Marriage Before The Bible

[Pocky]

Originally posted by Moose

Explain my double standard.....please......

 

I already did.

[Horse]

Responding to mooses original point. Religion has existed in one form or another almost as long as makind, and most likely longer than the institution of marriage. Some of the earliest sculture, from before civilization, is of a fertility goddess. Most prehistoric sculpture is of one god or another.

 

So I guess you both could be correct.

 

Marriage predates mankinds conception/discovery of Christianity and the christian god, but it most likely does not predate mankinds conception/discovery of any god or goddess.

[Pocky]

Originally posted by Horse

So I guess you both could be correct.

 

 

In all honesty, I'm not really concerned with being correct. This post wasn't made in attempt to prove anyone wrong or convince anyone that my opinion is fact. My post was to demonstrate that while many people refer to the Bible as an acceptable source for their beliefs, there are other sources available that many people feel are just as acceptable for supporting opposing beliefs.

 

And to point out the blatant double standards when posting these opinions.

[Horse]

Originally posted by Pocky

In all honesty, I'm not really concerned with being correct.

 

 

That's cool.

 

I sort of side-tracked mooses original post. I was just trying to help get it back on the original topic.

[Moose]

I still don't understand where the, "double standard", is coming from.....

[alphamale]

Originally posted by Pocky

My post was to demonstrate that while many people refer to the Bible as an acceptable source for their beliefs,

yes POCKY.... and the so-called "source" has been re-written, revised, changed and modified a thousand times over past 2,000 yrs. Not to mention it exists today in probably 127 different versions....

[Horse]

Originally posted by Moose

I still don't understand where the, "double standard", is coming from.....

 

I think it's because you expect people to be tolerant of your beliefs, but you don't appear to be tolerant of other peoples beliefs, e.g. the belief that homosexuality is OK.

[Moose]

I think it's because you expect people to be tolerant of your beliefs,

Why should you and others be able to present statements as fact, and have tolerance?

but you don't appear to be tolerant of other peoples beliefs, e.g. the belief that homosexuality is OK.

You can believe what you want, just don't expect me or others to accept it as fact.

 

Pokey is right only because of the way she presented this. Marriage did in fact exist before the Bible was written.

 

This doesn't mean that it was created by man though......

[d'Arthez]

Originally posted by Moose

This doesn't mean that it was created by man though......

 

If it was created by God, how could a non-believer in that God have the idea first? That does not make sense. He must have believed in God, but he could not have been a Christian. So you would have a huge gaping logical contradiction that can't be solved.

[Moose]

If it was created by God, how could a non-believer in that God have the idea first? That does not make sense.

My perspective: Of course it wouldn't. Because man didn't have the idea first. God came before all things. It was God's intentions for man and woman to be joined in holy matromony, even before man was created.

[alphamale]

Originally posted by Moose

It was God's intentions for man and woman to be joined in holy matromony, even before man was created.

dude...you have no idea what God's intentions were or were not...

[Moose]

Originally posted by alphamale

dude...you have no idea what God's intentions were or were not...

First off, I made it very clear that it's my perspective.....second, it says so in the Bible, lastly, you can even trace this back to the ORIGINAL Scripts.......

[BlockHead]

d'Arthez

if I believed that the sun revolved around the world

That is relative.

[Outcast]

to the ORIGINAL Scripts

 

Written a few thousand years ago and long after civilization began.

[whichwayisup]

Originally posted by Horse

 

 

I think it's because you expect people to be tolerant of your beliefs, but you don't appear to be tolerant of other peoples beliefs, e.g. the belief that homosexuality is OK.

 

Exactly! Tolerance is one thing, but so is respecting other people's thoughts and beliefs too. And I DO believe that gays and lesbians should be able to marry. They are people too. Love is love...Politics and Religion should not come first before love. Just my thoughts...

 

I will kiss your ass if I'm wrong.......how's that?

 

Can I watch? Poporn or Candy??

[Moose]

Originally posted by Outcast

Written a few thousand years ago and long after civilization began.

True......question though, where do you think civilization(s) came from?

[BlockHead]

Pocky

Why don't you give us some example of marriage for love before the Bible?

[amerikajin]

Faith is great, but how far do you want to take it? Why stop at just ignoring what all of the available evidence tells us about history? Got faith? Jump off the Brooklyn Bridge and have faith in the fact that God will save you, I say.

 

"Faith" is good on a personal level, within certain limits; but it is so easily corrupted and taken to an extreme. When you shut out the world of the here and now you end up living in a world where the fact turns into fiction, and fiction to fact. The line gets blurred.

