Topic: posted this on a christian site. I feel like I'm really insightful, what do you think?
Anonymous A started this discussion 14 years ago #18,022
Okay, so I always hear the "wait till you're married" position on sex, abstinence, etc. etc. And that's all fine and good, it is indeed in the Bible. But what is God's definition of marriage in the first place?
You have to consider that the Bible was written several years ago, and that what's "married" for those in the bible times, may have been vastly different than what it is today, and what it is today might be vastly different than what it is 500 years from now.
For example, maybe in the year 2500 marriage means you cut off your arm with a knife. And I don't know about you, but at that point I'd opt out of marriage.
So what you have to do is look at the true meaning of the law, what's the point of it? Like "don't eat pigs", really translates to "don't eat things that will give you diseases". It's a practical sort of law. So why not have sex until marriage?
Well most obviously it has to do with parenting, if you had sex back then, there was a pretty good chance of a baby coming out of it. Moses' contraception methods were pretty much limited to timing. So to avoid having a bunch of stray kids with unknown parents running around, marriage is created. 2 people are committed to the human being that they brought into the world, until the day they die.
So it's a commitment thing. So if someone plans to stay with another person for the rest of their lives, then wouldn't sex be okay? It's the same principle, and it's the same concept. The only difference in "marriage" is that the government has to sign a paper, and if you ever want out you're going to have to go through about a year of legal battles.
Does God care if the government knows about your relationship? Probably not.
And honestly if you get divorced, it's pretty much exactly the same as having premarital sex. Marriage is important because there's a permanence to it, and if that permanence is lost then you might as well have never been married.
What are your thoughts on the matter?
You have to consider that the Bible was written several years ago, and that what's "married" for those in the bible times, may have been vastly different than what it is today, and what it is today might be vastly different than what it is 500 years from now.
For example, maybe in the year 2500 marriage means you cut off your arm with a knife. And I don't know about you, but at that point I'd opt out of marriage.
So what you have to do is look at the true meaning of the law, what's the point of it? Like "don't eat pigs", really translates to "don't eat things that will give you diseases". It's a practical sort of law. So why not have sex until marriage?
Well most obviously it has to do with parenting, if you had sex back then, there was a pretty good chance of a baby coming out of it. Moses' contraception methods were pretty much limited to timing. So to avoid having a bunch of stray kids with unknown parents running around, marriage is created. 2 people are committed to the human being that they brought into the world, until the day they die.
So it's a commitment thing. So if someone plans to stay with another person for the rest of their lives, then wouldn't sex be okay? It's the same principle, and it's the same concept. The only difference in "marriage" is that the government has to sign a paper, and if you ever want out you're going to have to go through about a year of legal battles.
Does God care if the government knows about your relationship? Probably not.
And honestly if you get divorced, it's pretty much exactly the same as having premarital sex. Marriage is important because there's a permanence to it, and if that permanence is lost then you might as well have never been married.
What are your thoughts on the matter?
adam jensen joined in and replied with this 14 years ago, 1 minute later[^] [v] #301,228
> posting on a christian site
HaikerensGuide !0VegJ9Jl.Q joined in and replied with this 14 years ago, 1 minute later, 2 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #301,231
#firstworldproblems
Child Photography joined in and replied with this 14 years ago, 3 minutes later, 6 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #301,233
back in those days you could marry a 7 year old!
Anonymous E joined in and replied with this 14 years ago, 4 minutes later, 10 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #301,237
mountainman !4EB6xd.Oos joined in and replied with this 14 years ago, 20 minutes later, 30 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #301,251
You're pretty close. You're correct about the true meaning of The Law, this is what Jesus preached. You should do a bit more research on marriage, though. Marriage has traditionally had nothing to do with government. It was only recently that governments became involved in regulating marriage, for the purpose of eugenics (prohibiting miscegenation, and preventing criminals, the mentally ill, and the handicapped from marrying). Even having the institutional church involved in marriage is not the ancient practice, but an innovation. Early Christians simply practiced "common law" marriage - they moved in together and starting calling themselves husband and wife.
squeegee !firstkPE1Q joined in and replied with this 14 years ago, 2 hours later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #301,282
@previous (mountainman !4EB6xd.Oos)
> Early Christians simply practiced "common law" marriage - they moved in together and starting calling themselves husband and wife.
