Where did this "biblical definition of marriage" crap come from?

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 29, 2012 12:40 PM GMT
    Can anyone show me where the Bible says a marriage is between one man and one woman?

    I am only familiar with Betty Bower's examples of biblical marriages. And they aint between one man and one woman....by any stretch of the imagination.


  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 29, 2012 1:17 PM GMT
    Can't..it doesn't say it..!
    There are no instances where a man ever tried to marry another man in biblical times...so......
    You know !!..
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 29, 2012 2:41 PM GMT
    JackBlair69 saidIt's rather self-evident. Marriage has always been viewed as between a man and a woman, and that predates the Bible.

    I don't think the Bible explicitly mentions it because it probably didn't cross anyone's mind that a man would want to marry a man.

    It's like saying the Bible doesn't prohibit taking LSD.


    Please read:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_same-sex_unions
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 29, 2012 2:42 PM GMT
    How many ppl have gotten divorced bc of this definition of marriage? How many ppl get bored while living this definition of marriage for decades? smh
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 29, 2012 2:48 PM GMT
    Straight out of the Christian Taliban Tea Bagger Right-nut Book of 'Facts'.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 29, 2012 2:59 PM GMT
    It doesn't say it in exactly those words. What it does say is that a man will leave his father and mother to live with his wife. There's the 'one man, one woman' thing.

    But who cares what the bible says? It was written by men. Men who really knew very little about the world outside of their own existence. That becomes abundantly clear to anyone who has studied it, as I have.
  • HottJoe

    Posts: 21366

    Jul 29, 2012 3:00 PM GMT
    The
    JackBlair69 said
    meninlove said
    JackBlair69 saidIt's rather self-evident. Marriage has always been viewed as between a man and a woman, and that predates the Bible.

    I don't think the Bible explicitly mentions it because it probably didn't cross anyone's mind that a man would want to marry a man.

    It's like saying the Bible doesn't prohibit taking LSD.


    Please read:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_same-sex_unions


    Oh, please. Of course there would be "instances" of same-sex unions. They are the exceptions that rather prove the rule.

    You cannot argue that same-sex marriage has been accepted as par with hetero marriage throughout human history.



    We were the exception then and we're the exception now. The Bible is holding you back in time, while people who are more rational are trying to change the world.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 29, 2012 3:15 PM GMT
    JackBlair69 said
    meninlove said
    JackBlair69 saidIt's rather self-evident. Marriage has always been viewed as between a man and a woman, and that predates the Bible.

    I don't think the Bible explicitly mentions it because it probably didn't cross anyone's mind that a man would want to marry a man.

    It's like saying the Bible doesn't prohibit taking LSD.


    Please read:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_same-sex_unions


    Oh, please. Of course there would be "instances" of same-sex unions. They are the exceptions that rather prove the rule.

    You cannot argue that same-sex marriage has been accepted as par with hetero marriage throughout human history.



    Did I say that? Nope. However you said it didn't cross anyone's mind that a man would want to marry a man. See your own post.

    btw, of course it's an exception, as gay people make up a small percentage of the population.



  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 29, 2012 3:23 PM GMT
    Regarding the Bible:

    the Bible was written somewhere around 3000 years ago or even earlier.

    It was composed mostly by men ( not women ) as a guide for how people should live their lives - a good thing.

    But the Bible, being written mostly by men ... is interpreted mostly by men .... and favors men... straight men.

    So, in my opinion, although the Bible is a good guide for living a Christian
    life you just can't believe everything that was written centuries ago
    and a lot of the teaching may have been relevant to life 3000 years ago
    but they just aren't relevant to life in the 21st century.

    One example is the Bible encourages society to stone women to death
    if they are not virgins when they marry - may have worked back then - not
    quite appropriate today.

    Regarding issues of homosexuality any anti-gay group today will use
    any passages from the Bible that they can find to support their anti-gay stance.

    Yes the Bible can be a great teaching tool and a great guide for living
    but seriously people you just can't buy everything it tells you.

    Just one man's opinion.
  • Timbales

    Posts: 13993

    Jul 29, 2012 3:36 PM GMT
    I call them ala carte Christians - they believe the parts that are useful to them.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 29, 2012 3:40 PM GMT
    Timbales saidI call them ala carte Christians - they believe the parts that are useful to them.


