The "Genesis" of Marriage

[whag]

This does not translate that we should reject the moral and ethics of society, and openly accept promiscuous behavior as moral. What is 'natural' behavior is not necessarily moral behavior. It is apparent that even primitive Neolithic societies do have moral standards that limit this behavior. An anything goes morality can threaten the basic moral and ethical foundation of family in society.

The evidence remains that the basic social family unit for homo sapiens is a monogamous/polygamous relationship.

You're badly misinterpreting my OP. Nowhere did I say that. My point is that the genesis of marriage wasn't what Jesus said it was. It didn't start with an initial human couple but is more ambiguous than that.

Re: "messy," I meant in contrast to the tidy literal interpretation.

[shunyadragon]

Actually you did say that . . .

The origin of marriage isn't what Jesus says it was.

One of the justifications for traditional male/female marriage is Jesus' citing Adam and Eve as the first married couple. But there never was a first married couple. Humanity's origins are a bit more crude and certainly don't indicate such traditional one male/one female pairings that we're accustomed to today. The tradition of marriage is about 5000 years old. Going back further than that, it's generally agreed that families consisted of groups with many male leaders; multiple women with whom the men mated; and, of course, lots of children.

This where your description does not fit the evidence of what we know about the history of the family and human sexuality in history that I described.

People can make the case for traditional marriage, but citing Jesus' reference to a first married couple doesn't really help. Marriage isn't something that began happening when human beings came to be. That's myth. Rather, marriage was non-existent for a long time after we originated (no real shock that) and evolved in many different iterations over time for different reasons.

Yes, our behavior has evolve, but the time frame is much longer than you indicate above.

[whag]

Actually you did say that . . .

How does this:

But there never was a first married couple. Humanity's origins are a bit more crude and certainly don't indicate such traditional one male/one female pairings that we're accustomed to today. The tradition of marriage is about 5000 years old. Going back further than that, it's generally agreed that families consisted of groups with many male leaders; multiple women with whom the men mated; and, of course, lots of children.

Say this:

....we should reject the moral and ethics of society, and openly accept promiscuous behavior as moral.

^^^

How did you get that from my OP?

?

This where your description does not fit the evidence of what we know about the history of the family and human sexuality in history that I described.

There's good evidence early man distributed his sperm to multiple females rather than burdening one breeder. It's not "promiscuity" any more than chimps and howler monkeys are "promiscuous." That term is anachronistic in this context.

Yes, our behavior has evolve, but the time frame is much longer than you indicate above.

That's fair. My point doesn't rest on a rigid chronology but on the error of the claim that there was a first married couple. The evidence clearly indicates there wasn't.

[shunyadragon]

How does this:



Say this:



^^^

complete quote does not reflect your reference. Please do not edit my statements.

This does not translate that we should reject the moral and ethics of society, and openly accept promiscuous behavior as moral. What is 'natural' behavior is not necessarily moral behavior. It is apparent that even primitive Neolithic societies do have moral standards that limit this behavior. An anything goes morality can threaten the basic moral and ethical foundation of family in society.

How did you get that from my OP?

?

Your going to have to cite me completely and correctly before I can answer.

There's good evidence early man distributed his sperm to multiple females rather than burdening one breeder. It's not "promiscuity" any more than chimps and howler monkeys are "promiscuous." That term is anachronistic in this context.

There is evidence, yes in ALL species in different ways. Your conclusions do not necessarily follow the premise. Normal promiscuous behavior in a monogamous/polygamous society has no problems explaining this. Yes, promiscuity is normal to all known monogamous/polygamous societies in primates and other mammals.

Incomplete. I already explained that I am not using promiscuity in the traditional sense your misrepresenting my posts. Please cite me clearly and completely.

That's fair. My point doesn't rest on a rigid chronology but on the error of the claim that there was a first married couple. The evidence clearly indicates there wasn't.

True. I already rejected the rigid mythical chronology.

[whag]

complete quote does not reflect your reference. Please do not edit my statements.





Your going to have to cite me completely and correctly before I can answer.



There is evidence, yes in ALL species in different ways. Your conclusions do not necessarily follow the premise. Normal promiscuous behavior in a monogamous/polygamous society has no problems explaining this. Yes, promiscuity is normal to all known monogamous/polygamous societies in primates and other mammals.

Incomplete. I already explained that I am not using promiscuity in the traditional sense your misrepresenting my posts. Please cite me clearly and completely.





True. I already rejected the rigid mythical chronology.

You said "This does not translate that we should reject the moral and ethics of society, and openly accept promiscuous behavior as moral."

I never said that it translated to the rejection of morals in society, making your statement either a non-sequitur, strawman, or both.

[whag]

Kim Davis should refuse to validate marriage licenses for people wishing to get re-married. According to Jesus, those who remarry are commiting adultery.

