what defines marriage?

[phlogistician]

yes it does say that. they made a covenant with GOD, not a priest, or a minister, or a judge about SEX, parenting, and mating. a covenant with GOD, that actually had some really specific instructions about SEX. and went on to have CHILDREN.

Got scriptural support for your claims? The BIBLE refers to Mary and Joseph as being married, but her being a Virgin.

Marriage ≠ Sex.

From your own Bible, proving you wrong.

and you think that means they did? that's ridiculous.

The Bible does not mention Jesus using the lavatory. Do you think he did? Are some things omitted, because they are so obvious, like the sun rising, that they do not need mentioning?

it's actually not even mentioned.

But it is covered by the quote that Heart provided, where Jesus specifically stated that he wasn't there to overthrow previous laws. So pre-existing laws and rituals were still in place, and did not need reproducing in the Bible. GOT IT?

along with every other possible circumstance that's omitted. what it means is, it isn't important.

No, it means it was so obvious, and normal, it didn't need detailing. Like the sun rising, and Jesus needing the lavatory. These things clearly will have taken place, but are so obvious the minutiae of daily life not expounded.

i didn't say it didn't happen. i said the bible doesn't say it happened, therefore it is unimportant...obviously.

You are back peddling now Lori. No, the Bible didn't say it happened, but it also doesn't say it didn't, like it makes many omissions, not because they are unimportant, but because they are regular, day to day occurrences. But that doesn't leave wiggle room for your assertion that marriage is about sex. You've had scriptural references to debunk your claims, and not offered any scriptural reference to support them.

as opposed to your stance "it doesn't say it didn't happen, so it did, and is important".

Like I am trying to drill into your head, the bible doesn't mention a lot of things, Jesus taking a shit. The Sun rising. Are you saying, that unless the bible states that the sun rose on a particular day, it didn't?

i think mine is more logical.

Don't invoke logic, you'll lose every time. You can't even present an argument backed up by scripture, let alone logic.

it's hard to believe you put these two statements one after the other, but look, there it is in black and white.

Unless specified otherwise, it's fair to assume they observed the customs of the day. You have no scriptural support to state they deviated. The rest, is editorialisation and selective interpretation on your part.

this is repugnant.

Why? Do you think Satan in incapable of deceiving people by telling them what they want to hear? Do you think he wouldn't lie, and misrepresent himself? Let's look at the facts, you are a sinner by your own standards, and this voice tells you to carry on. You're going to burn, Lori.

 

[Adstar]

Does the Bible actually claim they were husband and wife?

Matthew 1
20 But while he thought about these things, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying, “Joseph, son of David, do not be afraid to take to you Mary your wife, for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit.

The angel told Joseph not to worry, to take Mary as His Wife.

Luke 2
4 Joseph also went up from Galilee, out of the city of Nazareth, into Judea, to the city of David, which is called Bethlehem, because he was of the house and lineage of David, 5 to be registered with Mary, his betrothed wife,[a] who was with child.

Were there any other children apart from Jesus?

Mary had other childeren after Jesus.

Matthew 12
46 While He was still talking to the multitudes, behold, His mother and brothers stood outside, seeking to speak with Him. 47 Then one said to Him, “Look, Your mother and Your brothers are standing outside, seeking to speak with You.”
48 But He answered and said to the one who told Him, “Who is My mother and who are My brothers?” 49 And He stretched out His hand toward His disciples and said, “Here are My mother and My brothers! 50 For whoever does the will of My Father in heaven is My brother and sister and mother.”

The bible even gives His brothers names. He also had sisters.

Matthew 13
53 Now it came to pass, when Jesus had finished these parables, that He departed from there. 54 When He had come to His own country, He taught them in their synagogue, so that they were astonished and said, “Where did this Man get this wisdom and these mighty works? 55 Is this not the carpenter’s son? Is not His mother called Mary? And His brothers James, Joses, Simon, and Judas? 56 And His sisters, are they not all with us? Where then did this Man get all these things?” 57 So they were offended at Him.

If I am not mistaken, he was 90 when he took charge of his niece who was then 12 years old. Were they ever married?

I don't know where you got that information from. It is not in the Bible.


All Praise The Ancient Of Days

 

[NMSquirrel]

phlo..

one mention of someone being married without having sex is not a very solid example of how sex does not equal marriage..

i agree with lori..even if it is custom or just common knowledge at the time....to have sex meant you are married....the attitude about sex in those days warrented it..

maybe thats why poligamy (more than one wife) was so popular...


when was the first recorded marriage ceremony?
for that matter what do other cultures say about it?

 

[phlogistician]

phlo..

one mention of someone being married without having sex is not a very solid example of how sex does not equal marriage..

Yes it is. It's a PERFECT example, because the divine conception of Jesus rather hinges on this fact! It is clearly stated in your bible, there is no ambiguity.

