wbt5845 said:
Gotta admit I'm intrigued....
Beer Baron said:
I can't imagine having the spare time or energy to worry so much about who random people somewhere in the world want to marry.
Seamaster said:
http://www.unilad.co.uk/life/identical-twins-announce-theyre-getting-married-to-the-same-guy/
Are there any limits to what constitutes a true marriage?
Not only that, I bet he's very against people having plural marriages when their religions consider such arrangements to be a "holy sacrament" or whatever for them. Freedom of religion only applies to some.AstroAg17 said:
You don't seem to have an issue with me marrying a woman, and I don't care about the religious aspect at all. I don't pretend to know everything about sacraments but I don't think they're supposed to be offered to heathens. Are you equally upset about my impending marriage, and the marriage of believers of other faiths? I doubt it.
But why do the civil and religious definitions of marriage need to be the same? Let the state define it however they wish. It doesn't require the church redefine anything. Now, if they state starts forcing churches to subscribe to the state's definition, then we have a problem.letters at random said:Beer Baron said:
I can't imagine having the spare time or energy to worry so much about who random people somewhere in the world want to marry.
I know, right. Cause marriage has only been understood for 1500 years in the western world as a holy sacrament. Why do these whiny religious people get so up in arms about total strangers reinventing the nature of the institution of marriage? What losers.
AstroAg17 said:
They kind of look like the troll dolls to me. Their faces, I mean.
AstroAg17 said:
They kind of look like the troll dolls to me. Their faces, I mean.
Seamaster said:
http://www.unilad.co.uk/life/identical-twins-announce-theyre-getting-married-to-the-same-guy/
Are there any limits to what constitutes a true marriage?
AstroAg17 said:
1) This law was primarily about keeping abandoned women from starving to death or being sold into slavery. I would say that the way that our cultures protect women now compared to 5000 years ago kind of makes this thing obsolete.kurt vonnegut said:Seamaster said:
http://www.unilad.co.uk/life/identical-twins-announce-theyre-getting-married-to-the-same-guy/
Are there any limits to what constitutes a true marriage?
At the risk of being accused of one of those atheists who misrepresent how Christians deal with OT morality. . . What if one of the twins was married to the guy's brother, and then the guy's brother dies? Would this allow one guy to marry twins via Deut. 25:5?
Quote:
1) This law was primarily about keeping abandoned women from starving to death or being sold into slavery. I would say that the way that our cultures protect women now compared to 5000 years ago kind of makes this thing obsolete.
Women in ancient Canaan were little more than property. They could not own land. Without some sort of male patron, a woman was extremely vulnerable. Jewish law did a lot to protect the stranger, the orphan and the widow. In these times, marrying a widow was one way to protect her from destitution.kurt vonnegut said:Quote:
1) This law was primarily about keeping abandoned women from starving to death or being sold into slavery. I would say that the way that our cultures protect women now compared to 5000 years ago kind of makes this thing obsolete.
I went and re-read some Deuteronomy near and around 25 : 5-10. I'm no scholar and maybe I'm missing something, but I don't see protection of the woman as being any part of the intention of this passage. It seems to be explicitly about continuation of family lines.
letters at random said:
Folks marrying themselves now...
http://www.goodhousekeeping.com/life/relationships/a42034/marrying-yourself-wedding-trend/
letters at random said:
Folks marrying themselves now...
http://www.goodhousekeeping.com/life/relationships/a42034/marrying-yourself-wedding-trend/
Yeah, kind of an esoteric point. More interesting as a way to learn about the culture at the time. Women were treated like crap, pretty much, during that time period.kurt vonnegut said:
I don't disagree with much of what you wrote above, but I still have trouble seeing the link between the passage and an explicit intention to protect the woman.
The expectation is clearly that the widow and the brother in law are to sleep together and have children. I don't see this as a commandment for her protection. In verses 8 and 9, it talks about what is to be done with a man who does not marry his sister in law and instructs the elders to tell him: ". . . This is what is done to the man who will not build up his brother's family line." . . . He isn't admonished for not protecting the woman, but for not extending his brother's blood line.
I didn't mean to go this far down this path. . . . frankly, I think its a good thing if you believe that God wishes for women to be protected and not treated like chattel.
