Marriage Contracts

[InfiniteNow]

Yes, but in Biblical times...

 

Oh my... in "biblical times?" :confused:

 

... slaves did have a lot of benefits.

 

Yes, and I'm sure if you asked any one of them, the first thing they'd tell you about their experience would be all of the benefits they had. :confused: In much the same way that a caged beast forgets what freedom is and gives up trying to escape.

[cwes99_03]

Reread the post there infinitenow.

 

That slave chose to have his ear pierced to become a permanent slave. He would do this because he was well treated.

 

Just because others have made adjustments which made things worse does not mean that the original (or a much earlier version) concept was a bad thing. Thus the earlier way of treating each mate within a marrital arrangement was better than the 19th century view of a woman in a marriage just like the earlier way of treating a slave was much better than the 19th century American way.

 

You show that you know nothing of Biblical slavery requirements with your comment, but that you like to attack the post simply because it suggests that the Biblical way was better.

[CraigD]

My intention in post #50 was not to suggest that marriage, or any other social institution, was better or worse at any given time and place in history than it is now in the US, but that it is sufficiently different that only it’s of only limited value to compare the marriage traditions of the past to those of the present. The social, economic, and aesthetic circumstances of my and my wife’s marriage are very different from those that 12th century BC Hebrew farmers of “Biblical times”.

 

A tenet of my personal “religion”, a version of Secular Humanism, is that most people at most times honestly try to make their lives and the lives of the people around them as good as possible. I believe this was true for 12th century BC Hebrew farmers, and is true for me, my wife, and nearly all the members of hypography now. It’s no more helpful to me to adopt the husband-as-absolute-ruler-of-household approach to marriage that worked for 12th century BC Hebrew farmers than it would be for those farmers to have adopted an equivalent of the 13th amendment to the US constitution abolishing slavery.

 

At issue in many debates of the relative virtues of “old fashioned” and “new fashioned” marriage is the idea that, in the same way that male and female genitalia and their roles in reproduction are obviously different, their roles in terms of authority in marriage should be different – that the husband should be master, the wife, servant. I don’t believe this to be correct now with most people in most countries. With the growth of mechanized and informational industry, the worth of the labor of men and women has become nearly equal, while an increased reliance on formal rules of law rather than intimidation and personal combat to settle disputes has made men and women nearly equal in important contests.

 

That men and women have more equal roles is marriage does not, I believe, reduce the value or importance of the marriage contract. It does, however, change it, an ongoing process of change that shows no sign abating in the foreseeable future. Like people of Biblical times, we are challenged to use our hearts and minds – including an accurate and objective knowledge of history - to make all of our contracts work as well as possible.

[cwes99_03]

I think that is an acceptable bit of information. I still will adhere to the biblical advice with my own personal relationships, but I can see the logic in your thinking that at least the need for roles of a man and woman have changed a bit due to technology.

 

I do not however see how that changes the marriage contract. The marriage contract I spoke of all along is that both parties (the husband and the wife) agree to remain faithful to each other and work out their differences for the rest of the other's life, regardless of how hard or long that may be.

 

I will stipulate that in the case of attempted murder, or serious physical or other type of abuse that a separation or divorce may be needed, but if so, then the guilty party should also be charged with a crime. This is in my mind in keeping with the Biblical tradition, as such a crime would likely result in death of the guilty party thus freeing the innocent party from the marriage.

 

Craig, would you agree that people jump into and out of relationships with too much ease and treat the above thought as completely laughable today? Would you also agree that 3500 years ago they did not have these problems (at least according to the history that we have recorded of those times)?

[InfiniteNow]

Thus the earlier way of treating each mate within a marrital arrangement was better than the 19th century view of a woman in a marriage just like the earlier way of treating a slave was much better than the 19th century American way.

It's still not a good way, regardless of it being better than one historic period.

 

you like to attack the post simply because it suggests that the Biblical way was better.

At least I was being clear. :cup:

 

 

would you agree that people jump into and out of relationships with too much ease and treat the above thought as completely laughable today?