    Yet I think that's the whole point, and something I think all Christians should do. You can tell what kind of a person a Christian is by what they take from the book and apply. icon_wink.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 29, 2012 3:45 PM GMT
    Are you really asking that question lol
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 29, 2012 3:48 PM GMT
    The real question is that why people who dont believe the Holy Spirit inspired the Bible insist on calling themselves Christian.It is some sort of weird exception.Just like why Nuns who support abortion,birth control and the like want to stay in the Catholic Church?I mean hello.I may be gay but I deal with my sexuality within the confines of my conscience.If you dont believe in the bible then fine.Ryan
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 29, 2012 4:36 PM GMT
    Steve24 saidRegarding the Bible:
    So, in my opinion, although the Bible is a good guide for living a Christian
    life you just can't believe everything that was written centuries ago
    and a lot of the teaching may have been relevant to life 3000 years ago
    but they just aren't relevant to life in the 21st century.

    Yes the Bible can be a great teaching tool and a great guide for living
    but seriously people you just can't buy everything it tells you.

    Just one man's opinion.

    And a good opinion it is. Unfortunately not enough people actually understand this, and rather than think for themselves, they just agree with whatever the guy in the pulpit tells them
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 29, 2012 4:42 PM GMT
    eb925guy said
    Steve24 saidRegarding the Bible:
    So, in my opinion, although the Bible is a good guide for living a Christian
    life you just can't believe everything that was written centuries ago
    and a lot of the teaching may have been relevant to life 3000 years ago
    but they just aren't relevant to life in the 21st century.

    Yes the Bible can be a great teaching tool and a great guide for living
    but seriously people you just can't buy everything it tells you.

    Just one man's opinion.

    And a good opinion it is. Unfortunately not enough people actually understand this, and rather than think for themselves, they just agree with whatever the guy in the pulpit tells them

    Sure beats thinking, and studying, and holding the uncertain theories of science.

    And then to floor ya, these Christians havent even read the damn Bible. Ask them. Have you even read Leviticus?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 29, 2012 7:04 PM GMT
    JackBlair69 said
    HottJoe said The
    JackBlair69 said
    meninlove said
    JackBlair69 saidIt's rather self-evident. Marriage has always been viewed as between a man and a woman, and that predates the Bible.

    I don't think the Bible explicitly mentions it because it probably didn't cross anyone's mind that a man would want to marry a man.

    It's like saying the Bible doesn't prohibit taking LSD.


    Please read:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_same-sex_unions


    Oh, please. Of course there would be "instances" of same-sex unions. They are the exceptions that rather prove the rule.

    You cannot argue that same-sex marriage has been accepted as par with hetero marriage throughout human history.



    We were the exception then and we're the exception now. The Bible is holding you back in time, while people who are more rational are trying to change the world.


    That's crap. Take a look at the 20th century and it's "rationality": Germany, USSR, China - All took a "rational" approach" and sought to "change the world," by rejecting Christian humanism, and look at what happened. About 100 million people exterminated, and billions forced into a life of misery and horror.





  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 29, 2012 7:06 PM GMT
    Mrs Betty Bowers is the best Christian ever.
    "Biblical marriage" exists somewhere in Sarah Palin's imagination, between the "right" to own firearms and American exceptionalism.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 29, 2012 7:13 PM GMT
    JackBlair69 said
    HottJoe said The
    JackBlair69 said
    meninlove said
    JackBlair69 saidIt's rather self-evident. Marriage has always been viewed as between a man and a woman, and that predates the Bible.

    I don't think the Bible explicitly mentions it because it probably didn't cross anyone's mind that a man would want to marry a man.

    It's like saying the Bible doesn't prohibit taking LSD.


    Please read:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_same-sex_unions


    Oh, please. Of course there would be "instances" of same-sex unions. They are the exceptions that rather prove the rule.

    You cannot argue that same-sex marriage has been accepted as par with hetero marriage throughout human history.



    We were the exception then and we're the exception now. The Bible is holding you back in time, while people who are more rational are trying to change the world.


