Marriage: What's the point?

[johnlucas]

[continuing from part 2]

 

To hotgurl: I said it earlier in response to someone else that I just think we're on a continuum with some leaning more to monogamy & others leaning more toward polygamy (polyamory...I'm trying to keep the word roots intact!). I planned on using an example of monogamy & polyamory using mankind's closest specieal relatives (yes I'm just making up words now "specieal"): bonobos & chimpanzees but it didn't quite work out. Bonobos are highly promiscuous as are chimpanzees though in entirely different ways. The big difference being in the reasons for the polyamory & the temperment of the two differenct species. I can SORT of make a point about chimp fathers never taking care of their offspring & bonobo fathers helping to raise offspring...I guess. Looking at these two species and a few more similar apes I think I see many parallels & connections with our varied collective behaviors which seem to run the gamut of this continuum.

 

All that aside. It IS true what you said. Marriage is what you make it. Truer words couldn't be said.

 

Thanks for bringing up your points hotgurl.

 

To izzybelle: Hmmmm. Interesting. Grampa nearly pulls a Tom Cruise circa Risky Business when Grammy's in the hospital. Whew. (not making light of your grandparents' marriage. No disrespect intended. It's just a humorous observation)

See? This is faint signal of what I'm talking about. Why be jubilant? Your wife is in the hospital (not sure if it was for a minor procedure or a major one). I get the feeling that he felt restrained & that event caused a temporary release & feeling of freedom. Like anybody I guess you need a break from that person from time to time seeing that you said they were together all the time. Maybe it's just that simple. I would hope it wasn't because he truly got tired of his long time wife. 75 years married??? They MUST be near 100! I wonder does anything really matter by that age?

You wonder how long the spell is supposed to last. Then again look at the Reagans. They seemed to have a deep love affair to the very end. Hate what Reagan did in his presidency but I DO respect his marriage with Nancy. It's a beautiful thing.

 

You know that idea you proposed might not be quite that bad actually, izzybelle. A lease every 3 years. They renew all other licenses like that why NOT a marriage license? I think it would give people the opportunity to reassess what the union is all about & whether to continue if it is fruitless. I say every year rather than every 3 years. That really should be tried out. And it sure would take care of the problem of remembering the anniversary wouldn't it? Hahaha.

That idea is NOT crazy izzybelle. Not at all.

We'll work on the mileage details later.

 

Thanks for these ideas & the story of your grandparents. I appreciate it a lot.

 

Continuing with hotgurl AND izzybelle: Hotgurl that saying about familiarity breeding contempt surely has some merit. People don't remember the essence of humanity's general restlessness. Not to say they want chaos everywhere but that it's like water that stands too long; gets stale. You have to remember to keep fresh in some way or another. When it becomes too routine is one big concern I have about marriage & its worth. This is where a lot of relationships go sour.

Yes and though you see your aunt's marriage you admit to yourself that you may not really understand marriage. "Marriage is work but it is beautiful" is wishful thinking I believe. It IS beautiful if the match is right. When it's not it's an exercise in futility.

 

And izzybelle, you definitely understand how sometimes even a change in employment has drastic effects on a marriage. It makes you wonder what is really attempted to be preserved. The more we know & the more we know what can be, the easier it is to drift from someone who hasn't realized what you have discovered. A new work environment may fulfill an unknown pleasure in one of the spouses. The spouse meets a whole new set of associates & possible friends & each of those people have an effect on that person's life. I think it has a powerful impact in the lure of straying from a mate. In olden days people didn't divorce as much but that didn't mean their marriages were good either. It was more like a prison. Sometimes people just evolve apart. Their interests change as they go through life & suddenly they find their mate as more of just that guy or just that girl wondering how they became such strangers to one another when at one time they were on the same page.

 

Surprisingly Gene Simmons of KISS & his wife said some interesting things about marriage that I think can be useful. They NEVER look too far in the future. They said the key is to take it TRULY one day at a time. Every day assess the marriage & treat each day like it's the beginning & the end. Can't remember his exact words. This was said on MTV's Tom Green Show. Basically don't worry about 10 years down the line & 50th anniversary on the porch sitting in rocking chairs but every single day must be consciously thought of in the marriage. I believe that way people will know when they are drifting apart or changing & there will be less heartache & shock.

 

To Quankanne: You know they really need to make this mandatory in my opinion. Some people go out here half-cocked on these fairy tales told to them all their childhood & don't really understand what a marriage is. Starry-eyed & drunk on love or whatever thinking marriage is the natural end to a loving relationship & that everything works itself out.

 

I don't know Quankanne. I think that's half the problem. The word "work". Work implies an activity people do because they have to not that they want to. It implies drudgery. And still I wonder what is gained in a marriage? All the work put in to what? All the work put in for what? For what end? For what gain? To what benefit? What exactly does marriage do? That's what I can't figure out.

 

Everything about being united with someone is just talking about the details of a long-term relationship. Not necessarily a marriage. A long-term relationship can be life-long. What special bonuses do marriage add to what already exists?

 

Still though those pre-marriage things are a good idea for showing people what they are about to get into. And yes civil courts should do this as well. That way the people who are made for the marriage lifestyle will properly fulfill that lifestyle.

The bending tree analogy. Hmm that's one way of looking at it I guess.

 

Thank you for your feedback to this thread Quankanne. And good joke with the herpes quip.

 

[more in part 4] [last part]

[dyermaker]

Diamonds. Glorified rocks. Nothing more.

Commercialized rocks, and very little more, they do have some pracitcal laboratory uses.

 

To me my computer is more valuable than ANY stone, metal or trifle. It's where I gather information & learn knowledge. And exchange thoughts. Also it's good for escapism, release & freedom.

Don't forget your porn.

[izzybelle]

johnlucas, your fingers must be getting cramped by now!

 

here's a little more insight on my grandparents which i think may go along with your "prison" theory. my father was, evidentally, conceived out of wedlock.... hard to think of grandparents doing the same things that happen today, but it did. never once in my life did i see them express any affection towards each other and i lived practically across the street from them and saw them almost every day. they never celebrated an anniversary publically, probably because of the circumstance of their marriage. they never celebrated or acknowledged any of the kid's b'days either. they were somewhat bizarre people. rumor also has it then when my grandfather saw my grandmother falling he didn't get up to help. said he could have but didn't. now granted they were both in their 90s but it's still sad. sadly they both died within months of each other earlier this year. i do believe my grandmother really loved him because when he died, she very clearly gave up. i get the impression, though, that my grandfather very much viewed marriage as a prison. not only did people not divorce as frequently during those times, i also lived in a very small town and divorce was even less common there than elsewhere in the world because people were also imprisoned there. everyone's lives are connected, definitely the reason i got out!!!! but life in a small town is definitely a topic for a different discussion.

 

in any case, i'll be watching for your ideas about the whole mileage issue. i would have mentioned the yearly renewal but figured someone would tell me i was out of my mind!

[johnlucas]

[continuing from part 3]

 

Back to izzybelle once more: Oh so you went through the Catholic church's pre-marriage prep classes huh izzybelle? A woman with six kids talking about birth control?? Wait I thought Catholics didn't believe in birth control? Guess I need an update.