 

Take the evolution and creationism debate. I would never ask someone to accept that evolution proves beyond the shadow of a doubt that creationism didn't, in fact, happen; it certainly could have. I think you can leave the door open to that idea while simultaneously holding that modern science as we humans have developed it leads us to conclude that there is a process of natural history that differs from the specific accounts mentione in the Old Testament. I neither believe that evolution discounts entirely creationism, nor does it discount the existence of God; it merely offers a more factually descriptive explanation of how we came from our point of origin to where we are today.

 

But to utterly shun what we have taken time to investigate and research with our own God-given endowment of intellect and curiosity is, in my view, irresponsible - and foolish. I can deny anything based on the premise of faith; I can promote any idea based on faith. Nevermind the fact that had humanity relied on faith alone, we would never have developed cures for modern disease; we would never have built skyscrapers or airplanes or suspension bridges; we would never have allowed for progress of the human mind.

[amerikajin]

As for the point itself....

 

...marriage certainly did exist before the Bible.

 

If you want to entertain the idea that God created humankind I'll go along with that.

 

If you want to suggest that God expected man and woman to marry, I'll go along with that.

 

If you want to suggest as well that the Bible is the first document to reveal God's intentions, I'll even leave room for that argument.

 

However, all of the available evidence tells us that marriage did indeed exist before God's book was written for humankind. If you want to shake the foundation of history, keep in mind that you're also shaking the foundation of the very history that introduced the Old Testament and New Testament as well. You can't have it both ways. You can't say that one history isn't valid while the other is, just because you think so.

[BlockHead]

amerikajin

Nevermind the fact that had humanity relied on faith alone, we would never have developed cures for modern disease; we would never have built skyscrapers or airplanes or suspension bridges; we would never have allowed for progress of the human mind.

You don't seem to understand that it always boils down to faith.

[amerikajin]

You don't seem to understand that it always boils down to faith.

 

That's because it doesn't always boil down to faith.

 

It boils down to external stimuli, an awareness of what's going on around you, and a desire to adapt to suit your needs as you perceive them. It has nothing to do with "faith", which is highly abstract concept.

 

Assuming you are referring to faith in the post-mortem spirituality sense, faith gives us something to look forward to once we've expired. But in the meantime, we're living in the here and now to ensure the existence of our species.

[Chris777]

In reguards to the original post.

 

Moses is not said to have been a witness to the events that occured during Genesis , in the Bible.

Yet he was chosen by God to give the true record of those events.

 

So stating all the extant versians of historical unions/marrages, while being intriguing, and "FYI" type knowledge, it doesn't really set out an arguement, that they certainly came first, particularly, with the union of adam and eve mentioned so very early in the bible.

[BlockHead]

amerikajin

That's because it doesn't always boil down to faith.

Let's try this.

Me Do you believe in the conservation of energy? Why?

Mr follower I believe because it has been scientifically proven, and there is data to support it.

Me Okay. The evidence is flawed and therefore the concept of conservation of energy is false.

Mr follower But there is scientific evidence.

Me Do you believe the evidence is accurate?

 

The synonym of faith is belief.

[amerikajin]

Relax, Blockhead. You make it seem like I'm out to attack faith - I'm not. I'm just saying that I don't think we should govern a society based on things that are quite clearly part of the spiritual world, an area in which any two people can reasonably disagree and where it is impossible to prove the superiority of one faith over another.

 

I can't prove the theory of evolution is absolutely correct. If you want my honest opinion, I think it's the best theory that's been developed so far, but there's always the possibility a better one could come along. But frankly, if given a choice, I'm going to take credible science that passes the scrutiny of highly learned men and women as opposed to scriptures promoting Gods that cannot in any way be studied. I just find it interesting that people who live today surrounded by the many conveniences that are the product of scientific discovery would then turn around and ignore completely the same science that could possibly explain our very existence.

 

I don't believe that evolution necessarily precludes the idea of a Creator at all; in fact, I happen to think that it only leads us closer to discovering that mysterious phenomenon that has inspired awe since the dawn of humanity. However, I do believe that some scientific theory may very well refute specific theories, particularly ones that are taken literally from texts that were developed hundreds or even thousands of years ago. And considering the fact that scripture is a wellspring of power for some who occupy positions in various parishes and congregations throughout the world, I think some people feel threatened by the advancement of scientific discover - as well they should. After all, knowledge is power.

[loony]

Originally posted by BlockHead

Pocky

Why don't you give us some example of marriage for love before the Bible?

The romantic concept of marrying for love can be traced back to the troubadours who spent considerable time singing and vowing eternal love to some married woman (who of course would never be available for them -- what does this remind me off? ).