 

I agree with the laughable part, but not the too much ease part. We are acting on millions of years of evolution in a modern over crowded society. Your question is implying something which I believe to be silly. Not that you are silly, nor your question, simply my perception of what it implies... which is analogous to:

 

[infiniteNow Paraphrasing]3500 years ago, everyone ate one kind of vegetable. Now, they have a huge selection and sometimes change taste preferences, treating the old way of eating one thing laughable because of how easy it is go choose different vegetables today.[/Paraphrasing]

[cwes99_03]

I don't agree with the analogy, for two basic reasons.

1) food choice and marrital choice are completely different, one deals purely with a physical need, where the other deals with a great number of physical, emotional, psychological, etc. things. There of course is a nutritional need to food and usually this requires a variety of foods. During those times certain food was prohibited by law and science can show that there was good need for that (as pork and other foodstuffs are more prone to causing human sickness if not properly taken care of). Of course that was not the only reason for these laws as they also reflected obedience to their God.

2) Changing taste preferences does not hurt anyone else or cause problems with society. Divorce is a major problem with society.

 

You attribute the commonality of divorce today to evolution. To me this is laughable. Evolutionists say that changes come about because they are necessary and that only those changes which bring about an improvement are successful. Would you say that divorce has improved the status of society, or would you agree it is part of the serious decline being felt today.

 

I guess you would say there is no decline only change, but we all know you would be wrong. Society is suffering from more problems today (past 100 years) than in all of human history. Major disease is cropping up that even the most modern of medicine can't keep up with, and people thought that modern medicine would solve all of man's health problems, even death.

 

Crime, war, poverty, famine, natural disasters all hurt people every second of every day. Are these only because the population has increased (thus what you attribute as the cause of an evolutionary change)? No, because these things happen from the most rural parts of the world to the most populated parts.

 

While these problems have fluctuated throughout the past millenia, we are supposed to be more advanced than at any other time in history, and yet today the situation is much worse.

 

You laugh, but I disagree with your idea of what makes things better. You can't wrap your mind around someone willingly becoming a slave because you can't separate your unwillingness to give up aspects of your freedom for health, peace, security, family (all truely wonderful benefits of life.)

 

It is that same attitude that you are unwilling to separate with that causes these problems in society and in marriage. Why are some people unwilling to be married, but willing to live together? Because they don't want something binding them from changing their mind. Because they are truly unwilling to show love and work things out. People today are in a pitiable state.

[InfiniteNow]

1) food choice and marrital choice are completely different, one deals purely with a physical need, where the other deals with a great number of physical, emotional, psychological, etc. things.

Can you define "things" in this context?

 

 

2) Changing taste preferences does not hurt anyone else or cause problems with society. Divorce is a major problem with society.

I disagree. How do you support your claim that society is negatively impacted by divorce? Be careful with your explanation, because you're bound to make multiple generalizations and fail to recognize that divorce itself is not the root cause.

 

 

You attribute the commonality of divorce today to evolution.

Actually, no. I attribute the desire for variety to evolution.

 

 

Evolutionists say that changes come about because they are necessary and that only those changes which bring about an improvement are successful.

Again, not quite. {Speaking of biological evolution, or more appropriately, natural selection} Certain mutations happen randomly, and occasionally those mutations are beneficial and occasionally detrimental. Those that are detrimental fail to get passed on to offspring, those beneficial tend to increase the chances of survival and furtherance of the offspring, all with respect to the circumstances of the environment.

 

Would you say that divorce has improved the status of society,

No, and that's not to imply it's been a negative impact either.

 

would you agree it is part of the serious decline being felt today.

It's a factor applicable to the lives of many, but only peripherally a part of this decline about which you speak... which itself is subjective and open for interpretation.

 

 

I guess you would say there is no decline only change, but we all know you would be wrong.

First I want to ask, how's that?

Then, I want to clarify that I wouldn't say that either. Decline has to be relative to something, and all somethings are relative to the perception of the observer. What one sees as decline another sees as advantage. You seem to be taking the stance that the decline is absolute and is true, and that's one place where your argument fails you.