[Adam]

Not quite there, Whag.
Yes, you do have your anti-Christ point here, as Jesus did speak directly against remarriage--though considering the society he lived in, a man who got dumped by his wife would be able to marry again, it would seem, as historically in the Hebrew nation a man could marry a second wife (or third, if one was a king, apparently: Abraham and Jacob and Joseph "only" had two official wives) whether or not he still had the first wife.

However, apart from the morals as taught by Jesus, we lack any specific Bible prohibition against divorce and remarriage. Yes, Paul was against it, but not against the concept apodictically, as he allowed for specific exceptions.

Similarly, apart from Christian principles, Moslems allow for second, third, and fourth marriages (for men), even were the first alive and not divorced.

So don't pick on Kim Davis. I'm so incensed against SCOTUS, the judiciary in general, the kept (Establishment) Press, and everyone who has persecuted Kim Davis that I have changed my political party (no longer Democrat, but certainly not Republican ever--I have not voted for a Republican for POTUS since 1964), my wife (just kidding, but we disagree about this), and my religion (no longer ELCA, now NALC, but still Lutheran).

[whag]

However, apart from the morals as taught by Jesus, we lack any specific Bible prohibition against divorce and remarriage. Yes, Paul was against it, but not against the concept apodictically, as he allowed for specific exceptions.

The exception is unfaithfulness or having been dumped.

That God had to relent to divorce at all is absurd. There's something bizarre about God allowing divorce at all and then Jesus having to explain God's reason by simply saying "because man's heart was hard." That literally explains nothing.

[tabibito]

He said that MOSES permitted divorce. The Old Covenant was a matter of negotiation, the New Covenant is offered on a take it or leave it basis - no dickering.

The point is underscored in the appointment of a king, ratified by God, but against God's express disapproval of the whole idea.

[whag]

He said that MOSES permitted divorce. The Old Covenant was a matter of negotiation, the New Covenant is offered on a take it or leave it basis - no dickering.

The point is underscored in the appointment of a king, ratified by God, but against God's express disapproval of the whole idea.

His underscoring point does nothing to make any more sense of it.

[Adam]

What the Hell are you guys talking about? I'm talking about Kim Davis being biblical or moral or not?

[whag]

What the Hell are you guys talking about? I'm talking about Kim Davis being biblical or moral or not?

It's all related. Davis' stance is based on bible. The bible says that those who remarry are adulterers except in the cases in which they're dumped or have been cheated on. Kim Davis undoubtedly has issued and will continue to issue marriage licenses to the former.

There are many justifiable reasons to divorce other than having been cheated on. If my wife beats or mentally abuses my kids, I have good reason to divorce her. To limit the marital escape clause to fornication is idiotic. Interestingly, Moses figured that out.

[Adam]

My point is that the divorce and remarriage issue is debatable within Christianity, Liberals and the rest of the kept Press have delighted to tell us how many times Kim Davis herself divorced and remarried with salacious side-issues. Nothing about remarriage (or in its origins, multiple marriage conflicts with Natural Law (if you believe that stuff) nor Jewish Law nor (for most Christians these days ) Christianity. In stark contrast marriage cannot by natural law or any religious tradition I know of recognize marriage among homosexuals (of the same sex--any homosexual is a free as anyone else to marry a person of the OPPOSITE sex).

Even apart from the Christian persecution issue, Kentucky Law provides only for marriage being between two people of opposite sex. I understand that the homosexuals are know realizing their marriage licenses are invalid and are suing Kim Davis for putting proper disclaimers on the licenses she lets be issued. SCOTUS cannot MAKE law--the courts can only interpret existing laws. Our activist judges (all nine of them, the conservatives on SCOTUS except John Roberts) are way out of constitutional bounds. Impeach them all except Roberts. (Roberts may in fact be wrong about the Affordable Care Act, but at least he has not been one of these terrible judicial activists.)

(Wonder how long it'll be before I get banned here too? Two months ago I was banned by Debating Christianity and Religion, and they never reply to my emails asking why. They never gave a reason why they first suspended me then banned me.)

[whag]

My point is that the divorce and remarriage issue is debatable within Christianity,

It's only debatable because divorce and remarriage are relatively common among Christians. It's hard to think of oneself as a perpetual adulterer, so those Christians make justifications for what getting remarried. It's silliness. You shouldn't have to feel guilty for divorcing your spouse for justifiable reasons and falling in love again.

Liberals and the rest of the kept Press have delighted to tell us how many times Kim Davis herself divorced and remarried with salacious side-issues. Nothing about remarriage (or in its origins,

What do you think its origins are? Explain.

multiple marriage conflicts with Natural Law (if you believe that stuff) nor Jewish Law nor (for most Christians these days ) Christianity. In stark contrast marriage cannot by natural law or any religious tradition I know of recognize marriage among homosexuals (of the same sex--any homosexual is a free as anyone else to marry a person of the OPPOSITE sex).