Tell you what, you go see if you can find ONE scriptural reference that clearly states that sex = marriage. No ambiguous words like 'taking' a wife, as I have already debunked Lori on that one, as marriage vows use the phrase 'do you take' and being present tense, in a church, it does mean sex. So go on, there's your challenge, go find one clear cut example that backs up Lori's position, and provide the scriptural reference.

i agree with lori..even if it is custom or just common knowledge at the time....

The people we are talking about were Jewish. A religion established over 1,000 years before Jesus was born. You are saying that despite the fact that the bible mentions Jesus reading scripture in a synagogue, his parents abandoned all religious ceremony and just shacked up? They didn't even get a blessing from a Rabbi?

to have sex meant you are married....the attitude about sex in those days warrented it..

Got scriptural support for that statement?

maybe thats why poligamy (more than one wife) was so popular...

That's not how you spell it, and it wasn't that popular. It was benefit afforded by the rich only. Doesn't make your point either way.

when was the first recorded marriage ceremony?

Nearly 600 years before Jesus was born. So the Jewish wedding traditions were well established by the time Joseph and Mary were wed.

for that matter what do other cultures say about it?

We are talking about Abrahamic traditions here. Which other cultures do you want to divert this discussion to?

 

[Lori_7]

you just said it phlog, it's a tradition. i contend that tradition and law are not the same thing.

the law says that you do not have sex outside of marriage. the covenant is about mating. and who makes this law? is it a priest or is it god? and who are you making the covenant with? is it a priest or is it god?

you don't believe that god exists, so you equate god with religion. but i contend that god is not religion; god is an entity. and that religious ceremonies such as weddings and baptisms are nothing more than ritualistic representations of something real, and that the REAL things are what matter. perhaps their importance is why the ritual is celebrated? but if the ritual is taking the place of these real things, then their importance are diminished, if not discarded.

 

[NMSquirrel]

Yes it is. It's a PERFECT example, because the divine conception of Jesus rather hinges on this fact! It is clearly stated in your bible, there is no ambiguity.

that they got married before they had sex..
i am not saying they had to have sex to be married..
i am not suggesting sex takes place instead of a ceremony..
i am saying that there were circumstances where a ceremony could not be done,and both parties accepted that if they had sex they would be consider married.

Got scriptural support for that statement?

i don't think this subject can be tied to just religion..

 

[phlogistician]

you just said it phlog, it's a tradition. i contend that tradition and law are not the same thing.

Then you should have no problem providing scriptural support for your assertions, should you?

Ah, but you can't.

How do traditions come about btw? Ah, by people following rules, and religious laws and doctrines, until they become ingrained as traditions. So your point is NOT made, that traditions are not the same thing, as they often are!

the law says that you do not have sex outside of marriage. the covenant is about mating. and who makes this law? is it a priest or is it god? and who are you making the covenant with? is it a priest or is it god?

Instead of asking questions, why don't you go find some scriptural support for your arguments?

We've provided passages from your bible that prove you wrong. All you have to do is find one non-ambiguous quote to even the score. Seems you can't, because well, you can't. All we are hearing here Lori, is your opinion. An opinion arrived at for your convenience.

you don't believe that god exists, so you equate god with religion. but i contend that god is not religion;

HOW MANY TIMES? Believing in god is religion. You believe in God = you are religious. I'm not attributing anything to God, because as you have noticed I AM AN ATHEIST. You continually try to draw this debate, and FAIL.

religious ceremonies such as weddings and baptisms are nothing more than ritualistic representations of something real, and that the REAL things are what matter. perhaps their importance is why the ritual is celebrated? but if the ritual is taking the place of these real things, then their importance are diminished, if not discarded.

Got scriptural support for that opinion?

Seems a lot of Vicars and Priests disagree with you Lori. They seem to think that standing in Church, and making vows before God count or something. You seem to think it's all about the fucking afterwards. You are wrong. Scripture has proven you wrong. Satan is inside you, Lori.

 

[phlogistician]

i am saying that there were circumstances where a ceremony could not be done,and both parties accepted that if they had sex they would be consider married.

Exceptions to the rule, are just that.

i don't think this subject can be tied to just religion..

Given this is topic is in the religion section, I think the only part we are considering are the religious aspects.

 

[NMSquirrel]

Given this is topic is in the religion section, I think the only part we are considering are the religious aspects.

what is your point again phlo?

 

[phlogistician]

what is your point again phlo?

Re-read the thread if you've lost the plot.

 

[sifreak21]

in the bible, marriage is described as a communion between a man and a woman, described as "the two become one in the flesh". it is a covenant between the man, woman, and god. and that covenant is consummated, and even defined by sexual intercourse. the laws regarding marriage in the bible are driven by, and centered around, mating.

iv never read the bible lori.. but does the bible specifically state man and woman or does it state a communion between 2 people..

because weather you like it or not marriage has ben around centeries before religion or god. you see it everywhere in the animal kingdom

 

[Lori_7]

iv never read the bible lori.. but does the bible specifically state man and woman or does it state a communion between 2 people..

because weather you like it or not marriage has ben around centeries before religion or god. you see it everywhere in the animal kingdom

mating...yes.

the bible talks about men and women specifically in regards to marriage, exception being the marriage and communion of christ and his bride (the church).