Yep a life's lesson. You can't plan for everything as much as you try to. That's a bitter pill for an ol' plan-head like me to swallow. I think they need to come up with things to do once the infatuation spell wears off. What to do when the fog is finally fading. When the starry-eyes give way to the rising sun on the horizon. Even good things break down sometimes & I guess this is what makes this so disheartening & quizzical.

 

A big thing I think everyone needs to undertake in life is to learn about yourself first before getting too wrapped up in somebody else. This is for more than just marriage. For ALL arenas of life. Once you know yourself you can make better choices about where to go & what to do.

 

To Hokey Religions: Interesting perspective H.R. Of course these same things izzybelle went through happen in what I like to call "unofficial marriages" AKA long-term relationships. Some people burnt once too many do INDEED quit trying to have contact of that sort with the opposite sex (we'll just leave it at that so as not to complicate the issue. gays have the same issues I'm sure). Sure it will make sure you won't get burnt again but then again you never will know what you could have if you never try.

I just don't see the big deal about the official institution of marriage. What really makes that so different than what I call unofficial marriages on a personal level? I'm not talking about all that property rights nonsense & tax form tomfoolery. Even when teens date they sit up here jealous & angry that another mate cheated on them. It's ALREADY marriage if you think of it like that!

 

Either way anyone who finds a mate they can belong with I'm happy for. 'Cause I'm all about people finding comfort & happiness.

Congratulations on your 20 years Hokey Religions.

 

Ummmm.....what's going with your avatar? Hahahaha. She's really into the moment I see. Hahaha!

Thanks for your imput.

 

To blind_otter: Hmmmm. The classes were good for a coupon on the bill huh? Even as you were getting married you couldn't figure out what this was really all about hmm? I think many people are in the same boat as you were blind_otter. They do it seemingly out of tradition like many things people do in life. They don't even know what the tradition is for it's just a feeling of "it's just done". I wonder about those Promise Keeper women sometimes. I wonder if they ever find that their mind & body betrays this lifestyle they tried to live up to in time. Virginity in a locket??? Hmmm I don't know about that. When those 40s hit I know something has got to give somewhere. I imagine there are a lot of skeletonial secrets in those Promise Keeper homes.

 

Don't get me started on the patriarchy! As a man I have found a large reason why things exist the way they do with the obsession to control female sexuality. I'll be here all day if I try to put that down so I'll just put the cork back in that bottle.

 

Hmm seems like me you are at a loss with figuring out the tangible value of this institution as well.

Maybe through the course of this thread we'll find something.

 

Thanks for chiming in on this thread blind_otter. I've learned a lot.

 

To Sumdude: Yes sumdude you make good points. I know message boards aren't the end-all be-all of all perspectives on a matter...that whole squeaky wheel & grease confrabulation (yes i'm a wordsmith). But they ARE INDEED great resources to getting to the pulse of matters & how people really do things & really feel. Yes you will find more people with problems posting because people who are content & happy tend not to comment on boards as much. You find more of the perspective of people who have had problems than the people who haven't. YET there are a lot of people having problems so while this may not be the absolute representative of the marriage issue it is a good place to start.

Talk shows get the wildest to make those ratings dollars of course but they DO represent people who do act that way in some degree or another. May not be as prepped up to be exhibitionist like the ones on camera but having those same issues.

 

Yeah like I said when writing the original post my age tends to give me away a bit. Your life experiences tend to influence your thought it's true. But even that being said I don't think I'll change that much on this issue even in my 30's. I don't mind long-term relationships but marriages just seem like an outmoded arrangement to me. Maybe if I find somebody truly down for me & I can be sure I MIGHT partake of the ol' tradition but then again maybe not. I'll always think "is it really needed?" Like I said LTR's are unofficial marriages anyhow. Common law you might as well say.

Still all those things you mention are just the details of a long-term relationship. I still don't understand what the distinction of marriage brings to it.

 

But no matter my views I NEVER want to stand in the way of someone else's happiness & pursuits. I wish you best of luck with your future wife Sumdude & I hope you two stay together vibrant, full of life & love for decades to come. Update us in 10-20 years will you?

 

You know though some people say staying single ain't all that bad. But again I guess this depends on how much they want kids.

Life is nuts anyhow so you might well get your Planters jar & dig in.

 

Thanks Sumdude for sharing your viewpoints on this topic of mine. I liked what you had to say.

 

And thank you all once again for adding your unique takes on this issue. I hoped to get a discussion full of variant viewpoints & I surely got my money's worth. It has added to my understanding.

Still don't get what marriage is about exactly but I'm glad those who have married & survived are doing well.

 

Add more comments everybody! I'd like to see some more views on the issue!

 

John Lucas

[Moose]

The concept of marriage predates the Bible. That's a fact. Of course, you could argue that God is omnipresent, but the people getting married weren't following a religion anything like today's understanding of God. Additionally, marriage and religion weren't closely related.

 

Interesting Dyer.....I always believed that NOTHING predates the Bible. Or at least the contents therein, since the history of Earth's creation begins in Genesis. And oddly enough.....so does the concept of marriage....go figure. Believe what you wish.....

 

johnlucas, you asked for Scripture references.....here ya go:

 

Genesis 2:18:

 

"and the Lord God said, "It is not good that man should be alone; I will make a helper comparable to him"

 

I think God did this simply because Adam was naming all the beasts and foul of the earth and noticed that there were more than one of each kind. God saw that he was alone and had noone to communicate with, love or cherish. Noone with who he could really feel a belonging to.

 

God caused a deep sleep upon Adam and LITERALLY took one of Adam's ribs to create a woman. God could of done it another way.....but, He chose this way to illustrate that man and woman ultimatley belong one to another.

 

Genesis 2:23:

 

"And Adam 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"

 

Incidentally, ( And this is for Dyer ), IN THE ORIGINAL HEBREW, this verse read "She shall be called Ishah, [from ish] meaning man, and so God made a helper comparable to Adam. This is why I'm so against same sex marriage. If God intended man to marry man and woman to marry woman......why would He choose to create us the way I just explained? And also because of this verse:

 

Matthew 19:4-6 Jesus is talking:

 

"Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning made them male and female, and said, "For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no man seperate"

 

It was God's intention to create a man and a woman to share their lives together in love. Yet the woman was made to be a "helper" for man. A lot of controversy over this ended a lot of marriages simply because society has put in the minds of women that she's her own person and she has all the rights that a man has to work outside the home, allow others to raise her family, and to take on the role as head of household.

 

Satan does a good job of this through psychologists, marriage councelors, media and even educational systems. Satan uses these avenues to pump into you the concept that we were NOT created by a real God, that we just happened to evolve, that there isn't any real purpose in our lives, and that men and women are not essentially different in many ways so it doesn't make any difference as to the roles they play and which one is the leader of the family.

 

Despite all of these experts, women can find their greatest joy and fullfillment in relating to, helping, supplementing and assisting her husband in their life together.

