A defense of marriage

[Tom]

I'm an atheist and for different reasons than you have described, I also agree that marriage has deep meaningful value.

A concern I hear a lot is that people think they absolutely must become wealthy, and simply must spend six figures on the wedding. Otherwise they think they aren't "ready".

For a generation who generally believe they have left traditional ideas in the past where they belong, this need for pageantry is a pretty silly example to the contrary.

In contrast to this approach, I find that marriage can be extremely empowering to young people, and to all people.

Distracted by boyfriends, girlfriends, dating? Not if you're married.

Feeling unmotivated in school or career? Building a future with your spouse gives meaning to those pursuits.

Burdened by the cost of living? Double your income and work together with your spouse to create a comfortable lifestyle for each other.

Is life an unpredictable circus of endless suffering? An unconditional partner could be there for you when need them most, and vice versa.

Yes. At least for me. Much better then facing life alone.

Shingleback Skinks mate for life as well. And they know a thing or two.

 

[Clueless in Canada]

I'm glad you are happy and have found what works for you. I have nothing against marriage at all though don't view it through the same lens you do. Plenty of people have happy and successful marriages, with nothing at all against the practice, but they do not share your religious interpretation of it.

 

[Lysander]

A little tangent:

For the majority of people (no inheritance, school not already paid for, ect) a lucrative career won't happen for them until they are in their mid 30s and 40s, if at all.

For the majority of people, the process of building middle class wealth will require 10 to 20 years of their adult lives realistically to unlock.

It makes me sad when people use money as a reason why they can't do something "yet", probably not realizing that what they are saying is that they want to wait until they start losing hair to do anything at all.

I wish people would calm down about money and be happy, and just love someone. Status seeking is a low level evil that has haunted our culture for several decades at least. It drives us to make poor decisions based on perceived success and to erode our financial security for the sake of showing off.

Young men hooking up with multiple women to prove that they were a hotshot, then not raising the children that result, because being a dad isn't "cool".

Women "trading up" to partners with a little more perceived success every couple of years.

People in general burdening themselves and their families with hundreds of thousands of dollars of college debt simply because they couldn't face the shame of not going.

Attending the most prestigious, and expensive, colleges that will take them.

Borrowing on the most expensive car their banks will finance.

Borrowing on the biggest, most expensive house they can get approved for, regardless of the interest rate, then defaulting on their mortgage a few years later because life didn't stop being unpredictable just so they could live life on the edge.
(This last example is what caused the subprime mortgage crisis of 2008. You can blame the banks for giving loans to poor people, but you have to then assume that rich people know better than poor people, ect... even the average person has corrupted reasoning)

 

[Joshua the Writer]

Honestly, I'd prefer an equal marriage when I do get married.

 

[inkfingers]

Did you know that Christians aren't supposed to marry non-Christians? (Just letting you know)

In my opinion, there is nothing wrong with marriage. However, it is not for everyone. I prefer to remain celibate.

 

[Joshua the Writer]

Did you know that Christians aren't supposed to marry non-Christians? (Just letting you know)

In my opinion, there is nothing wrong with marriage. However, it is not for everyone. I prefer to remain celibate.

What does "celibate" mean?

 

[Khendra]

Did you know that Christians aren't supposed to marry non-Christians? (Just letting you know)

In my opinion, there is nothing wrong with marriage. However, it is not for everyone. I prefer to remain celibate.

I was not in the faith at the time he and I met.

 

[Mary Terry]

The Apostle Paul.

Paul also wrote that women cannot wear pants or cut their hair. I guess we can pick and chose which of the Apostles' directives we want to follow. He also said that a little wine is good for the stomach which totally blows apart the segment of "Christianity" that vilifies alcohol consumption, as if Jesus' first miracle of turning water into wine at a wedding party and the consumption of wine at the Last Supper were not sufficient evidence that alcohol is okay with God. Catholic nuns take vows of chastity, poverty and obedience. There is no mention of sobriety.