 

 

Society is suffering from more problems today (past 100 years) than in all of human history.

In your opinion... sure. Tell me, what exactly was your life like in the rest of human history? I'm sure divorce is WAY more impactful than our hunter gatherer ancestors who had to fight to survive the day and find food and water. Certainly that was way less problematic than humans changing their mind and deciding to end their religiofinancial contracted bond with another human. It's your opinion. Nothing more.

 

 

Major disease is cropping up that even the most modern of medicine can't keep up with, and people thought that modern medicine would solve all of man's health problems, even death.

Are you seriously suggesting that divorce has been an obstacle to the advancement of medicine? Come on.

 

Crime, war, poverty, famine, natural disasters all hurt people every second of every day.

Yep, and these are more important than divorce too.

 

Are these only because the population has increased (thus what you attribute as the cause of an evolutionary change)?

What?

 

Population decrease is an evolutionary change too. What exactly is your point my rantastic friend?

 

No, because these things happen from the most rural parts of the world to the most populated parts.

 

Is divorce a big problem in the Belgian Congo too?

 

While these problems have fluctuated throughout the past millenia, we are supposed to be more advanced than at any other time in history, and yet today the situation is much worse.

 

It's a completely different environment, the contextual factors are vastly different, and you're comparing apples with oranges. Plus, the concept of "worse" is relative, subjective, and you are framing it very narrowly.

 

 

You laugh, but I disagree with your idea of what makes things better.

Please, do tell... what's my idea of what makes things better?

 

You can't wrap your mind around someone willingly becoming a slave because you can't separate your unwillingness to give up aspects of your freedom for health, peace, security, family (all truely wonderful benefits of life.)

You're absolutely right. I cannot fathom why someone would willingly become a slave. Not so sure about the reason you proposed, but enslaving oneself goes against those ideas I have about what makes things better.

 

It is that same attitude that you are unwilling to separate with that causes these problems in society and in marriage.

Opinion, but I'll give you credit for so fully going tangential there and trying to come back to your original point before closing.

 

Why are some people unwilling to be married, but willing to live together?

Perhaps they feel the concept of a forced contract with a state or church to be irreverent and distasteful to the sincerity of the feelings they have for one another as adults, feelings which are subject to change. I'm sure there are scores of other possibilities, that's just one that resonates with me.

 

Because they don't want something binding them from changing their mind. Because they are truly unwilling to show love and work things out. People today are in a pitiable state.

Oh... It appears you'd answered your own question there. Wow.... Now if only we could fix this whole divorce thing and get people to stop polluting the earth and shooting one another, but clearly, divorce should be eliminated first.

[cwes99_03]

Now if only we could fix this whole divorce thing and get people to stop polluting the earth and shooting one another, but clearly, divorce should be eliminated first.

 

Well, if instead of reading one bit of a post and replying to it, you read a whole post and used a tool called understanding (the ability to see the whole picture and how different parts relate) you would understand the rest which you consider tangential. But let me help you.

 

All these things are connected to that one last comment. The lack of true love for fellow human beings. If you truly loved someone, you would be willing to bind yourself in marriage to another and maintain that status regardless of the hardships, even possibly infidelity, though I must admit this is seriously trying, and if both partners are not into making it work, then it is doomed to failure (and a contract involves two or more).

 

You say, you can truly love someone without the religio/financial/governmental contract tieing you down. Perhaps, but how is anyone else ever to know that you've made such a commitment. You say "because I say so". Then say so under oath and put it to paper.

(LADIES AND GENTS, GET IT IN WRITING.)

Isn't that what you were always taught when someone made a promise? If you put it in writing then what is the problem with having it approved according to the laws of the land?

 

The question of this thread was in part, are the laws of the land sufficiently making people live up to their contracts. I say in the US, no. I say in the majority of the world, no. At least not to the contract of for life that I am speaking of, which is what marriage is supposed to be.

[cwes99_03]

You attribute the commonality of divorce today to evolution.