 

The whole reason for your thread was to show everyone why you thought marriage is a waste. It wouldn't be had it not been for society, or actually Satan's corruption of society. God HATES divorce. God wanted godly offspring. That's why he ordained marriage a holy covenant.

 

Malachi 2:16:

 

"For the Lord God of Israel says that He hates divorce, for it covers one's garment with violence, says the Lord of hosts." "Therefore take heed to your spirit, that you do not deal treacherously."

 

I could go on and on and on with this subject...and I will if you need more. Ask away and I hope to be able to help you. Marriage isn't a waste and it is worth the work. If, and only if you build your marriage on the foundation of God's word.

[izzybelle]

moose, i gotta ask and i know i may have misinterpreted (i have a cold and a bad case of medicine head today) are you saying that you believe that women aren't their own people and shouldn't work outside the home? and is this a main reason you think marriages fail? and if you really do believe this.... i can see your point to the extent that if women become subservient and don't think for themselves sure... they'd never question being married. sounds a little stepford wivesish to me. if i've misinterpreted, i apologize.

 

i believe in evolution so obviously you and i will definitely come at this from different angles. i'm also a counselor. i'm not sure i've ever had a discussion with anyone about evolution vs. god. but then again career counselors very rarely touch on those types of issues. one thing that my counseling background has taught me, and it's who i am anyway, is to be open and accepting of people from all backgrounds, religions, etc. i routinely have students in my office who are deciding how much information regarding the importance of religion or sexual orientation to share on their applications to graduate school. i could not do what i do well, if i let my own beliefs effect my abilities to help ALL the students at my university. and i believe, that if more people were really truly accepting of people of all religions (or lack thereof), races, lifestyle choices, etc. there would be a lot less problems in the world..... just my opinion.

[Moose]

moose, i gotta ask and i know i may have misinterpreted (i have a cold and a bad case of medicine head today) are you saying that you believe that women aren't their own people and shouldn't work outside the home? and is this a main reason you think marriages fail? and if you really do believe this.... i can see your point to the extent that if women become subservient and don't think for themselves sure... they'd never question being married. sounds a little stepford wivesish to me. if i've misinterpreted, i apologize.

 

I'm saying that society distorts God's intentions on what true happiness in a marriage is. Of cource women are their own people, and some women are forced to work outside the home. But it's not because they should....I believe they shouldn't. I believe that our children deserve to be raised by their parents. Society puts in the minds of millions of people that they won't find true happiness unless they're driving that new SUV, and live in that $200,000.00 home in the suburbs. When in fact, if you base your marriage on the principals of God's words, your home would be worth far more than that, (If you know the true definition of, "Home" ) and you wouldn't worry about what you're driving everyday.

 

Wifes are to be submissive to their husbands. Likewise, Husbands are to love their wives like the Lord loves His Church. I'm not saying that wives are to cower, or to be at the husbands beckoned call either. Too many people take that verse out of context......

 

It's my opinion that most marriages fail because they don't know what God intented it to be. If you, or anyone else wants to follow what society says will ultimatley make you happy....I say go for it and see. It's none of my business. And you probably will believe you're happy......it's sad in my opinion because it's a synthetic happiness.

 

i routinely have students in my office who are deciding how much information regarding the importance of religion or sexual orientation to share on their applications to graduate school. i could not do what i do well, if i let my own beliefs effect my abilities to help ALL the students at my university. and i believe, that if more people were really truly accepting of people of all religions (or lack thereof), races, lifestyle choices, etc. there would be a lot less problems in the world..... just my opinion.

 

And I respect that opinion. That whole paragraph reinforces my point of what Satan has done to society and their core beliefs. You said you couldn't do what you do, well, if you allow your beliefs to interfere, when in fact, you would simply lose your job if you did. That's what I'm talking about. You would be fired on the spot if you had a homosexual student come into your office and you told that student the reason he/she is having so many problems is because of their sexual preference. (That is if that's what you truly believed)

 

You're probably right about having less problems in the world if everyone were more accepting of everyone's religion, race, lifstyles and everything else. However, that is simply impossible. The very reason we are at war isn't because of trade embargos, money laundering, political agendas......this war is solely based on a religion, (Islam), and it's followers attemtpting to eliminate anyone against it. "Kill the infidels" is the battle cry.

 

But I see where you were going and you're right. In my religion, when your utopia comes to be, that's when we'll know the end times are upon us.

[blind_otter]

Originally posted by Moose

I'm saying that society distorts God's intentions on what true happiness in a marriage is. Of cource women are their own people, and some women are forced to work outside the home. But it's not because they should....I believe they shouldn't. I believe that our children deserve to be raised by their parents. Society puts in the minds of millions of people that they won't find true happiness unless they're driving that new SUV, and live in that $200,000.00 home in the suburbs. When in fact, if you base your marriage on the principals of God's words, your home would be worth far more than that, (If you know the true definition of, "Home" ) and you wouldn't worry about what you're driving everyday.

 

Wifes are to be submissive to their husbands. Likewise, Husbands are to love their wives like the Lord loves His Church. I'm not saying that wives are to cower, or to be at the husbands beckoned call either. Too many people take that verse out of context......

 

It's my opinion that most marriages fail because they don't know what God intented it to be. If you, or anyone else wants to follow what society says will ultimatley make you happy....I say go for it and see. It's none of my business. And you probably will believe you're happy......it's sad in my opinion because it's a synthetic happiness.

 

 

And I respect that opinion. That whole paragraph reinforces my point of what Satan has done to society and their core beliefs. You said you couldn't do what you do, well, if you allow your beliefs to interfere, when in fact, you would simply lose your job if you did. That's what I'm talking about. You would be fired on the spot if you had a homosexual student come into your office and you told that student the reason he/she is having so many problems is because of their sexual preference. (That is if that's what you truly believed)

 

You're probably right about having less problems in the world if everyone were more accepting of everyone's religion, race, lifstyles and everything else. However, that is simply impossible. The very reason we are at war isn't because of trade embargos, money laundering, political agendas......this war is solely based on a religion, (Islam), and it's followers attemtpting to eliminate anyone against it. "Kill the infidels" is the battle cry.

 

But I see where you were going and you're right. In my religion, when your utopia comes to be, that's when we'll know the end times are upon us.

 

so i have a question - you believe that children should be raised by parents - what if the wife has more earning potential than her husband? Like....say the wife is an attorney and the husband is a nurse. Obviously the wife could work and maintain a better standard of living for the family than if the husband worked and she stayed at home, right?

 

My mom worked and my dad, who was retired by the time I was born (he is 22 years older than my mom), stayed home and took care of my sisters and me. He made us breakfast and packed our lunches and drove us to and from school and was at all the field trips and school functions. He was the one who picked me up if I was sick at school. In all honesty, my mom is a total loon and I'm super glad that my dad was the one who took care of us. I think that if my Dad told my Mom to be submissive to him she would probably beat his ass, ha ha ha. She is from a third world country where the type of relationship you describe is a reality - but as far as I can tell my mother was severely traumatized by the culture she grew up in. In her country, women are considered subservient and suffer on a daily basis for it.

 

But is that, like, against God or something according to your belief structure?

