Marriage

Dec. 13th, 2004 05:34 pm
woodface: (stir)
[personal profile] woodface
Found this remark somewhere on lj: "Marriage is defined by God, not by Man."

I really suggest that said persons who use this type of banner look up the actual history of marriage (which I should do myself too). Sure, church made it their own but marriage is not something typical to christianity. The evolutions in marriage in christianity have shifted as well. I think this is very much a thing made by man and not by god.

Yes, I'm still here and kinda too nervous to do anything. EEEEEEEEEEEE!

Date: 2004-12-13 05:43 pm (UTC)
ext_5608: (blonde)
From: [identity profile] wiliqueen.livejournal.com
Alas, that's an argument that's not going to be resolved any time soon. :-/ For those to whom the Bible is the final authority on all matters, the history you're talking about doesn't mean much -- by definition it would have to follow from the creation of Adam and Eve as husband and wife.

That said, an excellent puzzle piece for your research:
The Knight, The Lady, and the Priest: The Making of Modern Marriage in Medieval France. Doesn't go all the way back, but explains a LOT about how and why the institution of marriage as we now know it in the Western world came to be.

Date: 2004-12-13 05:59 pm (UTC)
ext_5608: (blonde)
From: [identity profile] wiliqueen.livejournal.com
Heh, Georges Duby. Should have known.

I'm pretty sure that's the only thing I've read by him, so now I'm curious why you should have known. :-)

Try as I might I will never be able to fully understand people who chose to disregard history and science for faith. I can try to respect it, I will just never understand it.

It helps to think of it as looking at them in the framework of, rather than disregarding them. That gets me part of the way there, anyway -- it doesn't hurt to look at a different conclusion drawn from the same data, and there are people drawing actual conclusions from the data, not just saying "No, no, no, 'cause the Bible doesn't say it's so."

It's not 100%, because it still comes back down to the Bible as base assumption of fact. But it does help with the understanding.

Date: 2004-12-13 07:22 pm (UTC)
ext_5608: (blonde)
From: [identity profile] wiliqueen.livejournal.com
This is like the big bad no no they teach you at university.

True enough. But remembering that they're looking at the Bible as fact can get us from "respect" to "understand." (Just not to "agree." *wry g*)

Date: 2004-12-13 06:03 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] liminalliz.livejournal.com
Marriage goes back pre-bible, though, with the ancient mythologies and such where marriage continues to be a matter of political motivation and continuing the species and to keep "beast-like" over-sexing away from "good civilization" (if you're married, you are somewhat supposed to only sleep with that person, but you can certainly mess around with others just not to the point of "I sex everyone I meet").

Date: 2004-12-13 07:30 pm (UTC)
ext_5608: (blonde)
From: [identity profile] wiliqueen.livejournal.com
Marriage goes back pre-bible,

Yes, but for someone who takes it as literal fact, it's not possible for anything to go back pre-Genesis, in the sense of nothing can have happened before the events described there. And if one of the first events described there involving human beings in any way is a marriage, and it's pretty much described as "hey, let's make this smart critter and then make him a wife," well, that constitutes God making marriage.

I'm so not saying I agree with that view. But understanding it isn't as hard as we sometimes think.

Profile

woodface: (Default)
woodface

July 2011

S M T W T F S
     12
3456789
10111213141516
17181920212223
24252627 282930
31      

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated May. 7th, 2026 10:49 pm
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios