What Does the Bible Actually Say About Marriage?

I agree with you completely, Par. Just as I believe that those who wish to partake in sexual relations before marriage (of course I have to qualify this as being between two consenting adults for some on the Vine) have the right to do so without prejudice...

Grisham, in my studies about religion I have come across many references to Paul's hatred of women, so as a woman why would I consider following anything he has written. That would be kind of dumb on my part.

Grisham, in my studies about religion I have come across many references to Paul's hatred of women

Like the Book of Mary when Jesus takes her aside. When she comes back Paul asks her what Jesus said. She tells him and he dismisses it saying something along the lines of, "Why would he tell you. You're just a woman.'

I have found it amusing at how some have tried to re-word his words so they do not appear so hateful, but as I read his words (weekly - I was Catholic) I found myself feeling more and more insulted and no amount of "interpretation" by others could sway me. I have a brain and find that my interpretation of his words to be full of hate towards women.

Grisham, in my studies about religion I have come across many references to Paul's hatred of women, so as a woman why would I consider following anything he has written.

Too many Christians fail to realize that Paul never met Jesus and had extremely limited knowledge on the life of Jesus. Absolutely everything Paul writes of Jesus must be questioned.

Too many Christians fail to realize that Paul never met Jesus and had extremely limited knowledge on the life of Jesus. Absolutely everything Paul writes of Jesus must be questioned.

True. They can get around that road block by simply saying Paul was inspired by God or the Holy Spirit.

C'mon, folks... let's try to avoid anachronism.

Women weren't quite "people" in the year zero. They were as close to "chattel" as they were to people, at least as far as legal rights were concerned. Jesus seems to have been more open than most men... but his Disciples included no women...

Paul's dismissal needn't be taken as a sign of personal misogyny. It was more-or-less the standard of the time.

Jesus seems to have been more open than most men... but his Disciples included no women...

That is arguable. More likely, the feminine presence around Jesus was scrubbed\deleted by Church elders.

Not to mention that at the time of Jesus an unmarried man in his thirties would have been considered odd...

We have found that many, if not all, of the priest and Levites were of either the Pharisees Sect, or the Sadducees Sect, at the time of Jesus. And yet, there were many of both Sects that were not either priests or Levites. There were even women who were Pharisees.

You'd have to prove that "more likely". It would be a tough row to hoe, from zero women to "parity". I realize that modern folks are very much disturbed by the idea that Jesus might have presumed that women were inferior to men... but that is because most people do not really accept that He was a man, born and raised in a village in a solidly patriarchal society.

If we imagine Jesus as a man of his times... then even the limited feminine presence in the New Testament makes Him something of a women's libber!

You'd have to prove that "more likely". It would be a tough row to hoe, from zero women to "parity".

No one said "parity".

Read the Gnostic Gospels...which were not included in the NT.

The Women Around Jesus

The above book covers the topic extensively.

So we agree! Wonderful.

I agree that there are some valuable insights within the Bible. Even some historical ones. I just don't understand why people would want to base their laws on what is found in the Bible.

How about from this perspective? The Bible was written based on the laws existing at the time. Law has always been a precedent affair.

Good point Oldfogey. The problem is that while laws are based somewhat on precedence, they can change. For example, slavery is no longer legal. However, religious laws don't change. You have a book, it tells you what is morally right (with the weight of a supreme being behind it) and that's what you follow.

See what I'm saying?

When this happens, you have huge discrepancies. For example, a lot of people base their moral stance on homosexuality on the Bible. That moral stance equates to bigotry against homosexuals. If people continue to follow the Bible and what it says completely, that will never change.

The only thing religion can do in the face of a majority realizing that these types of laws are unjust is to cherry pick good passages. Like when Jesus says Love thy neighbour. Sure, that's a great passage and most of us can get behind it, but beneath some of the good lessons, there are archaic laws and bigotry that a modern society doesn't need.

Is the Bible completely useless? I'd say no. If people want to be religious and it brings them peace and inspires them to be better people, that's cool. As long as it stays with them. When it starts to effect laws and other people, that's when the problems begin for me.

Me too!

However, religious laws don't change.

That's a bit too general, I think. While I agree that religions resist change, and that immobilism can lead to anachronistic absurdities that are downright anti-social... the problem is not universal.

• Remember fish-less Fridays? And Mass in Latin?
• Do your Jewish friends keep kosher strictly, less strictly, or not at all? Sabbath?
• What ever happened to the Puritans?

There are two sorts of religious laws:
- social or sanitary rules integrated into the religion
- purely religious rules, fixations on the deity

There's no need for the latter to ever be challenged. They have no basis in the mundane world, so changes in the mundane world are irrelevant. Once a ritual -- let's say extreme unction -- has been defined, it is permanent. Except for heretics, of course, but that's a different subject! ;-))

The former, however, need to be challenged as soon as the mundane basis changes. Dietary laws against consuming pork are a very good thing as long as trichinosis is endemic in the porcine population. When pork becomes just as healthy as any other meat, the rule should be examined. There are two possibilities: abrogation, or transfer to the "purely religious" category. Some Jews do not eat pork, others do, depending on how they handle that shift.

How well an organized religion handles this correlation between sanitary/social rules and an evolving world is, I think, a determining factor in its relevance. Fundamentalists, of all stripes, do not do well. As their incoherence becomes more blatant over time, they must become more strident in order to prevent their adherents from straying. This is true of both Christian fundamentalists and Muslim fundamentalists.

Sounds about right! ;-))))