[Ladyjane14]

Wifes are to be submissive to their husbands

 

ROFLMAO!!!

[izzybelle]

ok..... i believe my kids are the wonderful people they are because of their parents. i work, not because i have to (i do but that's not the point) i love my job! i am who i am as a person and as a mom partly because of that. in spite of the fact that my kids spent time in day care they WERE and still are raised by their parents not by some third party.

 

i don't believe that happiness is financial. i gave up the 225K home in the burbs, my soccer mom van, etc. to live in a rather small apartment and drive a leased honda civic so that i could be a better mom to my kids. some relationships are toxic and the god that i believe in would not ever dream of punishing someone for trying to make the best life they could for themselves and their kids. and if that meant divorce, then that's the way it is. my in-laws are incredibly religious, my ex mother-in-law a convert to catholicism. these incredibly religious people who put on their "we'll help" face when appropriate are two of the cruelist people i know. they constantly tried to shove their beliefs down our throats as to the fact that i shouldn't be working, the kids didn't go to church enough, etc. these are the same good christian people who routinely referred to me as a whore becuase i'd been married before. but hey when you're married to someone who owns a gun, threatens to kill your cat if you leave, goes into the military, comes home on leave and the first question you hear is where'd you hide my ammo? no way in he** i was staying in that relationship no matter what god, the law or anyone said.

 

yes, i would lose my job if i tried to impose my beliefs on the students who come into my office. the students that i deal with aren't having trouble because of things like sexual orientation, quite the opposite. they realize that it's an important part of who they are, they are proud of their differences, and are trying to decide (because of the possibility of discrimination by others - something that bothers me that they even have to consider that as a possibility) how much they can disclose. but i think more importantly, i don't impose my views on others because i fear losing my job, i don't do it because it's not my place to. i don't honestly care what religion, race, whatever a student is, i help them because they are a person and a student at my school and because i want to, because i care what happens to them.

 

there are no doubt a bizillion reasons why marriages fail. and i'm sure if everyone believed in the same god, bible interpretation, etc. there may be less divorce. but we don't and i don't believe that that means that satan is on a rampage. yes, if we all weren't so greedy and society wasn't the way it is, yes, things may be different. but i can't change that, it is what it is like it or not. and i'm raising my kids to be open caring people who accept others in spite of their differences (their godfather is gay...i'm sure the catholic church would have loved it if we'd shared that tidbit). i'm raising them to be contributing members of society, to understand right from wrong (and not necessarily the bible's version of that) to fight for what they believe in but to accept other's opinions, as well. i shudder to think what the world would be like if all the women in history had chosen to stay home and raise their children instead of working. i know a lot of stay at home mom's and do i believe that they are better mother's than i am? no. do i think that that has made their marriage better and more likely to succeed? no. and while i think, in most cases, marriages are worth saving there are times when they're not and i don't believe that that means i'm doomed to be sent to he** not that i'm entirely sure i believe in that anyway. personally i think i'm coming back in my next life as a panda, always thought it would be kind of cool to sit around eating bamboo all day! and they look sooo cuddly!

[Moose]

Let me start by just saying that your Dad sounds like a wonderful, loving person.

 

so i have a question - you believe that children should be raised by parents - what if the wife has more earning potential than her husband? Like....say the wife is an attorney and the husband is a nurse. Obviously the wife could work and maintain a better standard of living for the family than if the husband worked and she stayed at home, right?

 

Standard of Living.....hmmmm.....that's what everyone is concerned about isn't it? If people want a higher standard of living, then that's their porogative. As for me and my house, we lived through poverty for the longest time simple because of my alcoholism and lack of drive. BUT, I never wanted my wife to work. I would starve and feed my famiy first before I'd do that. I know it sounds nuts.....but that's just my nature and my porogative.

 

After I straightened up and started to live for God, following His word....the blessings started and continue to fall in abundance. We are doing very well thanks to God.

 

I think that if my Dad told my Mom to be submissive to him she would probably beat his ass, ha ha ha. She is from a third world country where the type of relationship you describe is a reality - but as far as I can tell my mother was severely traumatized by the culture she grew up in. In her country, women are considered subservient and suffer on a daily basis for it.

 

Yeah, my Mom is from Germany....I know where you're coming from. She's totally against my wife staying at home while I work. My mom is on husband #4.....I've been married twice as long as my mom EVER has to any of her husbands and she wonders why. I think in all honesty, she looks up to our marriage. She's just too proud to admit it. In your Mother's culture they are taking the submissive wives to the farthest extreme.....kinda like ladyjane making fun of what I said. That's ok, it just proves my point that people always take that verse out of context. I can't be held responsible for what other cultures percieve subservient wives should be. It's a shame that these examples lead people to believe that submissive wives aren't to be respected and treated with the utmost respect and love of their husbands.

 

But is that, like, against God or something according to your belief structure?

 

Are you talking about your Mom working and your Dad staying at home? Or are you talking about the last part of your paragraph, where your mom's culture abuses subervient wives?

 

Just because your Mom and Dad had reversed roles in their marriage doesn't make that against God's will or against my belief structure. It would be if it's just because your Dad is lazy, or if it's because you prefer the new SUV and house. I'm sure there are legitimate reasons for this role reversal. The fact that you had at least one parent there at all times is a true blessing. You are very fortunate. Many children now and days don't have that.

 

It's also against God when man takes His words and twists them to their benefit. Such as your Mom's culture and the way they treat their wives. Husbands are to love their wives so much that they would literally lay down their lives for them. This is especially true when wives are following God's plan for marriage and the structure he intended her to follow.

[Moose]

izzybelle,

 

That's great! Don't take what I believe so personally ok? I respect the way you've decided to live your life and I don't think any less of you because of it.....why do people always assume that anyway???? Whatever you do is fine with me, and respected by me.

[izzybelle]

thanks, and i apologize for taking it personally. please understand that i do respect your beliefs but i've had more "born again christians" and "converts" try to tell me over the years what i was doing wrong, that people had no business having relationships with me because i wasn't christian enough, that i was a "bad" person because i didn't come to their bible study group, and on and on it went. so it's become a bit of a hot button for me. so, yes, i'm a little sensitive to it all and i admit it!!!

[Moose]

Well those people ought to go to he!!.......just kidding!

[izzybelle]

no, actually they should be destined to come back as mosquitos. they spread "disease" and destruction in this life, best they come back as the same type in the next. except then, nobody can complain or arrest me for squashing them!

[Moose]

[hotgurl]

johnlucas,

I just had to respond to you before finishing the thread. I agree with you that some people are monogamous and some polygamous. Marriage is so individual as we have seen here on this thread that people need to discuss what marriage means to them before getting married.

