the RCC's policies are in regard to their doctrines, but I do know that they follow God's word on marriage. And so, again, it does not matter what others say in regard to marriage because it does not change what God has said, and for those who know God it's not a question.

The Christians in a free society want the law of the land to reflect God's word. That's not going to change despite what the law of the land becomes.

 

[TonkaTim]

Re: Chick-fil-A: True Censorship

Different breeds of dogs can sucsessfully copulate with eachother, it doesn't take two border collies, all it needs is a border collie and another dog.

This is the same with humans, we could have possible mated with subspeicies to get our soecies going, and then resorted to Homo Sapien and Homo Sapien sex.

It's because they are all the same species - canis lupus
spe·cies (spshz, -sz)
n. pl. species
1. Biology
a. A fundamental category of taxonomic classification, ranking below a genus or subgenus and consisting of related organisms capable of interbreeding.

The discussion is not about anything prior to the homosapien species it's about the propagation of the homosapien species, which takes a pair - 1 unique male & 1 unique female.

We're dealing with the origin (beginning) of marriage a tradition & function of homosapien society. I say it begins with the first pair because - "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 of their kind(species) they would have to cling to each other for survival - marriage thus begins at the beginnings of man."

 

[Jared]

If you are really just wanting to know if it's ok to have a second wife, just say so!

 

[Atothetheist]

If you are really just wanting to know if it's ok to have a second wife, just say so!

I'm not stupid. Stop misrepresenting me.

 

[Atothetheist]

Re: Chick-fil-A: True Censorship

It's because they are all the same species - canis lupus
spe·cies (spshz, -sz)
n. pl. species
1. Biology
a. A fundamental category of taxonomic classification, ranking below a genus or subgenus and consisting of related organisms capable of interbreeding.

The discussion is not about anything prior to the homosapien species it's about the propagation of the homosapien species, which takes a pair - 1 unique male & 1 unique female.

We're dealing with the origin (beginning) of marriage a tradition & function of homosapien society. I say it begins with the first pair because - "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 of their kind(species) they would have to cling to each other for survival - marriage thus begins at the beginnings of man."

And again, no.

Neaderthals COULD mate with humans, because they are SUB SPECIES.

Just like Cros could also.

 

[Atothetheist]

You might be honestly curious but I'm quite certain that BB isn't looking for answers to these supposed problems with Christianity. Tell him that exceptions do not prove the rule false, especially when they are based on laws that are so largely misunderstood.

God's intent for marriage has always been one man and one woman. That God permitted something else for a specific people, at specific points in time, for specific reasons does not mean that there is any contradiction or change to the rule. Most of those are beyond the scope of this thread.

Gopod to know you know Bucky, might I ask if you are from the forums?

I am honestly curious, please explain to me how you would deal with it.

 

[Free]

Gopod to know you know Bucky, might I ask if you are from the forums?

I'm not going to say.




Well, okay. No. And, no, I don't know BB.

I am honestly curious, please explain to me how you would deal with it.

Honestly, most of it is beyond the scope of this thread. It can actually get quite involved. Suffice to say that my one point stands: God permitted something else for a specific people, at specific points in time, for specific reasons. And that goes for the Mosaic Laws--specific people at a specific period in history for a specific purpose. When you get into the nitty gritty they aren't quite what they seem.

 

[evenifigoalone]

totopic

 

[AlexBC]

Re: Chick-fil-A: True Censorship

I don't think you're getting my point. We would have to reject the entire Bible if it depended on extrabiblical proof. Your viewpoint is flawed. God is the only authority we need. Even if you can only accept the early works of the Bible as allegorical rather than anecdotal, the truth of Who established marriage would still stand.

And, begging your pardon, who cares?

In a discussion on the origin of marriage, I bring evidence of marriage/divorce records from a non Christian culture, the oldest recorded evidence we have of any marriage.....

....and you say "who cares".

Wow. That's so disappointing. No research to refute my claim? No discussion stemming from that evidence. Just....who cares?

I'm an agnostic atheist which means I AM willing to hear your arguments, c'mon, try to convince me. Don't just shut down the discussion.

 

[AlexBC]

Re: Chick-fil-A: True Censorship

Originally Posted by Atothetheist
"The problem with Genesis is that it has been conclusively denied.

Unless you are a YEC, then there is no argument, because I am a evolutionist, and a nonbeliever, the book, to me, is an account of myths.

Their are biblical historians, and their are real historians.

Genesis is no longer evidence, it has been disproven as a literal creation account."


Wow. A lot of unsupported assumptions in that there post.

