|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Mon Jul 06, 2009 4:55 pm
promised_child Crimson Raccoon promised_child also, the idea of love being a requirement for marriage is new. only 500 years old. But what do you do with the command in the Bible, "Husbands, love your wives"? That's 2000 years old. =P I know what you're saying though. Again it's a question of whether we're talking about the secular view of marriage, or the Christian view. The Christian view has always been that a married couple should love each other. But you're right that in the secular view, love has never really been thought of as a necessary factor until relatively recently, maybe 500 years is right for that. you mean "Husband love your wives as Christ loved the church." it isn't talking about emotional love, which is what I was talking about. the love the Bible means transcends emotion, passed the soul and straight to the spirit. I didn't know you were talking about just one particular aspect of love. =P The Greek word for love in that passage of Ephesians is "agape," and the kind of love it refers to goes beyond emotion, yes, but that doesn't mean emotion is excluded from it. Christ was emotional for his church, wasn't he? Agape, the aspect of love which is self-sacrificing for the other person, is the highest and greatest form of love, but that doesn't mean the Bible tells us to shun the other forms. Song of Solomon is a book of the Bible dedicated to exemplifying what an ideal, Biblical relationship between a married couple should be, and it includes all aspects of love: agape, emotional, and even erotic. So I do agree with you wholeheartedly that love between a married couple needs to go beyond emotion; the misconception that emotional feeling is all there is to love is part of why divorces are so common today. And I agree with you that love has only been an expected part of marriage in recent centuries, as long as we limit that to the secular, non-Biblical view of marriage. But I do believe that God has always desired all aspects of love to be part of marriage: self-sacrificing, emotional, desirous love; and God expresses this in both the Old and New Testaments.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Jul 07, 2009 7:36 am
-xXLady RaiXx- It's something called cultural diffusion. Didn't you learn anything in history? neutral the above is a prime example of why you are amazing
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Jul 07, 2009 7:51 am
`apple dumpling My question to you all is what constitutes marriage in the eyes of God? Is the commitment from the two people enough, is it the act of sex which binds them, or is the marriage ceremony necessary?
Go. arrow to answer your question as I see it If you believe in the dogma then it is the marriage ceremony otherwise perhaps a combination of the first two I would think that the bond between two people is much stronger than a ceremony could ever be...but that is just my opinion Now As you can see from the other posts A more pressing question is what was marriage, what is marriage, and how did it evolve over time? It seems to me that as the concept has evolved it has created a legal problem where the religious entities hold a monopoly over the word and its meaning, however, the word is and everything attached is binding legally thus religion is governing something outside its strict domain this path is not all that fun and mostly overdone so perhaps it would be best to leave it alone as it is very off topic
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Jul 07, 2009 1:17 pm
lordstar -xXLady RaiXx- It's something called cultural diffusion. Didn't you learn anything in history? neutral the above is a prime example of why you are amazing I didn't think it too amazing; actually it's quite a rude comment. (Which is why I decided to end that debate there, since it was devolving into bashing.) It's also not accurate. Consult a reference; marriage predates recorded history by a long-shot, there's no question about it. Saying it spread through cultural diffusion is nothing more than a supposition, there's no evidence for it. It could just as well date back to the first humans and been passed down ever since. Neither view has more solid evidence than the other; though I do believe it's more likely to be the latter case since every culture in the world has a similar concept of marriage and cultural diffusion generally isn't so effective. The Bible says it goes back to the first humans, and that's just as reasonable an explanation as any, so there's no particular reason to doubt it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Jul 07, 2009 6:19 pm