Kinda like Jesus and Mary Magdalene!
> Early Christians simply practiced "common law" marriage - they moved in together and starting calling themselves husband and wife.
Kinda like Jesus and Mary Magdalene!
mountainman !4EB6xd.Oos replied with this 14 years ago, 10 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #301,284
squeegee !firstkPE1Q replied with this 14 years ago, 2 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #301,286
@previous (mountainman !4EB6xd.Oos)
believed does not mean evidenced.
in fact much evidence implies to the contrary.
believed does not mean evidenced.
in fact much evidence implies to the contrary.
mountainman !4EB6xd.Oos replied with this 14 years ago, 4 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #301,287
@previous (squeegee !firstkPE1Q)
It is not believed because it is not evidenced. In fact, no credible evidence implies anything to the contrary.
It is not believed because it is not evidenced. In fact, no credible evidence implies anything to the contrary.
Anonymous H joined in and replied with this 14 years ago, 2 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #301,290
@301,251 (mountainman !4EB6xd.Oos)
> It was only recently that governments became involved in regulating marriage
Laws about who may marry whom, the obligations of husband and wife, divorce, inheritance, guardianship, and what unions and inheritances are legally recognized stretch back into ancient history.
> It was only recently that governments became involved in regulating marriage
Laws about who may marry whom, the obligations of husband and wife, divorce, inheritance, guardianship, and what unions and inheritances are legally recognized stretch back into ancient history.
squeegee !firstkPE1Q replied with this 14 years ago, 16 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #301,293
@301,287 (mountainman !4EB6xd.Oos)
> There were three who always walked with the Lord: Mary, his mother, and her sister, and Magdalene, the one who was called his companion. His sister and his mother and his companion were each a Mary.
from a translation of the Gospel of Phillip. http://www.gnosis.org/naghamm/gop.html
And don't say "it's not in the cannon" because that's bullshit compiled together by the Romans to give them control over the church.
Of course they excluded writing that didn't put Peter at the head of the church. Why do you think they burned every other religious document they could get their hands on, because they were wrong?
that's laughable. they did it to seize power over christianity and obliterate the teachings that didn't skew with the room full of narrow-minded and opportunistic men at the council of nicaea.
All of it was backed by the army of the Emperor of Rome.
> There were three who always walked with the Lord: Mary, his mother, and her sister, and Magdalene, the one who was called his companion. His sister and his mother and his companion were each a Mary.
from a translation of the Gospel of Phillip. http://www.gnosis.org/naghamm/gop.html
And don't say "it's not in the cannon" because that's bullshit compiled together by the Romans to give them control over the church.
Of course they excluded writing that didn't put Peter at the head of the church. Why do you think they burned every other religious document they could get their hands on, because they were wrong?
that's laughable. they did it to seize power over christianity and obliterate the teachings that didn't skew with the room full of narrow-minded and opportunistic men at the council of nicaea.
All of it was backed by the army of the Emperor of Rome.
mountainman !4EB6xd.Oos replied with this 14 years ago, 1 hour later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #301,327
mountainman !4EB6xd.Oos double-posted this 14 years ago, 1 minute later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #301,328
@301,293 (squeegee !firstkPE1Q)
that book was written 200 years after the other gospels, it's not a credible source
canon was not determined by the Roman church, but recognized.
The person who knows little is worse than the person who knows none lol
that book was written 200 years after the other gospels, it's not a credible source
canon was not determined by the Roman church, but recognized.
The person who knows little is worse than the person who knows none lol
Anonymous H replied with this 14 years ago, 2 hours later, 7 hours after the original post[^] [v] #301,372
@301,327 (mountainman !4EB6xd.Oos)
Hammurabi, Lycurgus, Solon, The Twelve Tables of Rome... take your pick. They all had something to say about marriage. The state has been taking an interest in marriage since ancient times.