 

As for the work it is not necessarily drudgery. I don't think that is what the word implies it is more of an effort with a result. But you can work just for the experience. How can I explain it since it is kinda a foreign concept in America. I guess you could use dancing. The act of dancing is work but it is not drudgery and is done to experience the moment just the act of it not for the end result. Americans are so product/end orietned we are always working towards something not just experiencing it. So That is a long winded response to you about how work especially in a marriage (hopefully is not forced drudgery)

 

As for your financial stand points I have to say yes it happens in marriage but is really a result of our materialistic society, not just a result of marriage itself. Yes in our society it can be monataryly beneficial to get married as well as some legal benefits. I think money is so emphasized because is has because a basic nessacity in our society. As everyone remembers in grade school we learned about how all animals need 4 basic things to live food, clothing, shelter, air. alright animals don't need clothing but we do. So money becomes the means to get three of the four things and our instinct for survival takes over and we have to have it. Society and advertising has capitalized on this instinct and warped our perceptions of money etc. But in the end we need it so it becomes all encompassing. A divorce can devestated people finacial but a marriage can add security.

 

What does this means, well in my opion many things are driving people to marry but the people who marry for love and spiritual reason tend to have in my opion a more successful rate of happiness. A deep spiritual connection.

 

Which brings me another point. Someone mentioned change yes people change but I be leave their core. Spiritual core or core values and personality never change through life. Many people hide the core from others or it is masked by what they are going through at the time but it is always there. If you know you partners core not matter what happens externally you can always manage through it. certain things never change.

 

Yes I am long winded too.

[blind_otter]

Originally posted by Moose

Let me start by just saying that your Dad sounds like a wonderful, loving person.

 

Standard of Living.....hmmmm.....that's what everyone is concerned about isn't it? If people want a higher standard of living, then that's their porogative. As for me and my house, we lived through poverty for the longest time simple because of my alcoholism and lack of drive. BUT, I never wanted my wife to work. I would starve and feed my famiy first before I'd do that. I know it sounds nuts.....but that's just my nature and my porogative.

 

After I straightened up and started to live for God, following His word....the blessings started and continue to fall in abundance. We are doing very well thanks to God.

 

Yeah, my Mom is from Germany....I know where you're coming from. She's totally against my wife staying at home while I work. My mom is on husband #4.....I've been married twice as long as my mom EVER has to any of her husbands and she wonders why. I think in all honesty, she looks up to our marriage. She's just too proud to admit it. In your Mother's culture they are taking the submissive wives to the farthest extreme.....kinda like ladyjane making fun of what I said. That's ok, it just proves my point that people always take that verse out of context. I can't be held responsible for what other cultures percieve subservient wives should be. It's a shame that these examples lead people to believe that submissive wives aren't to be respected and treated with the utmost respect and love of their husbands.

 

Are you talking about your Mom working and your Dad staying at home? Or are you talking about the last part of your paragraph, where your mom's culture abuses subervient wives?

 

Just because your Mom and Dad had reversed roles in their marriage doesn't make that against God's will or against my belief structure. It would be if it's just because your Dad is lazy, or if it's because you prefer the new SUV and house. I'm sure there are legitimate reasons for this role reversal. The fact that you had at least one parent there at all times is a true blessing. You are very fortunate. Many children now and days don't have that.

 

It's also against God when man takes His words and twists them to their benefit. Such as your Mom's culture and the way they treat their wives. Husbands are to love their wives so much that they would literally lay down their lives for them. This is especially true when wives are following God's plan for marriage and the structure he intended her to follow.

 

yeah, i can see your point.

 

my dad is great, thanks (haha) - he was retired by the time i was born, so he didn't have anything else to do besides be mr. mom.

 

my mom's father, on the other hand (from the third world country) - had three wives there and another wife in france. he gambled away all their money and beat his wives on the regular. he moved from house to house throughout the week, staying with whatever wife had money for him to drink/gamble away (gambling is a big problem there). that's probably why my mom is so set against being a traditional woman.

 

however, it's strange because both my older sisters became stay at home moms, just goes to show. i would be if i could, but i'm going to have to be a single mom.

[Moose]

i would be if i could, but i'm going to have to be a single mom.

 

I'm so sorry to hear that. Maybe someone will come to your rescue.

[Fritz]

To be honest, I don't think a sane (of course, love tends to drive us all a bit crazy.. ) man would be smart to get married in the US today. I think there are far too many strikes against marriage as far as laws go for marriage to be worth it to a man. There is too much bias in the courts towards women for it to be a wise decision with regards to child custody/support/spousal support etc.. Although I think all the strife I read, hear, witness in marriages these days has taught me to be very careful in my relationships, not take things for granted, and that a good strong relationship takes hard work. My problem is that its just too easy for someone to royally screw their partner over. There are really no penalties for adultery in many states. You have a system that deals with domestic violence by arresting people on alleged crimes. Its innocent until proven guilty. I find it hard to enter into a relationship/contract where if things go bad, its very very likely I'm not going to get a fair deal in the outcome.

 

 

 

That said, I must be insane because I'd still like to meet a great woman, marry her and have a family with a life long partnership.

[izzybelle]

some of us (females that is) tried very hard to be fair in the divorce process and ended up getting scr*wed in the process. i tried so hard to not mess things up for him and the kids that i did permanent damage to my finances.

 

divorce in general is cruel and nobody gets the "good" end out of the deal. and yes, the courts do tend to favor women in many respects. mediation, what we did, tends to work the other way because it favors the stronger partner. when you're in a room together hashing out the details and one is stronger than the other, or one feels badly because they're the one who asked, people tend to cave in without completely thinking it through.

 

hopefully most marriages won't come to that, but it really doesn't have to be as bad as it usually turns out. people get all worked up about "things" who gets what. but then again my exs family does that when someone dies.... and they're richer than he!!

[dyermaker]

Originally posted by Moose

Interesting Dyer.....I always believed that NOTHING predates the Bible.

The Old Testament is simply a collection of stories and laws from various tribes. Plenty of human development, experience, and social institutions predate the Bible. It is a historical fact, not an opinion, that before the Ancient Jews had consolidated their oral tradition into an actual "book", marriage had taken root as a secular institution.

Or at least the contents therein, since the history of Earth's creation begins in Genesis.

Come now, don't be ridiculous. Genesis is not a historical document. The first and second chapters of Genesis contradict each other, which would mean either:

1. One of them is wrong.

2. Neither of them are historical, they are just various stories told by two different tribes of Jews.

And oddly enough.....so does the concept of marriage....go figure. Believe what you wish.....

Genesis was compiled from various tribal oral traditions between 1225 and 1000 BC.

Marriage predates Genesis, and has its roots in the Neolithic Revolution, 6000 BC.

 

Any reference to marriage as an institution is a reference to an already existing, nonreligious ceremony.

 

Genesis 2:18:

 

"and the Lord God said, "It is not good that man should be alone; I will make a helper comparable to him"

Notice how this has nothing to do with Marriage, but is merely the way that the Yahwist's explained the concept of male and female differences, lacking any real science.

I think God did this simply because Adam was naming all the beasts and foul of the earth and noticed that there were more than one of each kind. God saw that he was alone and had noone to communicate with, love or cherish. Noone with who he could really feel a belonging to.

Replace "God" with "a group of nomadic nomadic people", and you're closer to the right path in your Biblical analysis.

 

God caused a deep sleep upon Adam and LITERALLY took one of Adam's ribs to create a woman. God could of done it another way.....but, He chose this way to illustrate that man and woman ultimatley belong one to another.