Crimson Raccoon lordstar -xXLady RaiXx- It's something called cultural diffusion. Didn't you learn anything in history? neutral the above is a prime example of why you are amazing I didn't think it too amazing; actually it's quite a rude comment. (Which is why I decided to end that debate there, since it was devolving into bashing.) It's also not accurate. Consult a reference; marriage predates recorded history by a long-shot, there's no question about it. Saying it spread through cultural diffusion is nothing more than a supposition, there's no evidence for it. It could just as well date back to the first humans and been passed down ever since. Neither view has more solid evidence than the other; though I do believe it's more likely to be the latter case since every culture in the world has a similar concept of marriage and cultural diffusion generally isn't so effective. The Bible says it goes back to the first humans, and that's just as reasonable an explanation as any, so there's no particular reason to doubt it. oh but you forget my friend the bible is a lie...just like the cake...and your face also you fail thus "Which is why I decided to end that debate there, since it was devolving into bashing"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Jul 07, 2009 6:57 pm
lordstar Crimson Raccoon lordstar -xXLady RaiXx- It's something called cultural diffusion. Didn't you learn anything in history? neutral the above is a prime example of why you are amazing I didn't think it too amazing; actually it's quite a rude comment. (Which is why I decided to end that debate there, since it was devolving into bashing.) It's also not accurate. Consult a reference; marriage predates recorded history by a long-shot, there's no question about it. Saying it spread through cultural diffusion is nothing more than a supposition, there's no evidence for it. It could just as well date back to the first humans and been passed down ever since. Neither view has more solid evidence than the other; though I do believe it's more likely to be the latter case since every culture in the world has a similar concept of marriage and cultural diffusion generally isn't so effective. The Bible says it goes back to the first humans, and that's just as reasonable an explanation as any, so there's no particular reason to doubt it. oh but you forget my friend the bible is a lie...just like the cake...and your face also you fail thus "Which is why I decided to end that debate there, since it was devolving into bashing" Ok, don't respond to any points, just throw some insults... Maybe I had it coming. I do find it odd though, since you're the one who accuses me of not addressing your comments properly, in other threads of this guild. I do at least make an honest attempt at responding. But if it's just a matter of responding to insults, do you really think it's wrong of me not want to get involved in that? I just think it's the right thing to do. Oh well... =|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Jul 07, 2009 7:19 pm
Crimson Raccoon lordstar Crimson Raccoon lordstar -xXLady RaiXx- It's something called cultural diffusion. Didn't you learn anything in history? neutral the above is a prime example of why you are amazing I didn't think it too amazing; actually it's quite a rude comment. (Which is why I decided to end that debate there, since it was devolving into bashing.) It's also not accurate. Consult a reference; marriage predates recorded history by a long-shot, there's no question about it. Saying it spread through cultural diffusion is nothing more than a supposition, there's no evidence for it. It could just as well date back to the first humans and been passed down ever since. Neither view has more solid evidence than the other; though I do believe it's more likely to be the latter case since every culture in the world has a similar concept of marriage and cultural diffusion generally isn't so effective. The Bible says it goes back to the first humans, and that's just as reasonable an explanation as any, so there's no particular reason to doubt it. oh but you forget my friend the bible is a lie...just like the cake...and your face also you fail thus "Which is why I decided to end that debate there, since it was devolving into bashing" Ok, don't respond to any points, just throw some insults... Maybe I had it coming. I do find it odd though, since you're the one who accuses me of not addressing your comments properly, in other threads of this guild. I do at least make an honest attempt at responding. But if it's just a matter of responding to insults, do you really think it's wrong of me not want to get involved in that? I just think it's the right thing to do. Oh well... =| I only insulted you once and yes you had it coming and I did apologize for it...elsewhere and I didn't respond to the remainder of your post as the response you gave was out of context but seeing as you wanted me to comment I will I disagree with marriage pre-dating written history The idea maybe but not marriage as it is know and as it is defined It is the definition of what words and concepts mean that changes Think about what other people may think when they hear the word marriage. Maybe a white dress and a ceremony or love or whatever. Now think about what people would think when they herd the word marriage 2000 years ago. Not the same...perhaps the core idea is the same rather very similar but the thoughts that are inspired by the word is not the same. again my point although we call it marriage now and we called it just the same way back when...that does not mean it is the same...it has evolved
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
