[QUOTE=“waterboy;493854”]
No, my point is that discrimination is usually and rightfully crushed.
The people who discriminated did so at a cost to their life and to the benefit of society.[/QUOTE]
There were hundreds if not thousands of nazis directly responsible for killing hundreds of Jews that never had any punishment.
You have no idea what you are even debating anymore do you.
True, we never really know how we’ll react unless put in the situation. If the people were actually reaching for their cell phones to video it though, seems like something is a little off.
So seeing as marriage is thought to have pre-dated religion, and definitely pre-dated the Judao-Christain belief system, how can it have started as an entirely religious institution?
If, however, you want to take the christian bible’s view on it then you have:
i) The ‘normal’ one man one woman’ type;
ii) Levirate marriage - Where a man takes his dead brother’s wife and impregnates her (Gen 38:6-10);
iii) One man, one woman, and a female slave (Gen 16:1-6 and Gen 30:4-5)
iv) One man, and several wives (Gen 4:19, 2 Sam 12:18, and 1 Kings 11:13)
v) One man, one (or more) wives, and several concubines - concubines having a lower status than the wives, but still tied to the man. For when just having multiple wives doesn’t cut it… (Judges 19:1-30)
vi) One man, and the woman he has taken after a battle (Deut 21:11-14)
vii) An unmarried woman and her rapist (Deut 22:28-29)
viii) One man and a woman as payment for work done (Gen 29:20)
ix) One man and 2 women as payment for work done (Gen 29:27)
x) The final one, for now the wife must be a virgin, or be put to death (Deut 22:13-21)
I take it you are fully supportive of all of these - as they are all approved religious marriages.
[QUOTE=“Cyco;493997”]
So seeing as marriage is thought to have pre-dated religion, and definitely pre-dated the Judao-Christain belief system, how can it have started as an entirely religious institution?
If, however, you want to take the christian bible’s view on it then you have:
i) The ‘normal’ one man one woman’ type;
ii) Levirate marriage - Where a man takes his dead brother’s wife and impregnates her (Gen 38:6-10);
iii) One man, one woman, and a female slave (Gen 16:1-6 and Gen 30:4-5)
iv) One man, and several wives (Gen 4:19, 2 Sam 12:18, and 1 Kings 11:13)
v) One man, one (or more) wives, and several concubines - concubines having a lower status than the wives, but still tied to the man. For when just having multiple wives doesn’t cut it… (Judges 19:1-30)
vi) One man, and the woman he has taken after a battle (Deut 21:11-14)
vii) An unmarried woman and her rapist (Deut 22:28-29)
viii) One man and a woman as payment for work done (Gen 29:20)
ix) One man and 2 women as payment for work done (Gen 29:27)
x) The final one, for now the wife must be a virgin, or be put to death (Deut 22:13-21)
I take it you are fully supportive of all of these - as they are all approved religious marriages.[/QUOTE]
Nothing predates religion. “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth…” Duh.
viii) One man and a woman as payment for work done (Gen 29:20)
AT least then a plumber would have had a chance to marry a model.
Yes, the debate centered around the discrimination of people’s sexuality, religious beliefs, gender etc etc.
I pointed out that in all cases the minority is always opposed by the larger society. Yes there were and even now, still Nazi’s whos war crimes went unpunished on an individual basis but that was/is the cost of suppressing these minority groups.
Again, maybe you did not understand.
[QUOTE=“Cyco;493997”]
So seeing as marriage is thought to have pre-dated religion, and definitely pre-dated the Judao-Christain belief system, how can it have started as an entirely religious institution?