LITERALLY tore out one of his ribs and carved it into a woman?

 

Listen, you say that God could have done it "another way". Take a look at your beloved Bible. HE DID. The Yahwists wrote that Eve was carved out of a rib. The Elohists believed that Eve was made out of dust. If either of their traditions were meant to be taken "literally", they wouldn't have two stories that totally contradict each other, back to back.

 

Are you saying, in all your years of Biblical study, you didn't notice that there were two creation stories, and they both say totally contradicting things? Please, explain it to me, because I'm fascinated by anyone who could take a reconciliation of tribal metaphors and turn them into "history" or "science", despite their infidelity to scientific law, and their bastardization of the geological record.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Genesis 2:23:

 

"And Adam 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"

 

Incidentally, ( And this is for Dyer ), IN THE ORIGINAL HEBREW, this verse read "She shall be called Ishah, [from ish] meaning man, and so God made a helper comparable to Adam. This is why I'm so against same sex marriage. If God intended man to marry man and woman to marry woman......why would He choose to create us the way I just explained?

I've read, and understood, the original Hebrew. For the record, although ancient Hebrews, who didn't understand homosexuality, wouldn't have used it in this context, " 'ishshah" doesn't neccesarily mean 'woman'. The word is rooted in "'iysh" <a husband> , and simply asserts that an ishshah has given their lives to the iysh. The fact that no men were considered marriage material for other men in no way implies that God "created" us straight--in fact, until you actually attempt to understand homosexuality, you can't claim to understand God's creation at all.

And also because of this verse:

 

Matthew 19:4-6 Jesus is talking:

 

"Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning made them male and female, and said, "For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no man seperate"

 

It was God's intention to create a man and a woman to share their lives together in love. Yet the woman was made to be a "helper" for man.

You are speaking for God, the most aggregious violation of the third commandment.

 

What entitles you to say that God couldn't join together two men? Considering that Jesus' message was primarily of love, not legalism, it's obvious that any man willing to serve as a wife, or more accurately, an ishshah, to another man (and, in this case, the feeling would be mutual) is doing much less harm than, say, someone using scripture to justify hatred.

A lot of controversy over this ended a lot of marriages simply because society has put in the minds of women that she's her own person and she has all the rights that a man has to work outside the home, allow others to raise her family, and to take on the role as head of household.

That doesn't seem evil at all.

 

See, understanding the Bible isn't just about understanding what a Hebrew word may or may not mean. You HAVE to understand context. Context is a function of understanding, it just is.

 

The context of the society of MEN who wrote the Bible was that the division of labor had already occured, and somehow, through Satan's influence perhaps, they valued going out and getting work done MORE than the nurturing role of a mother. Ergo, they totally subjugated women, to the point where they were nothing more than sexually deviant slaves. Certian people, Martin Luther, for example--still believed that, and used the Bible to justify their prejudice.

 

Thankfully, modern thought has challenged those people with proof that a man is no more competent than a woman for any purpose, simply by virtue of the thing dangling between his legs.

 

Satan uses these avenues to pump into you the concept that we were NOT created by a real God, that we just happened to evolve, that there isn't any real purpose in our lives, and that men and women are not essentially different in many ways so it doesn't make any difference as to the roles they play and which one is the leader of the family.

The reason the Bible gives men dominion over women is because the Bible was written by men, in a male-dominated society.

You can try to invent other reasons, and attribute them to "God", but that's blasphemy, and misogyny.

 

Despite all of these experts, women can find their greatest joy and fullfillment in relating to, helping, supplementing and assisting her husband in their life together.

The source of joy and fulfillment is a bunch of chemicals in the brain. How a woman releases those chemicals is her own business. You're not a psychologist, so any assertion you make about where a woman can find their greatest joy/fulfillment, and expect to be taken seriously.

The whole reason for your thread was to show everyone why you thought marriage is a waste. It wouldn't be had it not been for society, or actually Satan's corruption of society. God HATES divorce. God wanted godly offspring. That's why he ordained marriage a holy covenant.

The concept of marriage predates monotheism. So even if God is omnipresent, people didn't know who he was at all until people had been marrying for thousands of years.

 

Additionally, until you've experienced the horror of an abusive, dysfunctional, or psychoterrorizing marriage, you can't say that divorce is detestable. For some, divorce saves lives.

Malachi 2:16:

 

"For the Lord God of Israel says that He hates divorce, for it covers one's garment with violence, says the Lord of hosts." "Therefore take heed to your spirit, that you do not deal treacherously."

Do you even understand that?

 

Marriage at the time of 500 to 450 BC wasn't anywhere near the same as it was now.

 

Read the end.

 

"Take heed to your spirit, that you do not deal treacherously"

 

The context of the passage you quoted, and one of the main points of Malachi as a whole, is addressing this problem: Jewish fathers were arranging marriages for their children with gentiles. This is a form of treachery to the covenant, or at least that's what the unknown author of the book of Malachi was asserting.

 

The point of the passage, then, is this : Because God hates divorce (notice how God's will corresponds with the Jewish agenda), you have to be careful whom you sell your daughters to, because you might get ripped off.

 

Marriage isn't a waste and it is worth the work. If, and only if you build your marriage on the foundation of God's word.

God has some wonderful things to say about marriage, but the idea doesn't belong to any of the Biblical writers.

[Moose]

Dyer,

 

Are you a believer or not?

 

Come now, don't be ridiculous. Genesis is not a historical document. The first and second chapters of Genesis contradict each other, which would mean either:

1. One of them is wrong.

2. Neither of them are historical, they are just various stories told by two different tribes of Jews.

 

There is absolutley nothing in the Bible that contradicts itself....don't be fooled. Just what are you talking about anyway? Just explain to me exactley how you came to this conclusion. (I'm sure you'll come up with something absolutley ridiculous.)

 

Genesis was compiled from various tribal oral traditions between 1225 and 1000 BC.

Marriage predates Genesis, and has its roots in the Neolithic Revolution, 6000 BC.

 

Any reference to marriage as an institution is a reference to an already existing, nonreligious ceremony.

 

I'm sure you would know....you where there weren't you?

 

You see Dyer, you spend your free time mainly looking up facts that were written by historians and scientists that weren't even there to begin with. To me that kind of rationalization is a waste of time. I tend to go with my heart and where it's been led to. I don't need tangable proof like you do. I believe with my heart and my soul, you have to have proof. Tell me where I said marriage was an institution.....I call it a Holy Covenant. Can you tell me the difference?

 

Notice how this has nothing to do with Marriage, but is merely the way that the Yahwist's explained the concept of male and female differences, lacking any real science.

 

Come on Dyer, you know better than to take just one verse and try to understand what its full meaning is. Even the most novice bible scholar uses little tricks to help himself grasp full meaning.....you've heard of this I'm sure...."Whenever you read the word Therefore, you need to go back and see what it's Therefore" is even known by my youngest child. Give me a break.

 

Replace "God" with "a group of nomadic nomadic people", and you're closer to the right path in your Biblical analysis.