 

[Mary Terry]

The King James bible is the volume on which contemporary protestant Christian scripture is credited with being based. It was completed in 1611 under the oversight of a man who was highly threatened by the memory and achievements of his female predecessor and was desperate to prove his worth to subjects who hated him for being a Scot. A man who's last male equivalent seceded from the Christian church of the time so he could practice philandery without recrimination. The Church of England, the first dominant protestant faith, was founded to allow a king to practice divorce. He even appointed himself head of the new church.
Henry VIII decided that the existing "word of God" didn't apply to him so he had it rewritten to suit his desires in the "Great Bible" of 1535.

His daughter, Elizabeth I presided over an age of great discovery and didn't like her Dad's version so had it rewritten again as the "Bishop's Bible" in 1568. Of course that was shortly after the Calvinists had written their version of a protestant bible as the "Geneva Bible" which they claimed was the definitive one, and was directly translated from the original Greek texts that were written several hundred years after Jesus' life.

Then in the early 17th century the head of the church and state (James VI of Scotland and James I of England - this was before the "UK" existed, so 2 kings for the price of 1) was facing rising unpopularity and was under pressure from flagellating puritans who were significant in the nobility and were his means of retaining power, so he had it rewritten again to please them. In 1611 the King James Bible was completed after 7 years, having been written by celibate men who had no contact with women (monks) at the behest and supervision of ungodly men who had an axe to grind against women, and 47 advisors - the "consultants" of their day. This is the definitive version of the Bible we often think we know today. Written 1600 years after the events it describes, translated from translations and definitely better and more accurate than all the previous accurate and definitive versions that came before.

Until it was edited and revised in 1769 to suit the new fangled printing presses so it could be mass produced. Blayney dropped a few books he didn't think were important, rearranged some bits, changed a few words that seemed a bit too 17th century to him and called it the "Standard Text". Sadly for him, by this time, after 150 years of calling it the "King James" version, the name had kind of stuck so Blayney faded into the background, largely forgotten, but at least his new complete, apart from the bits he left out and the bits he changed from the previous absolutely definitively accurate and immutable version became the one that was taken all over the world by protestant pilgrims and missionaries from then on.

So which version of the bible, if any, contains the "literal" word of God, sufficient to cause half of humanity to be submissive to the other?

I've always wondered why God was still speaking in King James era English in the 1860s when he dictated the Book of Mormon to Joseph Smith. Go figure.....

 

[Khendra]

Paul also wrote that women cannot wear pants or cut their hair. I guess we can pick and chose which of the Apostles' directives we want to follow. He also said that a little wine is good for the stomach which totally blows apart the segment of "Christianity" that vilifies alcohol consumption, as if Jesus' first miracle of turning water into wine at a wedding party and the consumption of wine at the Last Supper were not sufficient evidence that alcohol is okay with God. Catholic nuns take vows of chastity, poverty and obedience. There is no mention of sobriety.

There are no passages in the NT where Paul addresses women wearing pants, to my knowledge; where did you get that from? As far as hair, I believe you are referring to the head covering passage. That one is notoriously difficult to exegete, and different denominations come to different conclusions on it. I keep my hair long based on my understanding of the passage, and my avatar clearly shows that, so your accusation that I'm picking and choosing there doesn't hold up.

The segment of Christianity that vilifies all alcohol consumption has a faulty interpretation. I believe you are referring to the IFB (who are also the ones who forbid pants-wearing, not the Apostle Paul). The Bible clearly forbids drunkenness, but not alcohol consumption in and of itself. Therein lies the IFB's error -- they wrongfully equate all drinking with drunkenness, which is absurd. It's one of the reasons, although not the primary reason, I left that denomination over a year ago. (Mostly it was their inconsistent and shallow soteriology and out-of-context "salesmanship" evangelizing methods.)