    That's crap. Take a look at the 20th century and it's "rationality": Germany, USSR, China - All took a "rational" approach" and sought to "change the world," by rejecting Christian humanism, and look at what happened. About 100 million people exterminated, and billions forced into a life of misery and horror.


    You and your ilk really do like to rewrite history, don't you?

    Of all religions, I'd argue that Christianity is one of the most dangerous.

    Let's just look at one slice of your faith's rich history: the Crusades. I have many, many others in case you're interested. Note that all figures are according to contemporary Christian chroniclers.

    Crusades (1095-1291)
    * Semlin/Hungary 6/24/96 thousands slain. Wieselburg/Hungary 6/12/96 thousands.
    * 9/9/96-9/26/96 Nikaia, Xerigordon (then Turkish), thousands respectively.
    * Until January 1098 a total of 40 capital cities and 200 castles conquered (number of slain unknown)
    * After 6/3/98 Antioch (then Turkish) conquered, between 10,000 and 60,000 slain. 6/28/98 100,000 Turks (incl. women and children) killed. Here the Christians "did no other harm to the women found in [the enemy's] tents - save that they ran their lances through their bellies," according to Christian chronicler Fulcher of Chartres.
    * Marra (Maraat an-numan) 12/11/98 thousands killed. Because of the subsequent famine "the already stinking corpses of the enemies were eaten by the Christians" said chronicler Albert Aquensis.
    * Jerusalem conquered 7/15/1099 more than 60,000 victims (Jewish, Muslim, men, women, and children). In the words of one witness: "there [in front of Solomon's temple] was such a carnage that our people were wading ankle-deep in the blood of our foes", and after that "happily and crying for joy our people marched to our Savior’s tomb, to honor it and to pay off our debt of gratitude."
    * Christian chronicler Eckehard of Aura noted that "even the following summer in all of Palestine the air was polluted by the stench of decomposition". One million victims of the first crusade alone.
    * Battle of Askalon, 8/12/1099. 200,000 heathens slaughtered "in the name of Our Lord Jesus Christ".
    * Fourth crusade: 4/12/1204 Constantinople sacked, number of victims unknown, numerous thousands, many of them Christian.
    * Rest of Crusades in less detail: until the fall of Akron 1291 probably 20 million victims (in the Holy land and Arab/Turkish areas alone).

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 29, 2012 9:18 PM GMT
    Besides, whatever a religious book defines as marriage, is a RELIGIOUS affair, NOT a legal/secular one! So, let's say a religious definition of marriage is man/woman only. That's cool...but that's for the place of worship ONLY!

    Government shouldn't be defining what marriage is and who gets to marry whom.
  • HottJoe

    Posts: 21366

    Jul 29, 2012 11:55 PM GMT
    JackBlair69 said
    credo said
    JackBlair69 said
    HottJoe said The
    JackBlair69 said
    meninlove said
    JackBlair69 saidIt's rather self-evident. Marriage has always been viewed as between a man and a woman, and that predates the Bible.

    I don't think the Bible explicitly mentions it because it probably didn't cross anyone's mind that a man would want to marry a man.

    It's like saying the Bible doesn't prohibit taking LSD.


    Please read:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_same-sex_unions


    Oh, please. Of course there would be "instances" of same-sex unions. They are the exceptions that rather prove the rule.

    You cannot argue that same-sex marriage has been accepted as par with hetero marriage throughout human history.



    We were the exception then and we're the exception now. The Bible is holding you back in time, while people who are more rational are trying to change the world.


    That's crap. Take a look at the 20th century and it's "rationality": Germany, USSR, China - All took a "rational" approach" and sought to "change the world," by rejecting Christian humanism, and look at what happened. About 100 million people exterminated, and billions forced into a life of misery and horror.


    You and your ilk really do like to rewrite history, don't you?

    Of all religions, I'd argue that Christianity is one of the most dangerous.

    Let's just look at one slice of your faith's rich history: the Crusades. I have many, many others in case you're interested. Note that all figures are according to contemporary Christian chroniclers.