 

Who are you to tell me what my correct path is? The Bible has always been open to self interpretation. It's the Holy Spirit itself that guides me.....it's your collection of old facts and figures that guide you. And that's your own decision to base your beliefs on. Don't tell me what my path needs to be to analyze the Bible.

 

LITERALLY tore out one of his ribs and carved it into a woman?

 

Listen, you say that God could have done it "another way". Take a look at your beloved Bible. HE DID. The Yahwists wrote that Eve was carved out of a rib. The Elohists believed that Eve was made out of dust. If either of their traditions were meant to be taken "literally", they wouldn't have two stories that totally contradict each other, back to back.

 

 

 

Are you saying, in all your years of Biblical study, you didn't notice that there were two creation stories, and they both say totally contradicting things? Please, explain it to me, because I'm fascinated by anyone who could take a reconciliation of tribal metaphors and turn them into "history" or "science", despite their infidelity to scientific law, and their bastardization of the geological record.

 

Yes, literally. What and the world are you reading anyway? Show me where there are two versions of creation in the Bible. You can't. In the second Chapter it clearly states that MAN was created from the dust, and WOMAN was formed from one of MAN's ribs. Again, you're basing your beliefs on nothing but the facts gathered by mere men. Who, in my opinion, are nothing compared to my God. Who's word do you think I'm going to believe first?

 

I've read, and understood, the original Hebrew. For the record, although ancient Hebrews, who didn't understand homosexuality, wouldn't have used it in this context, " 'ishshah" doesn't neccesarily mean 'woman'. The word is rooted in "'iysh" <a husband> , and simply asserts that an ishshah has given their lives to the iysh. The fact that no men were considered marriage material for other men in no way implies that God "created" us straight--in fact, until you actually attempt to understand homosexuality, you can't claim to understand God's creation at all.

 

Again, putting science in place of nature doesn't prove anything to me. To me, I know how I view homosexuality....it's not natural.

 

What entitles you to say that God couldn't join together two men? Considering that Jesus' message was primarily of love, not legalism, it's obvious that any man willing to serve as a wife, or more accurately, an ishshah, to another man (and, in this case, the feeling would be mutual) is doing much less harm than, say, someone using scripture to justif hatred.

 

Just where do you see me using Scripture to justify hatred? I said it was God's Intention that man and woman marry. God can do alot of things including join two men together, but it's my believe, my opinion, that He chooses not to. Why? BECAUSE IT'S NOT NATURAL.

 

You are speaking for God, the most aggregious violation of the third commandment.

 

Third Commandment as found in a NIV copy: "You shall not misuse the name of the Lord your God, for the Lord will not hold anyone guiltless who misuse His name."

 

Where in the world did I misuse God's name? Earlier, you suggested that I replace God with your nomadic people. Now to me, there isn't no greater sin than the next.....so I can't say which one of us are overstepping the other.

 

You HAVE to understand context. Context is a function of understanding, it just is.

 

AMEN BROTHA, that's what I've been talkin' about!!!! It's a shame you and I have difference in understanding or this wouldn't of had have been another one of your attempts to bury me. We can agree to disagree, you know that don't you?

 

The context of the society of MEN who wrote the Bible......................The reason the Bible gives men dominion over women is because the Bible was written by men, in a male-dominated society................ You can try to invent other reasons, and attribute them to "God", but that's blasphemy, and misogyny.

 

Men wrote the words that God either inspired them to write, or outright told them to write. You are trying to tell me that the Bible holds no attributes that came from God????

 

The source of joy and fulfillment is a bunch of chemicals in the brain. How a woman releases those chemicals is her own business.

 

I apologize for leading you to believe I meant ALL women. I didn't intend that to be, I should've said, "SOME WOMEN"..........Notice I didn't say, "ALL"....come on Dyer, quit being so critical.

 

You're not a psychologist, so any assertion you make about where a woman can find their greatest joy/fulfillment, and expect to be taken seriously.

 

I didn't follow this at first, I think you didn't finish your thought. But knowing you, I can gather where you were going......If you read what I wrote about not meaning all women, that should give you enough information to see what I meant...

 

The concept of marriage predates monotheism. So even if God is omnipresent, people didn't know who he was at all until people had been marrying for thousands of years.

 

Another fact that some Indiana Jones character dug up and fed to people. God IS omnipresent, marriage was created not soon after the first man, only man, and the first woman, only woman was created. How could marriage exsist before then? You're confusing me......or maybe you're confused.....hmmmmmm

 

Additionally, until you've experienced the horror of an abusive, dysfunctional, or psychoterrorizing marriage, you can't say that divorce is detestable. For some, divorce saves lives.

 

No kidding? Do you have any clue what I went through growing up? Doesn't matter and I won't go into details.......fact is, God hates divorce.....you think He likes to see husbands and wives try to kill each other and hit their kids? I wouldn't think so....just as much as He hates seeing this, He also hates divorce.

 

The point of the passage, then, is this : Because God hates divorce (notice how God's will corresponds with the Jewish agenda), you have to be careful whom you sell your daughters to, because you might get ripped off.

 

Nonsense.

 

God has some wonderful things to say about marriage, but the idea doesn't belong to any of the Biblical writers.

 

Again, I agree with you. Of course the idea doesn't belong to the Biblical writers. It belongs to the Biblical Author....................... God.

 

Listen Dyer, you won't win me over to your side. Nothing that you say or use as fact or proof will convince me that you're even remotley close to what I feel is truth.

[dyermaker]

Originally posted by Moose

Dyer,

 

Are you a believer or not?

I believe in God.

 

I don't allow that belief to make me forget about reality. That's not a component of my faith.

There is absolutley nothing in the Bible that contradicts itself....don't be fooled. Just what are you talking about anyway? Just explain to me exactley how you came to this conclusion. (I'm sure you'll come up with something absolutley ridiculous.)

The book of Genesis wasn't written by a single religious group. It was a compilation of many different tribes' ways of explaining natural phenomena.

 

Remember that they understood nothing of atoms, cells, germs, or genetics.

 

So their solution was simple : Make **** up.

 

That DOESN'T make it worthless to us as Christians, because it reveals a truth of God that is totally significant. It shows how God revealed himself to the people at that time, and lays the foundation for a covenant that Jesus came to fulfill. However, if you start to take stuff from the Bible as historical truth instead of theological truth, you begin to look really stupid, because historically and scientifically, oftentimes, things are just fictional.

 

Now, you made an assertion: nothing in the bible contradicts itself. Religiously, this is true. But if you were taking things literally, it's totally false.

 

I could provide you with a crapload of scriptural references, even in the Gospels, that contradict one another, but I'll focus on the one that I mentioned to begin with, since it's actually relevant to the discussion.

 

Genesis 1 is taken from a different source than Genesis 2. They're from four different religious groups under one God (The Levites, The Elohists, The Yahwists, the Dueteronimists), but they all had different stories they told their kids when they asked who created the world.

 

In Genesis 1, males and females are created in God's image, at the same moment. In Genesis 2, Eve is created from Adam. Dude, just read the titles if the text is too much for you.