 

[Pats]

Paul also wrote that women cannot wear pants or cut their hair. I guess we can pick and chose which of the Apostles' directives we want to follow. He also said that a little wine is good for the stomach which totally blows apart the segment of "Christianity" that vilifies alcohol consumption, as if Jesus' first miracle of turning water into wine at a wedding party and the consumption of wine at the Last Supper were not sufficient evidence that alcohol is okay with God. Catholic nuns take vows of chastity, poverty and obedience. There is no mention of sobriety.

A little wine for the stomach's sake is perfectly fine, getting drunk and disorderly is not. And wine was one of the limited choices of drink - grapes immediately ferments into wine and it wasn't until the 1800's, when Welches began the pasteurizing process. The Bible does not say women can't wear pants - they didn't even have pants then. And the hair comment was that they had no differing views from what was common then. Just to clarify.

 

[Pats]

There are two things that I will defend with everything I have. My children and my faith - which includes, God, Jesus, the Holy spirit and His word, which is the Bible. I realize that many here are atheists and I respect that and will not start putting your beliefs down. Please have equal respect.

 

[Khendra]

There are two things that I will defend with everything I have. My children and my faith - which includes, God, Jesus, the Holy spirit and His word, which is the Bible. I realize that many here are atheists and I respect that and will not start putting your beliefs down. Please have equal respect.

I sensed skepticism from Mary, but at least she was much less hostile than some of the bad faith responses I've been getting over this thread on a certain other autism forum. This thread has actually been quite productive, and I've mostly enjoyed the discussions.

 

[Pats]

I sensed skepticism from Mary, but at least she was much less hostile than some of the bad faith responses I've been getting over this thread on a certain other autism forum. This thread has actually been quite productive, and I've mostly enjoyed the discussions.

See, that's interesting. I don't mind questions from someone that just doesn't understand. But I have a problem with other that feels more hostile to me. And I really wish that those who want to insult Christianity would refrain from reading in the Christian subject heading because it makes it difficult to have a pleasant discussion about the Bible.

 

[Mary Terry]

Whoa - hold up on judging my comments as hostile. They are just my opinions, offered for discussion and debate, and are not intended to insult anyone's religion or lack thereof.

I was wrong to say that Paul forbid women to wear pants. It actually was Moses, assuming he is the author of Deuteronomy 22:5 which says: “A woman shall not wear anything that pertains to a man, nor shall a man put on a woman’s garment, for all who do so are an abomination to the Lord your God."

Paul is believed to have written the first book of Corinthians in the New Testament. 1 Corinthians 11:15 says that if a woman has long hair, it is her glory. For long hair is given to her as a covering.

1 Corinthians 11:16 says if a woman does not cover her head, she might as well have her hair cut off; but if it is a disgrace for a woman to have her hair cut off or her head shaved, then she should cover her head.

I take that to mean that women should not cut their hair but if they do, they need to wear a hat or veil.

I was raised in the Presbyterian church in the middle of Southern Baptist country among people who condemn alcohol in any quantity, dancing, women in pants, women who cut their hair, and a whole lot of other stuff, most of which is not mentioned in the Bible. Like anti-vaxers who claim the Bible forbids vaccinations for diseases whereas, in reality, there is no mention of vaccinations in the Bible but a whole lot of stories about plague and disease. I also lived among the Mormons in Utah for a decade and know a lot about the LDS church, including things that the Mormons do not like to share with outsiders (Gentiles as they call us including all Jewish people who are surprised to learn that they are Gentiles). These experiences made me quite cynical about most organized religions but I respect those who so believe, as it is their choice.

 

[Khendra]

Whoa - hold up on judging my comments as hostile. They are just my opinions, offered for discussion and debate, and are not intended to insult anyone's religion or lack thereof.

