The Origin of Marriage

[abide]

Nope, but he is making a note that it seems thatother people of other religions can keep faithful marriages,just like you guys can.

On the flipside, you guys also get divorsed, as do the others.

We see know evidence that a God is working in the christians favor to set it apart.

Why do those of you who do not believe in the Christian God come here to argue over what Christian's believe. I have been on another Christian site, and it seems you atheist have nothing more to do than argue over what the bible states. Chrisitans believe what the bible says. You must remember that this is a Christian site.


ChristianForums.net aspires to provide a place where Christians can come together in fellowship for encouragement, inspiration, and strength to help build each other up and grow in our walk of faith through honest and open discussion, study, reflection, and prayer.

ChristianForums.net desires to serve non-Christians, seeking answers to questions about Christianity, by sharing the gospel of Jesus Christ so they too may acquire the hope, joy, and peace that come from fellowship with the saving grace of our Lord, Jesus Christ.

This is the Mission Statement

 

[stovebolts]

Re: Chick-fil-A: True Censorship

I want to say somewhere from page 215-219. Sorry. I read the same book but yeeeeears ago

Hope that helps

Awesome. Good to know somebody else haas thaat book and is actually interested.

Do me a favor huh? Time is something I don't have a lot of lately. Can you narrow it down to a page and ill look at it tonight after church. Otherwise I'm looking at Saturday. Schedule is just crazy if you can relate.

 

[AlexBC]

Chronologically, Moses' account wouldn't be the "earliest" in terms of when the words were put to papyrus, but historically the event is the very beginning, yes, and Adam and Eve were the very beginning. I'm not sure how you're planning on responding, though I do express hope it is in more than in human scientific terms that could support several speculative claims based on opinion, conjecture and theory by archeologists who reject biblical perspective, therefore are prejudiced in their discounting of Moses' significance as God's historian. I would hope that, on a Christian forum, credence can be given to Moses' role as historian as well as spokesman for the Creator.

Forgive me if I misunderstand, but are you saying that archeologists who do not support the opinion that Jesus existed because of a lack of any archeological evidence are bias?

 

[stovebolts]

Re: Chick-fil-A: True Censorship

There may be similarities between the Biblical accounts and the Sumerian myths but there are as many differences aswell.

And the flood that you speak of was most likely just one of several that destroyed many cities in Mesopotamia and which can be naturally explained. And can't those earlier stories have then influenced what then became the Biblical account? In much the same way the Zoroastrian divinity Mithra is said to have contributed to the accounts of Jesus' life.

Just food for thought.

Yes, there are many, many differences although both follow a common theme. They have more in common than they differ.

I am a YEC and believe the flood to be global. I understand your view and more than likely your reasoning. But what you are doing is opening a big ole can of worms and honestly, I'm not out to change your mind.

My point was simply that Abram came out of UR and would have known the Sumarian stories you speak of and the Bible address those stories. And while we are on that subject, we can begin to see what was driving the Biblical stories from a historical perspective, whether you believe the stories or not... They are tied together.

So you see, it matters not that the oldest writings known to man pre-date the Bible. Until the time of Moses those stories were told over and over until they were recorded by Moses. But as far as the Flood, the Sumarian story dates back to Noah's story... So the question from a historical perspective would be, "Who's story is right".

 

[AlexBC]

A very reasonable question Abide.

My only concern is that an honest answer to the question (it's not just that we're bored
:p ) would violate the TOS or open up an argument.

I think PMs are a much more appropriate way to explain.

 

[WIP]

A very reasonable question Abide.

My only concern is that an honest answer to the question (it's not just that we're bored
:p ) would violate the TOS or open up an argument.

I think PMs are a much more appropriate way to explain.

At this I am going to step in here for a moment. As I have just skimmed through the last few pages of this thread, I see it has been allowed to wander away from the question raised by the OP and into a debate about the validity of our faith.

This is a violation of our ToS. This is a Christian site and for someone asking a question like this on this site, it would seem appropriate that the OP is interested in the Christian response.

This is a warning that we try to remain on topic. We're not here to debate the question, argue the validity of our faith, or promote secular beliefs.

Thank you.

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

Forgive me if I misunderstand, but are you saying that archeologists who do not support the opinion that Jesus existed because of a lack of any archeological evidence are bias?

We're talking about the origins of marriage on this thread.

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

Cool. So you have the marriage certificate?

And some sources place the writing of Genesis at around 1400 BC so the written record of Sumerian marriages predate the account of Adam and Eve's marriage by 1500 years.

I used "account" as the event itself, not when it was recorded. If that was in error of usage, I apologize. However, that would not change the fact that Adam and Eve precede everything.

 

[Atothetheist]

Why do those of you who do not believe in the Christian God come here to argue over what Christian's believe. I have been on another Christian site, and it seems you atheist have nothing more to do than argue over what the bible states. Chrisitans believe what the bible says. You must remember that this is a Christian site.