    Crusades (1095-1291)
    * Semlin/Hungary 6/24/96 thousands slain. Wieselburg/Hungary 6/12/96 thousands.
    * 9/9/96-9/26/96 Nikaia, Xerigordon (then Turkish), thousands respectively.
    * Until January 1098 a total of 40 capital cities and 200 castles conquered (number of slain unknown)
    * After 6/3/98 Antioch (then Turkish) conquered, between 10,000 and 60,000 slain. 6/28/98 100,000 Turks (incl. women and children) killed. Here the Christians "did no other harm to the women found in [the enemy's] tents - save that they ran their lances through their bellies," according to Christian chronicler Fulcher of Chartres.
    * Marra (Maraat an-numan) 12/11/98 thousands killed. Because of the subsequent famine "the already stinking corpses of the enemies were eaten by the Christians" said chronicler Albert Aquensis.
    * Jerusalem conquered 7/15/1099 more than 60,000 victims (Jewish, Muslim, men, women, and children). In the words of one witness: "there [in front of Solomon's temple] was such a carnage that our people were wading ankle-deep in the blood of our foes", and after that "happily and crying for joy our people marched to our Savior’s tomb, to honor it and to pay off our debt of gratitude."
    * Christian chronicler Eckehard of Aura noted that "even the following summer in all of Palestine the air was polluted by the stench of decomposition". One million victims of the first crusade alone.
    * Battle of Askalon, 8/12/1099. 200,000 heathens slaughtered "in the name of Our Lord Jesus Christ".
    * Fourth crusade: 4/12/1204 Constantinople sacked, number of victims unknown, numerous thousands, many of them Christian.
    * Rest of Crusades in less detail: until the fall of Akron 1291 probably 20 million victims (in the Holy land and Arab/Turkish areas alone).



    Note that you had to go back 1000 years to get your stats. All Christian bashers invoke the Crusades, even though they know little about what they were or why they happened.



    Jack, I quoted you on another thread where you proudly bashed Muslims. Sounds like Crusades are still going on to me.icon_rolleyes.gif
  • waccamatt

    Posts: 1918

    Jul 29, 2012 11:57 PM GMT
    JackBlair69 said
    meninlove said
    JackBlair69 saidIt's rather self-evident. Marriage has always been viewed as between a man and a woman, and that predates the Bible.

    I don't think the Bible explicitly mentions it because it probably didn't cross anyone's mind that a man would want to marry a man.

    It's like saying the Bible doesn't prohibit taking LSD.


    Please read:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_same-sex_unions


    Oh, please. Of course there would be "instances" of same-sex unions. They are the exceptions that rather prove the rule.

    You cannot argue that same-sex marriage has been accepted as par with hetero marriage throughout human history.



    Why does it even matter what is stated in a book that some guys wrote thousands of years ago? It doesn't. I'd rather guide my life through reason and logic.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 30, 2012 12:12 AM GMT
    JackBlair69 said
    Obscure saidJesus said it, you back sliding sinner.
    Its funny how they defend marriage as one man one woman when many biblical marriages had polygamy.


    Polygamy was not condoned, as you will see upon a close look at the texts.

    According to the Bible, Solomon had 700 wives and 300 concubines.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 30, 2012 12:13 AM GMT
    Traditionally,marriage was a contract between two families.

    The tradition of the man asking for the father's blessing comes from a time when fathers decided who his daughter would marry.

    In some cases, she may have not even know the man she was being married to. This wasn't just done in the elite classes.

    The concept of a father paying a dowry for a man to take the daughter.

    Marriage through history has been more about alliances between families for resources or wealth.

    The marriage ceremony where a father gives his daughter to her husband is also a hold over. This was basically a property transfer.

    Marriage for love is a modern idea.

    The bible is a wonderful text. I even believe it to be devine in inspiration; however, written from the point of view of the men who wrote the texts.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 30, 2012 12:16 AM GMT
    JackBlair69 said
    I will continue to proudly bash Islam, which is a retrograde and degenerative philosophy. It has no place in an enlightened world.

    But then neither does Christianity.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 30, 2012 12:18 AM GMT
    JackBlair69 said (See: the "Let him cast the first stone" episode.)

    That wasnt part of the originial gospels, but added hundreds of years later by some unknown scribe.