Hammurabi, Lycurgus, Solon, The Twelve Tables of Rome... take your pick. They all had something to say about marriage. The state has been taking an interest in marriage since ancient times.
mountainman !4EB6xd.Oos replied with this 14 years ago, 41 minutes later, 8 hours after the original post[^] [v] #301,388
squeegee !firstkPE1Q replied with this 14 years ago, 10 minutes later, 8 hours after the original post[^] [v] #301,390
@301,328 (mountainman !4EB6xd.Oos)
implying any of them are credible. none of them were written in jesus' time.
the roman church "legitimized" whatever they wanted to and ignored anything that didn't agree with them
The worst person of all is the one who thinks they know everything.
implying any of them are credible. none of them were written in jesus' time.
the roman church "legitimized" whatever they wanted to and ignored anything that didn't agree with them
The worst person of all is the one who thinks they know everything.
Anonymous H replied with this 14 years ago, 7 minutes later, 8 hours after the original post[^] [v] #301,391
mountainman !4EB6xd.Oos replied with this 14 years ago, 20 minutes later, 8 hours after the original post[^] [v] #301,397
mountainman !4EB6xd.Oos double-posted this 14 years ago, 11 minutes later, 9 hours after the original post[^] [v] #301,399
@301,390 (squeegee !firstkPE1Q)
Jesus death is like the point of the narrative, of course nothing was written about his death during his lifetime lol. The rest were written by the 1st and 2nd gen christians, after the people who were there started dying off and they thought we should probably write this shit down. However parts of jesus' life and ministry can be found in the writings of Paul who wrote from 50AD onwards
stop saying the roman church lol there were no division yet and rome had no primacy yet. jerusalem, antioch and alexandria were the capitals of Christianity for the first centuries.
The councils drew the bishops of the various churches (these men were not roman, nor appointed by rome) together to reach consensus on various issues. There was debate and discussion. The church formed its opinion by the apostolic tradition and the texts, you seem to be confused there. THe church didn't suddenly come into existence with all these beliefs and then try to find texts that agreed with those beliefs. They read all the texts and formed their beliefs from them. They were careful to not accept forgeries and pseudepigraphical works (like the one you mentioned).
Jesus death is like the point of the narrative, of course nothing was written about his death during his lifetime lol. The rest were written by the 1st and 2nd gen christians, after the people who were there started dying off and they thought we should probably write this shit down. However parts of jesus' life and ministry can be found in the writings of Paul who wrote from 50AD onwards
stop saying the roman church lol there were no division yet and rome had no primacy yet. jerusalem, antioch and alexandria were the capitals of Christianity for the first centuries.
The councils drew the bishops of the various churches (these men were not roman, nor appointed by rome) together to reach consensus on various issues. There was debate and discussion. The church formed its opinion by the apostolic tradition and the texts, you seem to be confused there. THe church didn't suddenly come into existence with all these beliefs and then try to find texts that agreed with those beliefs. They read all the texts and formed their beliefs from them. They were careful to not accept forgeries and pseudepigraphical works (like the one you mentioned).
Anonymous H replied with this 14 years ago, 1 minute later, 9 hours after the original post[^] [v] #301,400
@301,397 (mountainman !4EB6xd.Oos)
You can't work the Google for yourself today? Fine, here are sections of The Twelve Tables and Hammurabi's code. I trust you can work the 'Control' and 'F' keys by yourself.
You can't work the Google for yourself today? Fine, here are sections of The Twelve Tables and Hammurabi's code. I trust you can work the 'Control' and 'F' keys by yourself.
mountainman !4EB6xd.Oos replied with this 14 years ago, 3 hours later, 12 hours after the original post[^] [v] #301,423
Anonymous H replied with this 14 years ago, 9 minutes later, 12 hours after the original post[^] [v] #301,424
@previous (mountainman !4EB6xd.Oos)
I've provided multiple sources to support them. Your refusal to read them or admit that you are wrong is your problem.
I've provided multiple sources to support them. Your refusal to read them or admit that you are wrong is your problem.
mountainman !4EB6xd.Oos replied with this 14 years ago, 3 minutes later, 12 hours after the original post[^] [v] #301,425
@301,400 (H)
relevant laws from the twelve tables
Table VI
Law V.
Where a woman, who has not been united to a man in marriage, lives with him for an entire year without the usucaption of her being interrupted for three nights, she shall pass into his power as his legal wife.
Table XI
Law II.
Those who belong to the Senatorial Order and are styled Fathers, shall not contract marriage with plebeians.
