Marriage Before The Bible

[clandestinidad]

Okay....so lemme get this straight. Whether or not i agree w/ him, he seems to be trying to say this:

 

God created Adam & Eve at the beginning of creation; the first 'marriage' in history, simply b/c they were the first people created

 

So...time goes on and people multiply.....at some point history starts being recorded, and we see evidence of 'marriages' in diff. times and cultures.

 

WHEN the New &/or Old Testiments were actually written and compiled into what we know today as the Bible, is irrelevant in this matter.

 

So, yes marriage existed before the Bible was written....b/c it existed at the beginning of time. And all of the 'marriages' we see recorded stemmed from the original Adam & Eve marriage

 

I think thats what he was trying to say

[lilian]

I also believe that we come from God. He created us and the concept of marriage. It's celebrated when two people get married in a catholic church. What god brings together manking cannot divide.

 

Without being sarcastic: Who did Kain sleep with to continue population. We know that he killed his brother Abel. And it's not noted that he slept with his mother Eve..

 

Any ideas.

 

And Pocky: stop boring us with the fact that you're about to "graduate" in religious studies. Because unless you're studying proper theology with up to seven years of Greek, Aramaic and Hebrew it doesn't mean much.

[clandestinidad]

Who did Kain sleep with to continue population. We know that he killed his brother Abel. And it's not noted that he slept with his mother Eve..

 

Any ideas.

 

 

According to Christianity, Adam & Eve had many children other than Cain and Abel....so there must have been incest going on.

 

side note: The same thing happened w/ the flood (which is also written about in other cultures/religions). Noah's family (kids and son/daughters in law) were the only people to survive (b/c they were the only people on the ship)....so that means that in order to re-populate the world, there was incest. just an interpretation i guess

[Moose]

I'm sure you all have heard of a, "virgin", birth. I really don't know the correct answer to this query, I do believe that with God, all things are possible.

[BlockHead]

lilian

And Pocky: stop boring us with the fact that you're about to "graduate" in religious studies.

It is just the usual grandstanding.

Maybe when she is done teaching Christians about marriage, she can teach them about dinosaurs like the Brontosaurus.

I would like to learn more about the infallability of archaeologists, anthropologists, and scientists in general.

 

Too bad she wouldn't refute some of my easily refutable arguments so that I can use her refutations for future reference. <- Try saying that 3x fast.

I am on the Bush-Chenney payroll and I'm plotting against Pocky. Bwahhhahaha!!!

Horse

Faith, to a certain degree, is based on the absence of reasonable thought because if there was a reasonable explanation based on facts, it wouldn't be called faith. It would simply be the truth.

Go play with your brontosaurus.

Horse

Back then, people chose to disregard or subvert galileo's evidence that the earth revolved around the sun, because it contradicted the teachings of their faith.

The error using circular orbits around the sun is worse than using circular orbits around Earth.

He also openly challenged the Church during the Protestant Reformation. You can try to take the bull by the horns, but don't be surprised if you get gored.

Kepler's elliptical orbits were much better.

Horse

Today if you seriously argued that the earth is the center of the universe and that sun and everything else revolved around it, most people would think that you are crazy.

Wouldn't the center of mass of the celestial bodies be a more interesting reference point? It would probably be somewhere in space.

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.

You don't seem very tolerant of the Sun orbit Earth crowd.

It is promiscuity and not homosexuality.

[d'Arthez]

Originally posted by BlockHead

 

Wouldn't the center of mass of the celestial bodies be a more interesting reference point? It would probably be somewhere in space.

 

No kidding! A point in space, is actually a point in space! Wow! I never could have imagined that, Blockhead.

[BlockHead]

d'Arthez

No kidding! A point in space, is actually a point in space! Wow! I never could have imagined that, Blockhead.

A point in the vacuum of space instead of celestial body. Is that clear enough for you.

[d'Arthez]

Originally posted by BlockHead

A point in the vacuum of space instead of celestial body. Is that clear enough for you.

 

That is as meaningful as trying to find the center of all of earth's landmass. The point does exist, but it does not have any meaning.

[BlockHead]

d'Arthez

The point has meaning, and you are making excuses.