I was wrong to say that Paul forbid women to wear pants. It actually was Moses, assuming he is the author of Deuteronomy 22:5 which says: “A woman shall not wear anything that pertains to a man, nor shall a man put on a woman’s garment, for all who do so are an abomination to the Lord your God."

Paul is believed to have written the first book of Corinthians in the New Testament. 1 Corinthians 11:15 says that if a woman has long hair, it is her glory. For long hair is given to her as a covering.

1 Corinthians 11:16 says if a woman does not cover her head, she might as well have her hair cut off; but if it is a disgrace for a woman to have her hair cut off or her head shaved, then she should cover her head.

I take that to mean that women should not cut their hair but if they do, they need to wear a hat or veil.

I was raised in the Presbyterian church in the middle of Southern Baptist country among people who condemn alcohol in any quantity, dancing, women in pants, women who cut their hair, and a whole lot of other stuff, most of which is not mentioned in the Bible. Like anti-vaxers who claim the Bible forbids vaccinations for diseases whereas, in reality, there is no mention of vaccinations in the Bible but a whole lot of stories about plague and disease. I also lived among the Mormons in Utah for a decade and know a lot about the LDS church, including things that the Mormons do not like to share with outsiders (Gentiles as they call us including all Jewish people who are surprised to learn that they are Gentiles). These experiences made me quite cynical about most organized religions but I respect those who so believe, as it is their choice.

I'd wondered if you meant Moses instead of Paul. That passage about gendered clothing is another one that elicits a lot of nuanced debate in Christian circles. Trousers, at various times, have been seen as men's clothing, but such is not the case today, where clothes designers also design trousers explicitly for women, and are put in the women's clothing sections in stores. As a result, most Protestant churches allow women to wear trousers that are explicitly designed for women -- even the IFB church I used to go to relaxed its rule on that, and they said my women's trousers were fine.

I also figured you had some Baptist association based on those prior assertions. The IFB (independent fundamental Baptist church) especially is very well-known for eschewing alcohol (I didn't drink in the six months I went there, but I did have questions about that interpretation for the reasons I gave in the prior post, and have since resumed beer drinking as a confirmed member of the Missouri Synod Lutheran church).

I take it you are not a Presby anymore? They are the original Calvinists, though many in the Southern Baptist churches have now become quite Calvinist also, and it's caused rifts between them an Arminian Baptists (Baptists are actually historically Arminian, and it amazes me that so many have tried to combine Presby Calvinism with Baptist theology because they are incompatible in so many ways, but that's a subject for another time, heh).

 

[Pats]

Whoa - hold up on judging my comments as hostile. They are just my opinions, offered for discussion and debate, and are not intended to insult anyone's religion or lack thereof.

I was wrong to say that Paul forbid women to wear pants. It actually was Moses, assuming he is the author of Deuteronomy 22:5 which says: “A woman shall not wear anything that pertains to a man, nor shall a man put on a woman’s garment, for all who do so are an abomination to the Lord your God."

Paul is believed to have written the first book of Corinthians in the New Testament. 1 Corinthians 11:15 says that if a woman has long hair, it is her glory. For long hair is given to her as a covering.

1 Corinthians 11:16 says if a woman does not cover her head, she might as well have her hair cut off; but if it is a disgrace for a woman to have her hair cut off or her head shaved, then she should cover her head.

I take that to mean that women should not cut their hair but if they do, they need to wear a hat or veil.

I was raised in the Presbyterian church in the middle of Southern Baptist country among people who condemn alcohol in any quantity, dancing, women in pants, women who cut their hair, and a whole lot of other stuff, most of which is not mentioned in the Bible. Like anti-vaxers who claim the Bible forbids vaccinations for diseases whereas, in reality, there is no mention of vaccinations in the Bible but a whole lot of stories about plague and disease. I also lived among the Mormons in Utah for a decade and know a lot about the LDS church, including things that the Mormons do not like to share with outsiders (Gentiles as they call us including all Jewish people who are surprised to learn that they are Gentiles). These experiences made me quite cynical about most organized religions but I respect those who so believe, as it is their choice.

