Biblical Point of marriage

15 posts / 0 new
Last post
Anonymous (not verified)
Biblical Point of marriage

Here is an interesting revelation we had along the path to the truth of polygyny, concerning the marriage "contract" itself. Today there is a lot of talk about "sex before marriage" or "abstinence". But in reality a closer inspection of the scriptures , especially in light of biblical polygyny, shows that the question of "sex before marriage" is in itself the wrong question. Biblically speaking, there is no "marriage ceremony" that defines the point of marriage. The very notion of marriage beginning at the point of a ceremony is a fairly modern, probably roman based, notion. It puts the state in charge of marriage and the definition of marriage. Instead, the bible stories portray a very different picture of the beginning of marriage being at the point of sexual relations between man and woman. There are two examples of marriage beginnings (assuming a single woman): 1. Man and woman agree to be married, and then go off and consummate that through sexual relations. it takes both steps 2. man forces sex on woman and then is obligated to publicly marry her. again, it takes both steps What this seems to be saying is that there are two components to a valid biblical marriage, a commitment from both people and sexual relations. At that point God sees the couple as married for life. If there is sex "before marriage" it is only a matter of timing, because sex is expected to be followed by a marriage commitment for life. In other words.. it is the physical relations that create the "oneness" and require a commitment of marriage to follow. So instead of debating whether sex before marriage is allowed or not, the point of scripture is that the point of sex IS a marriage. The formalities can follow later. This has huge implications for men. Every never married woman a man has physical relations with, is effectively his wife for life. (hence the need to allow polygyny). If a married man has relations with a never married woman, she should, by God's law, become his wife. How very different the message is to young men that "the price of each act of sex is a life long commitment of marriage". Its also fascinating that.. if a man has physical relations with a never married woman, that in itself is NOT sin. It only becomes sinful if he does not commit to her her before or after. I would also offer that... changing this whole story to "sex before marriage is wrong" fundamentally changes the message and breaks God's design for marriage itself. (sex BEING an act of marriage) I am constantly fascinated by the "rules" that the church has accepted , and no one commonly questions, that are directly contrary to scripture. The mandate against polygamy was only the beginning... the reality seems to be the the church as a whole has corrupted God's very definition of marriage and family. Thoughts?

Rock
re biblical marriage

Comment: 

Dave,

that is an interesting synopsis of how the OT treats 'marriage' as being a natural result of sexual relations. Your presentation is very informative.

The portion of your post which describes how man has debased marriage into becoming a state contract is certainly true. Yet there are parts of the OT 'law' that is contradictory to a good man's morals. (if I'm reading your text correctly, and please correct me if I'm in error).

My input is that there are stark differences between how the OT treats marriage and how an evolved man treats marriage. It would appear that an 'evolved man' would have a more moral approach than the OT prescription, teaching, and practice.

For me personally, as my point of view, I find the following teaching barbaric... But.. again, that is my opinion of the following, quoting from your post so we can be on the same page:
----------------
"There are two examples of marriage beginnings (assuming a single woman):

2. man forces sex on woman and then is obligated to publicly marry her. again, it takes both steps

(and) "This has huge implications for men. Every never married woman a man has physical relations with, is effectively his wife for life."

----------

the above is akin to other ancient and barbaric teachings of the Quran which places a man in total control over the free will of a woman.

The obvious inference is that rape is remedied by forced marriage wherein the Rapist is justifid by forcing his vicitim to marry him.

I am surprised that you did not identify the problem with this line of thinking/action.

Rock

DaveandBrenda (not verified)
Forced Marriage in OT?

Comment: 

thanks for the comments :)

Unfortunately I feel the need to gloss over the "evolved man" comment since it seems inappropriate to discuss in this forum, suffice to say that man never "evolves" according to scripture, only "devolves"... but that is a topic for another day ;)

The thought I'd like to address is the "barbarism" referred to in the old testament. I have a number of atheistic friends who fall prey to the same thinking. Usually their logic revolves around assumptions, or "reading in more than is there" to the scriptures. this is a good example of that problem which we all need to be watchful for. Here's my thoughts on this example:

The scriptures make it clear that not supporting a woman after having physical relations with her degrades her, marriage, and society as a whole. The greater sin of rape for society is subsequent abandonment. Now, does that mean that the woman has lost all free will and is forced to marry her rapist? Certainly not! It does not say that she is to live with him, there is no punishment on her at all in fact. What the scriptures say is directed at HIM only.. that HE is now (after sex) one with her and must support her for LIFE as he does himself. (implying 50% of all his earnings?). He can not abandon her. He does not have to live with her or have any interaction with her at all, but must support her for life as his own wife and as himself.

If she chooses to marry later in life, then she would seem free to do so, but HE (the man that forced sex on her) is guilty of causing her to commit adultery when she does. She herself bears no guilt (she cant if it is his fault according to scripture) in doing so, but he must pay the price. That "price" for him is death penalty under the law of moses. So he faces the potential of a death penalty for his crime.

So, the end result is not barbarism, but rather a just punishment for the man of a life of support for his victim and potentially the guilt of "adultery" which carried the death penalty, total freedom for the woman in both lifelong financial support and the freedom to marry without guilt, and a society that values women highly, values marriage highly, and places sex ONLY within the confines of marriage, regardless of intentions.

The implication here is that, for society, sex and marraige (or "oneness") are inseparable.

Rock
re biblical marriage

Comment: 

Dave,

There are contradictions within your posts , but what you did clarify is appreciated.

Your inference of my 'falling prey' to incorrect assumptions was false and condescending.