[alphamale]

Originally posted by BlockHead

d'Arthez

The point has meaning,

for what?

[d'Arthez]

The point has meaning. But more because you believe it has meaning, than that the point, by virtue of existing has meaning. The point is probably not even constant, as the Universe is still expanding, and chances are high that it is not expanding as quickly in all directions.

 

A supposed belief that the Sun revolves around the Earth has meaning. Not by virtue of its correctness. But by virtue of the fact that a person beliefs that the belief is meaningful. That of course, is no sound basis for science. We attribute meaning to a thing, but that does not mean that meaning is an inherent quality of said thing.

[BlockHead]

d'Arthez

The point has meaning. But more because you believe it has meaning, than that the point, by virtue of existing has meaning. The point is probably not even constant, as the Universe is still expanding, and chances are high that it is not expanding as quickly in all directions.

You are not a physics major.

On the condition that there is no outside force acting on the universe and mass is conserved, there would be a unique center of mass for the universe with respect to all of the planets, stars, etc. It would not change with respect to the planets, stars, etc.

You and all of the sun=center of our solar system crowd are on shaky ground.

d'Arthez

A supposed belief that the Sun revolves around the Earth has meaning. Not by virtue of its correctness. But by virtue of the fact that a person beliefs that the belief is meaningful. That of course, is no sound basis for science. We attribute meaning to a thing, but that does not mean that meaning is an inherent quality of said thing.

It is a reference point and that has nothing to do with correctness. There is no center of the universe, but there is a center of mass.

Arguing the sun is at the center of the solar system is as prejudicial as arguing the Earth is the center of the solar system. The planets and sun orbit each other. Because the sun has such a large mass, the solar system can be modeled as orbiting the sun even though that isn't the case. The Earth doesn't have an elliptical orbit even though it can be modeled as one.

[d'Arthez]

Originally posted by BlockHead

You are not a physics major.

On the condition that there is no outside force acting on the universe and mass is conserved, there would be a unique center of mass for the universe with respect to all of the planets, stars, etc. It would not change with respect to the planets, stars, etc.

 

The assumption that mass is conserved is of course open for debate. Is mass actually conserved as mass, when a star goes supernova? With the same relative distribution of mass concerning the center of mass in the universe? I doubt that.

[clandestinidad]

WTF are yall talking about!? Why dont you start a diff. thread to discuss this completely 'original topic-unrelated' c0ck contest

[alphamale]

Originally posted by BlockHead

Because the sun has such a large mass, the solar system can be modeled as orbiting the sun even though that isn't the case.

So then BLOCKHEAD....if the sun ceased to exist tomorrow would the planets stay in their current trajectories??? I highly doubt it.

[whichwayisup]

Originally posted by kat23

WTF are yall talking about!? Why dont you start a diff. thread to discuss this completely 'original topic-unrelated' c0ck contest

 

 

You guys are stealing the thread and totally off topic ...Pocky's gonna get at ya'll...

[amerikajin]

WTF are yall talking about!?

 

My sentiments exactly.

 

Come on, guys, s*** or get off the pot. What's the point of all this nonsense?

 

I think Blockhead did this on purpose to obfuscate and draw attention away from the real issues here.

[d'Arthez]

Oh, but you could simply argue that the off-topic (mea culpa!) part of the thread, is a proof that a belief of something does not prove a thing.

 

You can believe that Adam and Eve were the first humans, it does not prove that they were the first humans.

You can believe that God created marriage, but it does not prove that it happened that way.

And you can come up with all kinds of reasons why such a belief makes sense, (and in fact on some levels they do,) but the sensibility of a belief is not a reasonable justification for belief in a particular practice, as being the (only) correct one. Which is perceived to be the right way, by those who believe in the practice, and those people only.

 

To record something concerning a marriage, you would need a scripture / way of writing (hieroglyphs, alphabet).

When this ingredient is present in a culture or civilization, you may expect mention or the absence of mention of something we call nowadays marriage.

If you have an ancient code of law, with a section on marriage, and you can ascertain that there was no Judeo-christian influence in that civilization, you have something which should be considered as evidence to prove that marriage existed before the Bible was written, independently from the Judeo-Christian influence.