Not sure what you mean by unsupported.

And I will say that Ato makes some excellent points but the one about Real historians Vs Biblical historians I do find a little bit uncomfortable for some reason.

 

[Atothetheist]

Re: Chick-fil-A: True Censorship

Not sure what you mean by unsupported.

And I will say that Ato makes some excellent points but the one about Real historians Vs Biblical historians I do find a little bit uncomfortable for some reason.

As I said, I editted the post to clarify what I meant.

 

[Atothetheist]

You have a point there.

Would you like a better example? Sea stars, reproduce Asexually.

Slugs have both parts, Male and female.

There is no mutal exclusion in nature.

Even humans have genetic mistakes where no gender is produced.

 

[Atothetheist]

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.

Right, I was mistaken to use it as an example.

I should have used: Sea Stars, and Bacteria.

I must have missed the response to this, buried with in the mass amounts of other posts I am currently responding to.

 

[Timothyalex]

Definitely marriage comes from the bible..

 

[AlexBC]

Would you like a better example? Sea stars, reproduce Asexually.

Slugs have both parts, Male and female.

There is no mutal exclusion in nature.

Even humans have genetic mistakes where no gender is produced.

Ooh, slugs are a great example. God, slug reproduction used to give me nightmares when I learned about it as a child. Dear me.

I know this is a little off topic again, sorry, but what is the current consensus on the state of the Y-Chromosome? In the past i've heard some pragmatic figures like 125,000 before the male population is extinct yadda yadda.

Parthenogenesis, here we come!

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

Re: Chick-fil-A: True Censorship

In a discussion on the origin of marriage, I bring evidence of marriage/divorce records from a non Christian culture, the oldest recorded evidence we have of any marriage.....

Again, you discount the existence of Adam and Eve. This has been my point all along. No matter what the archeological evidence claims to say -- it is all subjective, dependent on the interpretation of the dig leader, who is never going to accept the biblical account -- Adam and Eve are the very beginning of all civilizations. Therefore ...

....and you say "who cares".

... I say it because it doesn't matter. God's historical record trumps any mere opinion, educated or not, of men who have no eternal insight into the physical evidence the unearth. My research is Genesis 1 and 2.

 

[Atothetheist]

Definitely marriage comes from the bible..

As we have already shown, no.

 

[Atothetheist]

Re: Chick-fil-A: True Censorship

Again, you discount the existence of Adam and Eve. This has been my point all along. No matter what the archeological evidence claims to say -- it is all subjective, dependent on the interpretation of the dig leader, who is never going to accept the biblical account -- Adam and Eve are the very beginning of all civilizations. Therefore ... ... I say it because it doesn't matter. God's historical record trumps any mere opinion, educated or not, of men who have no eternal insight into the physical evidence the unearth. My research is Genesis 1 and 2.

Some christians dont believe adam and eve even existed.

You have zero evidence besides a book that is making the claim.

 

[stovebolts]

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.

Wasn't the term "best man" even taken from the Sumerian marriage tradition?

I have a book called Ancient Near Eastern Texts by Pritchard and I have read many of the Sumerian accounts. Please give me a reference so that I may read these.

From what I know of the Sumerian's, I'm sure their view of marriage is not completely in line with the Hebrew scriptures of marriage.

Anyway, you seem to discount the Bible by separating it with the oldest writings we have, which are of course Sumerians. However, the Bible itself links itself with the Sumerians very clearly by way of Abram. Do you know where Abram was originally from? Of course, he was from UR. And what do we know about Ur? Yup, it was in the heart of Sumeria.

What's more, is Abram traces back to Noah and if you do the math, Noah would have still been alive when Abram was born and you know that the Sumerians have their own flood account as recorded by Gilgimesh. They also have their own creation account, which Genesis 1 and 2 address head on.

So you see, because you find marriage in Sumerian writings does not disconnect it from the Bible as the Bible connects itself directly to Sumeria.

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

Re: Chick-fil-A: True Censorship

Some christians dont believe adam and eve even existed.

We aren't talking about some Christians, or all Christians. We are talking about the integrity and veracity of God. Unbelief in His word is direct questioning of Him as a God who can be believed. Dangerous territory. I'm sure you will now claim that you aren't questioning God, but the "men who wrote the Bible." And yet God says through Paul ...

2 Timothy 3 NASB
16 All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness;
17 so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.
​

So it wasn't men who wrote it, but God who wrote it through men. You can't escape being a direct critic and questioner of the veracity of God by speaking against His authorship, because He clearly says He is the author.

You have zero evidence besides a book that is making the claim.

Ditto.