ChristianForums.net aspires to provide a place where Christians can come together in fellowship for encouragement, inspiration, and strength to help build each other up and grow in our walk of faith through honest and open discussion, study, reflection, and prayer.

ChristianForums.net desires to serve non-Christians, seeking answers to questions about Christianity, by sharing the gospel of Jesus Christ so they too may acquire the hope, joy, and peace that come from fellowship with the saving grace of our Lord, Jesus Christ.

This is the Mission Statement

First of all, we are arguing about the origin of marriage, not about your faith.

Regardless if christianity is true, they would have no right to claim marriage came from their religion (unless you do the whole "Well, since my God is true, and he made us, and we made marriage,regardless of what religion, therefore, God made marriage, and since he is our God, our religion has the authority to claim originality.)

Let me ask you this, why do you feel the need to put up a faith statement when this has nothing to do with the truth of Christianity?

Why do you feel threatened about a topic that is not attacking your faith? We are simply arguing that there were marriages before christianity, and Judaism, and there fore can not claim that they originated marriage.

Basically, why pull the "We are attacking my faith" when we are doing no such thing.

I am going to say this so nobody misunderstands, the arugment against creationism is not an attack on christianity, it is an attack on a proposition that there is no evidence for. You can still be a christian and believe in evolution and the old earth.

 

[Atothetheist]

I used "account" as the event itself, not when it was recorded. If that was in error of usage, I apologize. However, that would not change the fact that Adam and Eve precede everything.

Again, this is not supported by anything other than the book that is making the claim.

What we say can be supported by the evidence of doing thr expierement, that is what science is about.

Marriage is a social institution, life long partners are not, they are biological.

The reason why animals don't get married, is because they don't have the brains to form that idea, and they don't need to form it to be life partners, and produce children.

 

[Atothetheist]

Chronologically, Moses' account wouldn't be the "earliest" in terms of when the words were put to papyrus, but historically the event is the very beginning, yes, and Adam and Eve were the very beginning. I'm not sure how you're planning on responding, though I do express hope it is in more than in human scientific terms that could support several speculative claims based on opinion, conjecture and theory by archeologists who reject biblical perspective, therefore are prejudiced in their discounting of Moses' significance as God's historian. I would hope that, on a Christian forum, credence can be given to Moses' role as historian as well as spokesman for the Creator.

I am going to say this one more time, from a former christian: The genesis account was meant to be a mataphor to explain why things like evil, and dieases and bad stuff exist.

They also were ment to show why bad stuff is bad, because horrible consequences were set into stone.

It was also their to explain why jealousy, anger, pride, and all the other "Unfavored" emotions were there, because we are corrupted by pur own deeds.

 

[stovebolts]

We are simply arguing that there were marriages before christianity, and Judaism, and there fore can not claim that they originated marriage.

The Bible actually supports that statement. Neither Adam or Eve were Christians nor where they Jews, so you see, you've said something that even the Bible says. Bravo to you, your in agreement with the biblical texts! Hey, it's a start lol!

The Bible records the earliest union between a man and a woman. You either believe it, or you don't. I don't see much arguing about it.

Alex did have a good approach by bringing in the Sumerian documents which predate the Biblical texts. However, it was only a point, with no real substance.

 

[Atothetheist]

The Bible actually supports that statement. Neither Adam or Eve were Christians nor where they Jews, so you see, you've said something that even the Bible says. Bravo to you, your in agreement with the biblical texts! Hey, it's a start lol!

The Bible records the earliest union between a man and a woman. You either believe it, or you don't. I don't see much arguing about it.

Alex did have a good approach by bringing in the Sumerian documents which predate the Biblical texts. However, it was only a point, with no real substance.

Alex did bring up a good point, and it does have substance.

They were neither Christians Nor Jews, they predate them.

Since they were before either religion, those religions can't claim originality.

As for the Bible, I didn't mention that point because I don't believe in Adam and Eve. I used to, until a couple of months before I deconverted.

 

[stovebolts]

I am going to say this one more time, from a former christian: The genesis account was meant to be a mataphor to explain why things like evil, and dieases and bad stuff exist.

I am a Christian, and I disagree with the former Christians view on Genesis from many angles, including a historical view which takes into account Sumeria and surrounding cultures.

Actually, I disagree with anyone who trys to say that Genesis was simply a metaphor. That's pretty narrow thinking.

 

[Atothetheist]

I am a Christian, and I disagree with the former Christians view on Genesis from many angles, including a historical view which takes into account Sumeria and surrounding cultures.

Actually, I disagree with anyone who trys to say that Genesis was simply a metaphor. That's pretty narrow thinking.

And you have the right to disagree with the old me, but I am simply stating what Genesis could have been a metaphor, and what I believe it was metaphor for.

