Why is there such a quarrel with Christianity today?

[gobraves101035]

Where in the Bible does it say marriage is between one man and one woman?

1 Corinthians 7:2-16
But because of the temptation to sexual immorality, each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband. 3 The husband should give to his wife her conjugal rights, and likewise the wife to her husband. 4 For the wife does not have authority over her own body, but

 

[apevol]

1 Corinthians 7:2-16
But because of the temptation to sexual immorality, each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband. 3 The husband should give to his wife her conjugal rights, and likewise the wife to her husband. 4 For the wife does not have authority over her own body, but

Lovely concept..there at the bottom.

 

[SuperDave]

1 Corinthians 7:2-16
But because of the temptation to sexual immorality, each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband. 3 The husband should give to his wife her conjugal rights, and likewise the wife to her husband. 4 For the wife does not have authority over her own body, but

The Greek word for "own" (heautou) in the phrase "have his own wife" indicates that the man's wife was a personal exclusive possession to the extent that a man possesses a wife. The Greek word for "own" (idios) in the phrase "have her own husband" is not exclusive. Idios carries the idea of a communal or shared ownership.

 

[apevol]

The Greek word for "own" (heautou) in the phrase "have his own wife" indicates that the man's wife was a personal exclusive possession to the extent that a man possesses a wife. The Greek word for "own" (idios) in the phrase "have her own husband" is not exclusive. Idios carries the idea of a communal or shared ownership.

You should post more here.

 

[apevol]

Philology is awesome and should really be taught in primary education waaayy more than it is now.

 

[Grey_pilgrim]

Shouldn't? Ok, that is a claim that you've made but then you ask those who disagree to provide a logical case. The burden is on you since you've made a claim. Should according to what? Why SHOULD the govt acknowledge, protect and endorse any marriage?

The bible does define marriage as one man and women, but does that mean it is a biblical defintion or does the bible simply recognize a correct definition. You know, like, 'Don't murder or don't steal."

The bible is not always prescriptive, but is often descriptive. So, were solomon's marriages benficial or detrimental to his reign?

This is a moot point seeing how the government does acknowledge marriage. And since it does two consenting adults shouldn't be treated differently for who they love.

He was supposedly the wisest man to ever live, so I'll trust his judgement.

 

[Grey_pilgrim]

Genesis 2:22-24
2 And the rib, which the Lord God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.

23 And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.

24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.

Kinda hard to have more than one wivefy when there's only one woman on the face of the earth.
P.S So everyone in the world came from two people? Doesn't that sorta condone incest?

 

[Roustabout]

This is a moot point seeing how the government does acknowledge marriage. And since it does two consenting adults shouldn't be treated differently for who they love.

He was supposedly the wisest man to ever live, so I'll trust his judgement.

It's not a moot point. It's the point when it comes to recognized ssm.
Love? Where does the govt legislate love? I was never required to be in love to get a marriage license.

Government recognized marriage doesn't forbid or promote love.

Re Solomon l, rhen your aren't reading the rest of the story. That's called selective reading or eisegesis. Which means you don't really care about truth, just what you can proof text to support what you've already concluded. It's intellectually dishonest.

 

[Roustabout]

Lovely concept..there at the bottom.

It is. It shows the bible is not anti sex, but is pro sex within the proper arrangement. It's really a foundational component of a decent society. Happy, fulfilling, monogamous life long relationships serve to provide solid family units wherein to produce and raise good citizens.

Two people who "feel" in love and pursue marriage as some sort of affirmation for their romance is a relatively new concept. Marriages, for the better part of humanity had a lot less to do with romance and "falling in love."

 

[ClearwaterVol]

It is. It shows the bible is not anti sex, but is pro sex within the proper arrangement. It's really a foundational component of a decent society. Happy, fulfilling, monogamous life long relationships serve to provide solid family units wherein to produce and raise good citizens.

Two people who "feel" in love and pursue marriage as some sort of affirmation for their romance is a relatively new concept. Marriages, for the better part of humanity had a lot less to do with romance and "falling in love."

Wasn't that concept used by religious people for hundreds of years as support for laws that stated that husbands could not be found guilty of raping their wives?

 

[Roustabout]

Wasn't that concept used by religious people for hundreds of years as support for laws that stated that husbands could not be found guilty of raping their wives?

I'm sure we'll meaning rules get abused. Has no pertinence to the discussion.

 

[GhostVol]

1 Corinthians 7:2-16
But because of the temptation to sexual immorality, each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband. 3 The husband should give to his wife her conjugal rights, and likewise the wife to her husband. 4 For the wife does not have authority over her own body, but

In re: to the bolded above...... WTF is this all about?

Is this seriously a Christian thing?? If so, you guys really need to re-evaluate.......