If, however, you want to take the christian bible’s view on it then you have:
i) The ‘normal’ one man one woman’ type;
ii) Levirate marriage - Where a man takes his dead brother’s wife and impregnates her (Gen 38:6-10);
iii) One man, one woman, and a female slave (Gen 16:1-6 and Gen 30:4-5)
iv) One man, and several wives (Gen 4:19, 2 Sam 12:18, and 1 Kings 11:13)
v) One man, one (or more) wives, and several concubines - concubines having a lower status than the wives, but still tied to the man. For when just having multiple wives doesn’t cut it… (Judges 19:1-30)
vi) One man, and the woman he has taken after a battle (Deut 21:11-14)
vii) An unmarried woman and her rapist (Deut 22:28-29)
viii) One man and a woman as payment for work done (Gen 29:20)
ix) One man and 2 women as payment for work done (Gen 29:27)
x) The final one, for now the wife must be a virgin, or be put to death (Deut 22:13-21)
I take it you are fully supportive of all of these - as they are all approved religious marriages.[/QUOTE]
I haven’t once brought up the bible… You are creating a straw man argument.
“As seeing marriage is thought to pre date religion” … Lol uhm ok. Do you mean you think that…?
[QUOTE=“waterboy;494008”]
Yes, the debate centered around the discrimination of people’s sexuality, religious beliefs, gender etc etc.
I pointed out that in all cases the minority is always opposed by the larger society. Yes there were and even now, still Nazi’s whos war crimes went unpunished on an individual basis but that was/is the cost of suppressing these minority groups.
Again, maybe you did understand.[/QUOTE]
Actually the debate centered around your belief that the society that one is immersed in sets the rules of what is moral and what isn’t…
Then I related it to a scenario… Then you got confused and the point went over your head.
I spoke of the fact that a larger world society prevails over indivudual smaller societies, you referenced back if I had been part of a German society, I would have likely “joined in” raising the point of being immersed in ones own society. I then commented that even if I had joined in with the Nazi’s I would have eventually been defeated thus proving my point that the larger, world society prevailed.
Regardless of how you interpret the previous posts my point shows that the minority never succeeds. Do you not agree?
For the love of god, christians and atheists need to stop taking that crap out of context.
The bible are stories. Just because it happened in the bible doesn’t mean it’s right. It doesn’t say that God told them, go right ahead. They’re events that took place.
Pizza believes it all literally happened as it’s written in the Bible. Don’t you ,Pizza?!
Pizza’s getting some shut eye right now. Smart
Not saying it didn’t. Just saying they are events that took place. Has nothing to do whether or not god sanctioned it.
Do I think what?
Well in the bible god did not get upset with Solomon for having 700 wives, only that he listened to some of their beliefs in other gods. He does not appear to have been against the polygamy itself…
Sweet jesus! Why would anybody want 700 wives. At that point maybe god just felt sorry for him. “He’s suffered enough” Haha
[QUOTE=“Cyco;494107”]
Do I think what?
Well in the bible god did not get upset with Solomon for having 700 wives, only that he listened to some of their beliefs in other gods. He does not appear to have been against the polygamy itself…[/QUOTE]
You stated “marriage is THOUGHT to pre date religion” … As if its a generally accepted line of thought… When in reality it is just your opinion. So what you should have said was “I think that marriage pre dates religion” … In which case there is not much proof to back that thought up… Actually none.
And why do you continue bringing up the bible as if I’m the one using it for any basis in my argument?
Awesome video is awsum
It is a generally accepted line of thought.
Even Neanderthal society is thought to have had marriage 200,000 years ago: Into the mind of a Neanderthal - life - 18 January 2012 - New Scientist
They do not appear to have invented religion at this time.
[QUOTE=“Cyco;494248”]
It is a generally accepted line of thought.
Even Neanderthal society is thought to have had marriage 200,000 years ago: Into the mind of a Neanderthal - life - 18 January 2012 - New Scientist
They do not appear to have invented religion at this time.[/QUOTE]
Lol “a generally accepted line of thought” … You think that because its what YOU believe and it makes your argument sound more valid if you say “everyone else thinks it too”.
Humans and Neanderthals are entirely different species… Humans did not develop from Neanderthals…
And here’s the excerpt from the britannica which states that humans did not evolve from Neanderthals.
Even if you were to use your example of assumed Neanderthal behavior, it shows merely monogamous tendencies… Same as many other species of animals. Doesn’t mean their was the ceremony of marriage that we are specifically talking about.
You are confusing monogamy with the institution of marriage.