Trust me, I do not deny that you aren't a christian if you are a creationist, I am arguing that there are christians who believe Adam and Eve were mataphor and a early explination for why bad things are here.

His whole argument hinges on the fact that Adam and Eve existed in reality, when even some on your side disagree.

I do believe very strongly that christianity HAS had quite an influence on marriage, but it can't claim orginal marriage.

Now, back on topic: Because his argument hnges on the existence of Adam and Eve, it will fail to convince me, and some other christians that are interested in the topic.

Marriage is a biologically "Inspired" social institution.

Sumerians were earlier than christians, and jews, this we know.

We know they had marriage ceremonies.

Because they were before either religions, we can determine that Jews and Christians were not the originaters of marriage.

 

[stovebolts]

Again, this is not supported by anything other than the book that is making the claim.

That is your view, and you have a right to your view. What you don't have a right to do is minimize God's word in the presence of people who hold God's word with esteem. It is rude and abrasive.

How would you like me to tell you that unless you bow to our mighty doctrines and our Holy Book that you shalt burn in hell for all of eternity. Doesn't rub you the right way does it? Try having a little respect would ya and stop asserting yourself as authoritive on something you know little to nothing about.

 

[stovebolts]

And you have the right to disagree with the old me, but I am simply stating what Genesis could have been a metaphor, and what I believe it was metaphor for.

Trust me, I do not deny that you aren't a christian if you are a creationist, I am arguing that there are christians who believe Adam and Eve were mataphor and a early explination for why bad things are here.

His whole argument hinges on the fact that Adam and Eve existed in reality, when even some on your side disagree.

And I also have the right to not have to defend my beliefs to you. What we Christians argue about is a family matter, and you aint family. It's really that simple.

You don't believe in the Bible and you don't believe in Adam or Eve. So why do you come here arguing other peoples trash? Are you honestly that bored and have nothing else to do, or were you hurt by a Christian and this is your way of working it out?

What's your story? Why you here?

 

[Milk-Drops]

And I also have the right to not have to defend my beliefs to you. What we Christians argue about is a family matter, and you aint family. It's really that simple.

You don't believe in the Bible and you don't believe in Adam or Eve. So why do you come here arguing other peoples trash? Are you honestly that bored and have nothing else to do, or were you hurt by a Christian and this is your way of working it out?

What's your story? Why you here?

So you don't have to explain anything to Atot, but you demand Atot divulge the same type of information to you? That is a tad entitled.

 

[Atothetheist]

And I also have the right to not have to defend my beliefs to you. What we Christians argue about is a family matter, and you aint family. It's really that simple.

You don't believe in the Bible and you don't believe in Adam or Eve. So why do you come here arguing other peoples trash? Are you honestly that bored and have nothing else to do, or were you hurt by a Christian and this is your way of working it out?

What's your story? Why you here?

What? Didn't I tell you why I am here?

Refer back to my intro thread.

The origin of Marriage is not Soley a christian topic. It is open to historians, and to non christians as well.

Of course you have no right to defend your beliefs, as I have no right to force you to do so.

This topic, as I keep saying, has nothing to do with the validility of the Christian Faith. It is not a atheist vs Christian topic on faith, or at least I don't want it to be that way.

We are discussing the origin of marriage. Not about wether God is real or not.

Thanks for the family part, really laughed at that.

I did enjoy the fact that you got worked up on a "non-faith breaking" issue.

I suppose you would want me to be angry, or shake my fist, but I will be the better person and tell you exactly why I disagree.

One, in BOTH ways, Creationist, or evolutionist, we are related. We share D.N.A and blood.

I have grown the habit of calling people brothers and sisters because I realize that you are my EXTENDED (thats quite an understatement) family.

You are included in my family, even the people I dislike. ( that is not to say that I dislike you, or anybody on here.)

Just like an annoying brother is still family. I will not exclude anybody because they believe in something different than me, because that would be petty. Everybody deserves a voice, if there was any other way, you could not honestly evaluate the truth of anything.

In essence, Both sides show discuss, and present evidence. That is the only honest way to evaluate which claim is true, or why this claim is false.

Now, this is not to say anything about atheists, as I certainly learned my lesson on that, but this is talking about issues of contention, like this, that can be discussed within the rules of this forum.

 

[Atothetheist]

That is your view, and you have a right to your view. What you don't have a right to do is minimize God's word in the presence of people who hold God's word with esteem. It is rude and abrasive.

How would you like me to tell you that unless you bow to our mighty doctrines and our Holy Book that you shalt burn in hell for all of eternity. Doesn't rub you the right way does it? Try having a little respect would ya and stop asserting yourself as authoritive on something you know little to nothing about.

Respect is earned, and I do have respect for the your Holy Book, it is just infuriating when you throw it around at me like it is suppossed to convince me of your argument.