 

[Vol8188]

1 Corinthians 7:2-16
But because of the temptation to sexual immorality, each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband. 3 The husband should give to his wife her conjugal rights, and likewise the wife to her husband. 4 For the wife does not have authority over her own body, but

What translation was that? Most translate it to "because sexual immorality is occurring".

So the author is attempting to help the people of that church avoid sexual immorality. I actually can't find your translation anywhere.

So the author isn't condemning polygamy. Instead he's telling this one church that because they're having issues with sexual immortality that maybe they should try this.

 

[VolsSportsFan]

I'm sure we'll meaning rules get abused. Has no pertinence to the discussion.

Abused? It was flat out stated in the "rules". Hard to abuse something when it's not actually abuse.

Actually it does pertain, you claim the Bible is presenting the "correct" definition of marriage. Presenting other things such as its "correct" definition of rape gives you an idea of how seriously you should even its "definitions".

 

[VolsSportsFan]

It's not a moot point. It's the point when it comes to recognized ssm.
Love? Where does the govt legislate love? I was never required to be in love to get a marriage license.

Government recognized marriage doesn't forbid or promote love.

Re Solomon l, rhen your aren't reading the rest of the story. That's called selective reading or eisegesis. Which means you don't really care about truth, just what you can proof text to support what you've already concluded. It's intellectually dishonest.

If that ain't the pot calling the kettle black.

 

[Vol8188]

I'm sure we'll meaning rules get abused. Has no pertinence to the discussion.

Lol you consider that well meaning? Shouldn't a perfect God create a perfect law?

 

[ClearwaterVol]

I'm sure we'll meaning rules get abused. Has no pertinence to the discussion.

Sure it's relevant. Many Christians take this holy than thou approach with biblical interpretation, but fail to acknowledge that for hundreds of years many biblical scholars believed in some pretty despicable stuff that they taught were supported by the bible. Now, you classify them as well meaning rules that got abused. In another 100 years which biblical rules will christians interpret differently than they do today?

 

[Roustabout]

Lol you consider that well meaning? Shouldn't a perfect God create a perfect law?

What do you mean by perfect?

 

[Vol8188]

What do you mean by perfect?

Sure the word perfect is negotiable, but there's a clear flaw with saying a husband can't legally rape his wife. I don't think it takes a perfect God to see the issue here

 

[Roustabout]

Sure it's relevant. Many Christians take this holy than thou approach with biblical interpretation, but fail to acknowledge that for hundreds of years many biblical scholars believed in some pretty despicable stuff that they taught were supported by the bible. Now, you classify them as well meaning rules that got abused. In another 100 years which biblical rules will christians interpret differently than they do today?

The consistency of the bible is monogamous marriage with husbands honoring their wives (as Christ loved the church). So, yes any husband that forcibly rapes his wife is a breaking those rules. Period. Saying that there is no right interpretation because people have different interpretations is also fallacious.

"Many" Christians do lots of stuff contrary to the truth. If my compass says North is this way and I ignore it's guidance, it doesn't change whether or not magnetic north exists.

 

[Roustabout]

Sure the word perfect is negotiable, but there's a clear flaw with saying a husband can't legally rape his wife. I don't think it takes a perfect God to see the issue here

It doesn't say a husband can legally rape his wife.

 

[Vol8188]

The consistency of the bible is monogamous marriage with husbands honoring their wives (as Christ lobed the church). So, yes any husband that forcibly rapes his wife is a business those rules. Period. Saying that there is no right interpretation because people have different interpretations is also fallacious.

"Many" Christians do lots of stuff contrary to the truth. If my compass says North is this way and I ignore it's guidance, it doesn't change whether or not magnetic north exists.

Are you saying the bible opposes polygamy?

 

[Vol8188]

It doesn't say a husband can legally rape his wife.

What's our interpretation?

 

[Roustabout]

Are you saying the bible opposes polygamy?

For today's dispensation polygamy is not supported. The bible has different rules for different peoples at different times and places, however, monogamous marriage exclusively between a man and women is supported throughout scripture.

It is also important to understand that everything recorded in the bible is not endorsed or presceibed by the bible.

 

[ClearwaterVol]

The consistency of the bible is monogamous marriage with husbands honoring their wives (as Christ lobed the church). So, yes any husband that forcibly rapes his wife is a business those rules. Period. Saying that there is no right interpretation because people have different interpretations is also fallacious.

"Many" Christians do lots of stuff contrary to the truth. If my compass says North is this way and I ignore it's guidance, it doesn't change whether or not magnetic north exists.

Widely accepted interpretations of the bible have changed as opinions of the masses have evolved. With each shift the new interpretation is promoted as always having been the true interpretation. The previously correct interpretation is disavowed and the scholars act as if it never existed. The church has not historically been a beacon of enlightenment.