Relevant laws from the Code of Hammurabi
128. If a man has taken a wife and has not executed a marriage contract, that woman is not a wife.
144. If a man has married a votary, and that votary has given a maid to her husband, and so caused him to have children, and, if that man is inclined to marry a concubine, that man shall not be allowed to do so, he shall not marry a concubine.
relevant laws from the twelve tables
Table VI
Law V.
Where a woman, who has not been united to a man in marriage, lives with him for an entire year without the usucaption of her being interrupted for three nights, she shall pass into his power as his legal wife.
Table XI
Law II.
Those who belong to the Senatorial Order and are styled Fathers, shall not contract marriage with plebeians.
Relevant laws from the Code of Hammurabi
128. If a man has taken a wife and has not executed a marriage contract, that woman is not a wife.
144. If a man has married a votary, and that votary has given a maid to her husband, and so caused him to have children, and, if that man is inclined to marry a concubine, that man shall not be allowed to do so, he shall not marry a concubine.
mountainman !4EB6xd.Oos double-posted this 14 years ago, 53 seconds later, 12 hours after the original post[^] [v] #301,426
@301,424 (H)
you provided nothing lol. You had obviously not read them before you made your claims, which is why you couldn't point out the passages you were citing
you provided nothing lol. You had obviously not read them before you made your claims, which is why you couldn't point out the passages you were citing
Anonymous H replied with this 14 years ago, 3 minutes later, 12 hours after the original post[^] [v] #301,427
mountainman !4EB6xd.Oos replied with this 14 years ago, 9 minutes later, 12 hours after the original post[^] [v] #301,428
Anonymous I joined in and replied with this 14 years ago, 3 hours later, 16 hours after the original post[^] [v] #301,446
squeegee !hbZVTk6JYc joined in and replied with this 14 years ago, 1 hour later, 17 hours after the original post[^] [v] #301,456
@301,399 (mountainman !4EB6xd.Oos)
So full of horse shit. A bunch of faggots with power perverted the teachings to fit their view of christianity and burned everyrhing else. And yes, all of it was allowed by Rome. Rome would've continued to kill christians if not for constantine.
It'd be a broken and powerless religion for goat herders if not for Rome. Enjoy your bastardized and corrupt church invented by a bunch of guys who weren't interested in anything but their own opinions.
So full of horse shit. A bunch of faggots with power perverted the teachings to fit their view of christianity and burned everyrhing else. And yes, all of it was allowed by Rome. Rome would've continued to kill christians if not for constantine.
It'd be a broken and powerless religion for goat herders if not for Rome. Enjoy your bastardized and corrupt church invented by a bunch of guys who weren't interested in anything but their own opinions.
(Edited 3 minutes later.)
mountainman !4EB6xd.Oos replied with this 14 years ago, 21 hours later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #301,666
Anonymous I replied with this 14 years ago, 42 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #301,676
Anonymous K joined in and replied with this 14 years ago, 12 hours later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #302,040
@301,287 (mountainman !4EB6xd.Oos)
@301,423 (mountainman !4EB6xd.Oos)
First, we should establish that jesus was an actual person. Given that he never wrote anything down, we know he at least was not god. Given that no one wrote about him during his lifetime, it's safe to assume he didn't exist.
Muhammad is known to exist. Look at the evidence. Compare to Jesus.
Maybe you should convert.
@301,423 (mountainman !4EB6xd.Oos)
First, we should establish that jesus was an actual person. Given that he never wrote anything down, we know he at least was not god. Given that no one wrote about him during his lifetime, it's safe to assume he didn't exist.
Muhammad is known to exist. Look at the evidence. Compare to Jesus.
Maybe you should convert.
Anonymous I replied with this 14 years ago, 53 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #302,062
@previous (K)> First, we should establish that jesus was an actual person.
> it's safe to assume he didn't exist.
mountainman !4EB6xd.Oos replied with this 14 years ago, 12 hours later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #302,159
@302,040 (K)
> Given that he never wrote anything down, we know he at least was not god.
non sequitor
> Given that no one wrote about him during his lifetime, it's safe to assume he didn't exist.
3 years of public life, writings to religious communities formed around his teachings about him within 2 decades of his death
> Given that he never wrote anything down, we know he at least was not god.
non sequitor
> Given that no one wrote about him during his lifetime, it's safe to assume he didn't exist.
3 years of public life, writings to religious communities formed around his teachings about him within 2 decades of his death