 

[phlogistician]

iv never read the bible lori..

If you do ever choose to pick up a book, make it a dictionary.

 

[phlogistician]

mating...yes.

the bible talks about men and women specifically in regards to marriage, exception being the marriage and communion of christ and his bride (the church).

It also specifies that Mary and Joseph were married, and she was a virgin, totally negating ALL your points wrt marriage being sex.

You've been defeated. Accept this.

 

[Lori_7]

It also specifies that Mary and Joseph were married, and she was a virgin, totally negating ALL your points wrt marriage being sex.

You've been defeated. Accept this.

you're so full of shit phlog, really. your entire argument is based on repugnance, so you can create the opportunity to say, "you sinner! you're gonna burn! blah, blah, blah...".

YOU don't believe that a religious ceremony is necessary to make a commitment to someone or something any more than i do. if you did, you'd be a fucking idiot.

NOWHERE in the bible does it say that you need a priest, or a vicar, or a ceremony, to make a covenant with god and/or another human being. NONE of the laws regarding marriage in the bible mention priests, or vicars, or ceremonies. they are ALL in regards to SEX and MATING.

YOU lose, and you always will lose, as long as your intentions suck.

 

[river-wind]

NOWHERE in the bible does it say that you need a priest, or a vicar, or a ceremony, to make a covenant with god and/or another human being.

Agreed. Much of the ceremony surrounding weddings and really any christian ceremony outside of the communion are not included in the bible.

Are the rules of the ceremony surrounding Hanukkah laid out in the Bible? Does that mean that they didn't happen back in Jesus' time?

 

[phlogistician]

NOWHERE in the bible does it say that you need a priest, or a vicar, or a ceremony, to make a covenant with god and/or another human being. NONE of the laws regarding marriage in the bible mention priests, or vicars, or ceremonies. they are ALL in regards to SEX and MATING.

And yet YOU UTTERLY FAIL TO PRODUCE JUST ONE SCRIPTURAL REFERENCE. Nowhere in the bible does it state that you don't need Vicars or Priests either!

On Priests or Vicars, John 14:6: 'nobody comes to the father but through me'.

Vicar: 'In the broadest sense, a vicar (pronounced /ˈvɪkər/; from the Latin vicarius) is a representative, anyone acting "in the person of" or agent for a superior.' (wikipedia)

Jesus was God's Vicar. People experienced God 'vicariously' through Jesus. Modern Vicars are emulating Jesus by being God's representative.

YOU don't believe that a religious ceremony is necessary to make a commitment to someone or something any more than i do. if you did, you'd be a fucking idiot.

Well, I don't believe a 'religious' ceremony means anything, of course, because I am an atheist, DUH! You don't believe it because it's an inconvenience to you. In fact, it doesn't suit your lifestyle.

But historically, it's clear people more versed in the Bible, the Torah, and the Talmud than you, real theists, do think ritual is important. Here's one ritual specified by your God himself;

"Remember the Sabbath day and keep it holy."

God told his followers not to work on Sundays. That's a ritual, right there.

Again, scripture proves you WRONG.
Again, you utterly fail to provide anything but OPINION to justify your sin and hedonism.

See Lori, Jesus said to that woman that the man she was with was't her husband, because she was still married to the first guy she had sex with. Same goes for you. The man you are with now isn't your husband in God's eyes. I know this is an inconvenient idea for you, and the knowledge of it clearly eats away at you, because you have to concoct such elaborate mechanisms to absolve yourself of your continuing sin. But you aren't absolved, are you?

 

[phlogistician]

Agreed. Much of the ceremony surrounding weddings and really any christian ceremony outside of the communion are not included in the bible.

The important part that is in the bible has already been quoted in this thread, here.

"Matthew 5:17-20
"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets;"

So Jesus, being Jewish, is clearly stating all existing laws, rituals and ceremonies already laid down in scripture, are still applicable. These things therefore do not need repeating in the Bible. Lori saying things are not specified in the Bible, and therefore not important is erroneous, therefore.

Scripture proves her WRONG.

Are the rules of the ceremony surrounding Hanukkah laid out in the Bible? Does that mean that they didn't happen back in Jesus' time?

Of course not. Again proving Lori wrong. The oldest known documentation for a Jewish wedding ceremony predates Jesus by some 600 years.

Lori is simply wrong in her narrow interpretation of her bible. Hell, if she'd even read just her bible, let alone some of the other works that put it in context she'd know she was wrong.

 

[(Q)]

you're so full of shit phlog, really.

YOU lose, and you always will lose, as long as your intentions suck.

I would like to point out that this is yet the strongest argument Lori has ever offered. LOL!

 

[phlogistician]

I would like to point out that this is yet the strongest argument Lori has ever offered. LOL!

It's a quote from 'The Word According to Lori.'

The first chapters are full of begatting, just like the real Bible, btw. Just a longer list.