My apologies then. I was taking it wrong - one of the things about written opposed to verbal discussions. Sorry - my bad.
I was also raised in a very strict household - no dancing, pants, etc. Had never heard the argument on vaccines. And I lived in Moab for a while and have people in my life who are Mormon - learned some things they believe that I have a hard time with, but it's what they believe. I believe all the letters to the different churches were written by Paul. A lot of people have trouble with Paul.
I guess when I was reading your comments I was hearing it as I would from my sister who likes to make me feel like I'm on a witness stand and she's a hostile attorney. I do apologize.

 

[Autistamatic]

This thread has actually been quite productive, and I've mostly enjoyed the discussions.

I'd agree and I welcome the opportunity to discuss such topics in a level headed manner without conflict. People can get very defensive over their faith (or lack of) and there are some who let that defence spill over into offence.
We're learning about each other to better understand and respect each other, not trying to win converts.

 

[Pats]

I'd agree and I welcome the opportunity to discuss such topics in a level headed manner without conflict. People can get very defensive over their faith (or lack of) and there are some who let that defence spill over into offence.
We're learning about each other to better understand and respect each other, not trying to win converts.

I do tend to get defensive. It's my way of life. It's my 'chosen' way of life. Sometimes it does feel that Christianity is the lifestyle that is least protected from offense and derogatory statements today. Other chosen lifestyles - you're not even permitted to say you disagree, even though you respect their choice without getting blown out of the water. But religion can still be mocked. I was amazed over the play - what was it? Knock knock or something like that, making fun of Mormons. Why is that okay today? We live in an age that no one is allowed to say anything, words are restricted, opinions are not acceptable - except when it comes to religions. Well, any type of Christianity, rather. Oh, and weight - weight is also okay to mock. Maybe it's living in this country and maybe it's not as bad in other countries - I don't know. So, maybe it's the world around me that has made me become so defensive - I didn't used to be until the last several years since I keep getting knocked around because of my Christianity while seeing everyone else being protected from the least scowl. That's what it's feeling like to me. I don't try to convert and push my ideas, but others do. You know, my daughter was sent a horrible video because of a choice she was making to have her baby circumcised and people here can't even leave something like that alone. She felt horrible and it was not right that anyone made her feel like crap over her decision. (Oh and she had not told people about the circumsicion - they just chose to push it on her anyway). We all make personal choices and need to be left alone to not have to face criticism over those choices. I try to leave others to make their own choices and decisions, but just because I'm a Christian I've been slandered, hated, mocked, questioned or quizzed and so on that I'd almost rather tell the world I'm autistic and let them use that as a weapon against me because that I didn't choose.
So, as, yes, I do get defensive - I hope that I don't get offensive in the process and hope you can all understand my sensitivities on this subject. And, as for what I just said - I am speaking of the physical world around me, my family and friends, acquaintances and immediate surroundings. It's what I am currently surrounded with in my physical surroundings. And that's why I easily become defensive here where I feel safer - the one place I can be me without criticism. I apologize and say - just let me know when I'm getting defensive without rational cause - I WILL listen.

 

[Mary Terry]

We all get defensive about things. I do, too. But perhaps one of my worst faults is my bluntness or directness. I am not good at schmoozing people and pretending to be something other than who I am, and I tend to have strong beliefs about many things so I sometimes come on too strong for some people. Mea culpa!

I still consider myself Presbyterian and raised my children in the church. We are members of the conservative branch of the church, not the more liberal branch. I totally agree with Kendrah's original post about marriage as consistent with Biblical teachings and the need of human nature to have someone to share life with. When I first looked at Kendrah's avatar, I thought her shirt said "Helpmate" which pretty well summarizes my view of marriage - spouses should be each other's helpmate and I am perfectly happy with that.

This is a good thread from which we can all learn something.