I will eventually post a thread which cites hundreds of barbaric acts of 'HVH and those men that blindly committed heinous crimes under 'HVH's command.

Whether a man finds them justifiable or not is up to that man.

Christ did not support that behaviour and his doctrine was the polar opposite of that which was taught by 'HVH.

an evolved man would question why Christ discounted the teachings of 'HVH.

The behaviour of the men that followed the murderous mandates of 'HVH was certainly less 'evolved' than a true Christian. Imagine Christ, on the mount, telling his followers to go into Jeruselum and plunge swords into every mother, baby, and unborn child so they could 'deserve' their promised land (as 'HVH did). hmmm. I would say that Man has evolved since that day. (at least most men). Some still prefer the doctrine of vengeance, arrogance, and anger. These are modern day barbarians.

DaveandBrenda (not verified)
off topic

Comment: 

I'm sorry Rock, but your posts are just so far off topic, of both my original post and this forum. You seem to be trying to say that the "father" that jesus was one and the same with was "barbaric" and "unevolved". I would love to discuss this, but not here, it is distracting to the topic at hand.

What you are referring to is the basic tenants of christianity, which you seem to disagree with. It is contradictory to follow "jesus" (the definition of a christian) but deny the father who jesus said he was one with, was following, and was pointing to. Therefore a "christian" is a person who follows jesus in finding the father. The father of the old testament.

May I suggest we stay on the topic of this post, which is about marriage itself. Is there a place here to discuss these basic christian doctrine points ?

Frannie
basic Christian doctrine

Comment: 

Dave, the basic Christian doctrine points can be discussed here as well as anywhere else. So Rock is fine, here. Christian topics do not have to be only discussed under the Christian forum, and the LDS topics do not only have to be discussed under LDS forums, as marriage topics or any other topics do not have to be discussed under certain forums. If Sage David or Neal want certain topics moved to certain areas they will move them. Its not up to you to tell anyone where certain topics can be discussed.

Here to talk to friends. I am pro-poly, but am not seeking.

DaveandBrenda (not verified)
Topics?

Comment: 

Ok, so topics dont stay on "topic" as posted by the original author? Doesnt that make it difficult for newcomers to make sense of the forum topics discussed?

If that is true, I apologize, In most forums it is common courtesy and often a "rule" to stay on the topic of the original poster. I assumed that was the case here as well.

So, My apologies. I didnt realize the difference here. This could be interesting!

Frannie
topics

Comment: 

Dave it does not make it difficult. And you or anyone else should not base what this site does compared to others. All sites do things differently, as all sites have different owners. Its the same as if you went any other site on the net, they are all different as they all have different owners. IF all sites were based the same it would make for extremely boring net, wouldn't it.

Here to talk to friends. I am pro-poly, but am not seeking.

DaveandBrenda (not verified)
differences

Comment: 

I certainly agree Frannie! This is definately different. Hence my apology, and suggestion to the "owners" about the change that I personally see valuable.

I will no longer worry about topics within threads while posting :)

Frannie
re: differences

Comment: 

If the owners wanted things different they never would have made things on the site the way they are. And its not up to you to suggest that the owners do things differently here.

Here to talk to friends. I am pro-poly, but am not seeking.

DaveandBrenda (not verified)
suggestion forum

Comment: 

Perhaps I am confused... there is a forum titled "suggestions"... are you saying it is not up to members to make suggestions there?

What can possibly be wrong with new members making suggestions from their point of view?

Personally I value all the opinions of everyone, even those that have called me names and made strongly worded posts full of passion. The ideas are all valuable even if the delivery is a bit... rough.

Frannie
re:suggestion forum

Comment: 

the problem is you are not suggesting, you are basically telling them how to run their site and you have ever since you first came here. As I said in another posts ALL sites are run differently, why can't you just accept that the owners run this site the way they WANT to, and stop trying to get them to run THIER site like others you have been to.

Here to talk to friends. I am pro-poly, but am not seeking.

DaveandBrenda (not verified)
example

Comment: 

With all due respect, can you demonstrate how I am "telling them how to run their site" as opposed to making a valid "suggestion" ?

I have apologized for asking someone to stay on my topic within a thread i posted. Lesson learned. I apologize again.

I am now making a point to ignore off topic posts and follow whereever a discussion goes, regardless of what the origianl poster intended. it goes against my own sense of manners,, but I will abide by the rules and expectation here.

What else would you have me do?

DaveandBrenda (not verified)
Change our anniversary date

Comment: 

On a personal added note, we have actually changed our marriage anniversary date from the traditional american notion of the "wedding date" to the date of commitment / physical union. We personally view the "wedding anniversary" (date of the party and public acknowledgement) as separate from the marriage date (date of consummation).

The fun thing is we get 2 celebration now per year :)

Imlooking41more
Churches today focus on the technicalities

Comment: 

It seems to me that most denominations focus on the  technicalities and not the spirit of the Law. The whole idea of marriage was for a man and a woman to be faithful to each other for life. Faithful, in fulfilling the needs and the desires, if appropriate, of the other spouse. Faithfully caring for each other physically, spiritually, emotionally, and sexually. The churches today, want to make a bigger deal out of when you started having sex then whether your being a good spouse now. When a church can get you to feel guilty about an action that is not sin, they can't convince you to do anything, even to drink the Kool-Aid.

The churches of today are looking a whole lot like the crowd that Jesus called vipers, we know them as the Scribes and Pharisees.

I'm married to "Imthefirst1."

Click on my user name for more information about us.

Psalm 119:165 Great peace have they which love thy law: and nothing shall offend them.