 

You may dismiss the evidence on various grounds, but if you can't reject it on scientific grounds, the only option to reject the evidence is by "virtue" of faith. But faith in itself does not prove a thing.

 

Would Christians not mind being called the inventors on slavery on the same grounds? I doubt that.

[BlockHead]

amerikajin

Have you figured it out yet? These debates are about ego as much as the truth, or the various perceptions of it.

Believing the sun is the center of our solar system is as much a leap of faith as a believing the Earth is the center of our solar system.

Arguing that marriage before the Bible is more relevant than the Biblical version of marriage is another leap of faith. You can look at it from a pragmatic point of view.

 

How much does ego and faith factor into it? I made some compelling arguments and d'Arthez went on the defensive. Why should anybody be surprised if the Church does the same? Why should anybody be surprised if the critics do the same?

I think this thread serves two purposes.

1. Stick it to Christians.

2. Validate one's own beliefs.

[Horse]

Originally posted by BlockHead

Go play with your brontosaurus.

 

I don't get the whole brontosaurus thing. Is it because the bible doesn't really allow for the existence of dinosaurs, so they could not have existed?

 

I would rather have a triceratops anyway.

 

Originally posted by BlockHead

The error using circular orbits around the sun is worse than using circular orbits around Earth.

He also openly challenged the Church during the Protestant Reformation. You can try to take the bull by the horns, but don't be surprised if you get gored.

 

I don't think he was imprisoned for using circular rather than eliptical orbits.

 

 

Originally posted by BlockHead

You don't seem very tolerant of the Sun orbit Earth crowd.

 

I don't know about that. I never even said I disagree. I just said that most people would think that they are insane.

 

The whole point of my original post was that you can't argue faith with reason, so I'm not gonna try.

 

I have faith that you are a blockHead. If you disagree, there is nothing you can say that will change my mind because I will disregard anything that contradicts my faith. you could send me a picture of your perfectly round head and I still would believe you are a blockHead.

[ReluctantRomeo]

Originally posted by d'Arthez

Would Christians not mind being called the inventors on slavery on the same grounds? I doubt that.

 

I understand the philosophical point, d'A, but the bible actively promotes marriage, while the new testament is quite dubious about slavery. Check out the letter to Philemon, for example.

[ReluctantRomeo]

On Pocky's original point, surely the fact that marriage is such a universal and predates scripture should be welcomed by christians? This demonstrates that scripture describes real phenomena, and isn't something artificial which people followed just because it seemed a good idea when they saw it on paper.

 

The letter to the Romans (see, I can do this too, Pocky ) starts with the whole thing about natural law - that God writes his laws on people's hearts. Marriage would be a great example of this.

[Horse]

Originally posted by loony

 

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? ).

 

 

But marriage based on romanic love wasn't comon until the industrial revolution. Previously most marriages were based on consolidating wealth and power, or a persons ability to work a farm or bear children who can work a farm.

[BlockHead]

Horse

Previously most marriages were based on consolidating wealth and power, or a persons ability to work a farm or bear children who can work a farm.

Here is a potential answer to a question Pocky wouldn't answer, and it is basically from the horse's mouth. Maybe a horse and donkey crossbreed.

[d'Arthez]

Originally posted by ReluctantRomeo

I understand the philosophical point, d'A, but the bible actively promotes marriage, while the new testament is quite dubious about slavery.

 

That is irrelevant RR. After all, in the Old Testament there is mention of slavery. You can attach less importance to the remarks in there, but you cannot conveniently forget them. If I claimed that this particular group of people invented slavery, proof from the 17th Century won't do. From the first Century won't do. Only the proof that slavery was invented, will do.

Surely, you might attach less importance to the act in later times, but that does not annul the invention itself. If I can find the proof in the Old Testament, date them, and at the same time prove that the Egyptians, or this or that civilization did not have the practice of slavery, I have a compelling case.

 

Which nation invented bio-chemical weapons? Of course they are not prone to use them, but you can't say now for instance: "Iraq. They used them in recent history. We haven't in 60 years. Therefore Iraq must have invented them."

The same is true of slavery. And the same is true of marriage.