But natural law is specious and indefensible upon investigation.

(Wonder how long it'll be before I get banned here too? Two months ago I was banned by Debating Christianity and Religion, and they never reply to my emails asking why. They never gave a reason why they first suspended me then banned me.)

It takes a lot to get banned here. You must have been really obnoxious.

[Adam]

It's only debatable because divorce and remarriage are relatively common among Christians. It's hard to think of oneself as a perpetual adulterer, so those Christians make justifications for what getting remarried. It's silliness. You shouldn't have to feel guilty for divorcing your spouse for justifiable reasons and falling in love again.

What is your point? We seem to agree. My first wife divorced me in 1990, so I'm on your side here.

What do you think its origins are? Explain.

Remarriage was never originally an issue, as familial and societal function depended upon nurturing children. Marriage was necessary to bind men (the rogues that they are) to wife and children, but almost as much primitive cultures benefitted from men marrying additional women in numerous instances. Widows (frequent in warring cultures) needed husbands to support their children, promiscuous women needed men to act as fathers (apart from matriarchies like Oceania where uncles filled the role), and unmarried women not bearing children did not provide the needed births.

But natural law is specious and indefensible upon investigation.

Whether you call it "Natural Law" and denigrate it as medieval pettifoggery or consider sociology as I did just above, it's "natural" "law" or "human living guidelines" or whatever you wish to call it. Many will recognize it as God's Law as well, and particularly the Monotheistic religions do. The more awful perversions of sexual relations, for example, are found among Animists, polytheists, Hindus, and even Buddhists--where Bangkok is "World Capital of Debauchery". (Nothing really against Buddhism, you understand, just the inevitable degeneracy of cultures losing their religious moorings where a sociologically acceptable life style was not already dominant. It's seen everywhere these days.)

It takes a lot to get banned here. You must have been really obnoxious.

Yes, I could not get myself banned here back in Dee Dee Warren's heyday even though I'm the inventor of the "Dirty Dozen" list that included such notables as Sparko, LPOT, and JPHolding. I branded them as the most obnoxious and/or poorly arguing TWebbers.
As for my current sins, I'll start with Otseng's DebatingChristianityandReligion . Some amount of bad language is allowed there (already corrupting my discourse here--please warn me if I must abstain from scatology here), but NO PERSONAL ATTACKS no matter how relevant to forwarding discourse. You can hardly even name whom you're referring to, with the caution that the "hardly" even needs omitting. How is discourse possible there? That's the trick, I guess, Though run by a Christian and supposedly a Christian website, that seems (I may be wrong) more like a cover so that the atheists and agnostics who do most of the moderating can kick off Christians primarily and can argue down any perceived expressions of Christianity as "proselytizing" and any assertions AT ALL of anything (any moral restraints, and indication of supernatural existence) as not provable and thus skepticism reigns. Along the way I got chatty in personal communications with two of the main anti-Christians moderators and got deceived that they were more-or-less on my side, so I did not kow-tow in full retreat as I could and should have, then a few days later found going in that my name there (Korah) was now suspended and within a day I could not get in at all because (again WITHOUT NOTICE OR EXPLANATION) I had been banned. Yes, it did say that I could contact the Webmaster. I have written every week or so for two months with no reply from " [email protected] " successfully (no bounce-back) but without ever a reply to my request for at least being told why I had been banned.

Moving to ChristianForums.com that allows a little more lee-way in argumentation and naming names (and still using the name "Korah") , I again soon wound up in communication with a main Mod there, who though very starchy seemed amenable to my renegade sort of traditional Christianity (in which we largely agreed--we even bear the same denominational designation).
So after the due period of probation I launched out again into my old evil ways and even started posting in two political sub-fori. Needless to say, the kind of inflammatory views I have regarding politics and society in general pretty generally got me reported by whomever I was skewering. (As I understand the rules there, you can only report someone who is attacking you. I loved to pick on the most obnoxious posters on either side, Right or Left, resulting of course in getting hated by everyone Left and Right, and thereby reported. Again, I don't know the exact process, and the U. S. Constitution does not hold there, so I had no opportunity to face my accusers and refute them.) Moral of the story, don't post a lot there, or go on hiatus frequently, as I did there from 2009 to 2011 and again from 2012 to 2015.

Just my take on it, but my assessment of ChristianForums is that it is a genuine Christian web site, but mission-driven. It allows non-Christians to get away with almost anything (and they're limited to non-theological fori so they can't do too much damage to Christianity), but Christians have to act nicey-nice to be the honey that will attract the savage beasts to where they can by tamed and acculturated. Being around Christians may be bad for the health of their opposition to Christianity.