 

Genesis 1 : The first account of creation

Genesis 2 : The second account of creation

 

I mean, in Genesis I, because monotheism wasn't a huge part of certain tribes' relationship with God, they don't even refer to God as singular. God is called "Elohim" which literally means "Gods". Not to mention glaring scientific inaccuracies. You do realize that we have sent spaceships to the moon, and they haven't crashed into a basin of water above Earth?

 

I'm sure you would know....you where there weren't you?

The Neolithic Revolution (6000 BC) saw the creation of marriage because advances in farming techniques led to a division of labor, and therefore, a need to seperate gender roles. Believe it or not, before the Bible was written, or even imagined by any human, men and women enjoyed relative equality. It wasn't until after that a man felt the need to subjugate his women, which is reinforced in the second chapter of Genesis.

 

You see Dyer, you spend your free time mainly looking up facts that were written by historians and scientists that weren't even there to begin with. To me that kind of rationalization is a waste of time.

I need to understand what I'm reading, otherwise I run the risk of totally misinterpreting the Bible, which scares me, because I could really do some harm to people if I'm misusing God's word.

 

I tend to go with my heart and where it's been led to. I don't need tangable proof like you do. I believe with my heart and my soul, you have to have proof.

I would respect that if and only if your heart had led you to a place where you're not discriminating against others, and you have used the word of God (or whomever) to justify the opinion of denial of God's grace to homosexual couples.

 

Tell me where I said marriage was an institution.....I call it a Holy Covenant. Can you tell me the difference?

There is no difference.

 

Moose, this is my only point in dissecting Bible verses with you: The concept of marriage is OLDER than the Bible. Therefore, the Bible uses an EXISTING institution, and makes it holy. That's fine. However, it means that theists are no more entitled to this institution than people who choose not to follow your religion. My main point is that religion is merely borrowing the idea of marriage, and it doesn't have the right to exclude people from it.

 

Come on Dyer, you know better than to take just one verse and try to understand what its full meaning is. Even the most novice bible scholar uses little tricks to help himself grasp full meaning.....you've heard of this I'm sure...."Whenever you read the word Therefore, you need to go back and see what it's Therefore" is even known by my youngest child. Give me a break.

I only cite verses that I understand. Doing otherwise would be irresponsible.

 

It's the Holy Spirit itself that guides me.....it's your collection of old facts and figures that guide you.

Please don't assume you're any more entitled to the grace of the spirit than anyone else, that's flippant and distracting.

 

Again, you're basing your beliefs on nothing but the facts gathered by mere men. Who, in my opinion, are nothing compared to my God. Who's word do you think I'm going to believe first?

Not only was the Bible, save for allegedly the Ten Commandments, written ENTIRELY by mere men (and women! *gasp*)--most of it is hearsay and attributed to unknown authors.

 

Again, putting science in place of nature doesn't prove anything to me. To me, I know how I view homosexuality....it's not natural.

If it were unnatural, it wouldn't occur in nature, and it does.

 

I said it was God's Intention that man and woman marry.

Humans are unqualified to assess God's intention for the entirety of humanity.

 

God can do alot of things including join two men together, but it's my believe, my opinion, that He chooses not to. Why? BECAUSE IT'S NOT NATURAL.

If it were unnatural, it wouldn't occur in nature, and it does.

 

Third Commandment as found in a NIV copy: "You shall not misuse the name of the Lord your God, for the Lord will not hold anyone guiltless who misuse His name."

 

Where in the world did I misuse God's name?

You're using God's name to justify discrimination, and that's a gross misuse. Have you studied church models of leadership? Not everything follows the "pyramid model".

 

We can agree to disagree, you know that don't you?

In any other case, yes.

 

In this case, no.

 

I will never agree with you, and because I love God and his word, I will do everything I can to point out your misuse of scripture when I feel that you are misusing it.

 

It's nothing personal, it never is. It's just that religion is extremely personal to me, and when I see my faith being dragged through the gutters of discrimination and evil, I take offense, and feel it's my spiritual duty to defend the word of God. I think that the fundamentalist movement is nothing but damaging to Christianity as a whole--I mean, isn't legalism what Jesus was sent to rectify?

 

Men wrote the words that God either inspired them to write, or outright told them to write. You are trying to tell me that the Bible holds no attributes that came from God????

You have to be able to seperate the input of God and the input of man.

 

The only human capable of writing directly the word of God onto paper would have been Jesus, and tragically, like Selena and Hendrix, the man died before his career really took off.

 

God IS omnipresent, marriage was created not soon after the first man, only man, and the first woman, only woman was created.

What? Where does it say that Adam and Eve were married? If they were the only ones on Earth, and that story isn't a metaphor, who performed the marriage ceremony? Wouldn't their kids be incestous heathen? Please Moose, you can't expect to have anyone react to the idea that an entire population of 6 billion people came from two people in Iraq somewhere a few thousand years ago.

 

The following are facts, a timeline of marriage:

 

1. Human hunter-gatherers had no need for marriage (< 6000 BC)

2. Marriage came from the Neolithic Revolution (6000 BC)

3. The Creation Stories came from oral tradition of various nomads (1900-1500 BC)

4. The Book Of Genesis was gathered by an unknown author(s) and compiled of different stories from different tribes (1225-1000 BC)

 

How could marriage exsist before then?

It did. Marriage was an institution that evolved because of the division of labor, it was MUCH later that religious groups decide to sanctify this EXISTING rite. And that's my entire point.

 

You're confusing me......or maybe you're confused.....hmmmmmm

The window hasn't closed, I'm still taking bets as to which it is.

 

fact is, God hates divorce.....you think He likes to see husbands and wives try to kill each other and hit their kids? I wouldn't think so....just as much as He hates seeing this, He also hates divorce.

If husbands and wives are killing each other and hitting their kids, why wouldn't a merciful God WANT them to seperate?

 

Sorry, Moose, you're unqualified to tell people what "God hates". The God that I have experienced, and many others have as well, doesn't hate. To hate is inherently sinful, and sin is beyond the power of God.

 

Nonsense.

It's your fault if you neglect the context of Malachi, just don't expect people to take it seriously when you try to say that "God Hates Divorce", if you're citing a passage that is basically telling Jews to be careful about selling their daughters into marriage with non-Jews!

 

Of course the idea doesn't belong to the Biblical writers. It belongs to the Biblical Author....................... God.

Ergo, you have no idea whether God wants the idea extended to homosexuals at all.

 

Face it, most elements of Christianity are borrowed from other cultures that are older than the Bible. Marriage is no different.

 

Listen Dyer, you won't win me over to your side. Nothing that you say or use as fact or proof will convince me that you're even remotley close to what I feel is truth.

I've given up on you. Jesus himself could appear to you and tell you that he was sick and tired of your hatred, and you'd write him off as just another crazy longhaired liberal. Ha! Ever think of that? Jesus was a liberal jew!

 

I just hope no one reads your post and assumes you're correct, so I provide an alternative form of scholarship for the LS commmunity, and I'll trust them to make their own assessments.

[Moose]

Everyone has their right to opinions and their own individual beliefs Dyer. That's all I'm going to say. If you choose to babble on then go right ahead.......