Actually, no. I attribute the desire for variety to evolution.

 

Evolutionists say that changes come about because they are necessary and that only those changes which bring about an improvement are successful.

 

Again, not quite. {Speaking of biological evolution, or more appropriately, natural selection} Certain mutations happen randomly, and occasionally those mutations are beneficial and occasionally detrimental. Those that are detrimental fail to get passed on to offspring, those beneficial tend to increase the chances of survival and furtherance of the offspring, all with respect to the circumstances of the environment.

 

1) Would you attribute the desire for variety with the commonality of divorce? Carefully consider that. Connected with the lack of love already mentioned is the desire to change one's mind (or the desire to have greater variety). Does that not then attribute the commonality of divorce today to evolution?

 

2) "Certain mutations happen randomly, and occasionally those mutations are beneficial and occasionally detrimental." I don't disagree that mutations occur randomly. However, evolutionists don't call them mutations, they call it microevolution, and microevolution is not random according to theory, but causal (radiation being one of those causes). Evolutionary theory is causal, or else it would not be scientific. There has to be a cause for the effect of evolving.

 

3) "occasionally those mutations are beneficial and occasionally detrimental. Those that are detrimental fail to get passed on to offspring, those beneficial tend to increase the chances of survival and furtherance of the offspring, all with respect to the circumstances of the environment." How is this different than the much simpler "only those changes which bring about an improvement are successful"? Care to explain the nuances of why you thought I was wrong?

 

Well maybe on another thread, but maybe it has something to do with this whole thought of what is wrong with society, since you brought evolution into it in the first place.

[InfiniteNow]

The lack of true love for fellow human beings. If you truly loved someone, you would be willing to bind yourself in marriage to another and maintain that status regardless of the hardships, even possibly infidelity,

Well, maybe you would do this, but others choose not to. It's incredibly ridiculous to me that you claim the only appropriate representation of true love is to bind yourself to a person through marriage.

 

True love itself is a bond. It's so much more than the absurd notion of a marriage. But, that's just my opinion.

 

You say, you can truly love someone without the religio/financial/governmental contract tieing you down. Perhaps, but how is anyone else ever to know that you've made such a commitment. You say "because I say so". Then say so under oath and put it to paper.

(LADIES AND GENTS, GET IT IN WRITING.)

When did I say this? Maybe I did, but I surely don't recall.

 

Were you recently burned by a divorce or something? You've got a serious axe to grind.

 

I don't disagree that mutations occur randomly. However, evolutionists don't call them mutations, they call it microevolution, and microevolution is not random according to theory, but causal (radiation being one of those causes).

Wow... all of them, huh? Talk about an improper generalization.

 

 

Evolutionary theory is causal, or else it would not be scientific.

Causality is not a key attribute of a scientific theory. See Bell's theorem for example.

 

How is this different than the much simpler "only those changes which bring about an improvement are successful"? Care to explain the nuances of why you thought I was wrong?

I can approach this two ways. 1) not all improvements are successful, and 2) not all disadvantages or degradations are unsuccessful. Hence, the clarification.

 

 

Cheers. Bitterness is unbecoming. :)

[CraigD]

Craig, would you agree that people jump into and out of relationships with too much ease and treat the above thought as completely laughable today?

I can’t with reasonable certainty answer this question with a definite yes or no. While people who have many short relationships each year seem to me too casual, I know many people who formed happy, long-lasting relationships only after several prior failed attempts. The few people I know who have had only one or two relationships in their entire lives strike me as less happy, healthy, and morally upright than people I know who have had a moderate number of failed relationships. These observations are merely anecdotal, though - I know too few people in these categories to make statistically valid inferences.

 

I do feel that the “key” to a successful marriage is dedication by both spouses to both refuse to abandon the marriage during difficult times, while at the same time refusing to accept prolonged unhappiness in it. Both spouses must be willing to work hard to overcome difficulties, even when the alternative of parting seems an easier and mutually happier course.

Would you also agree that 3500 years ago they did not have these problems (at least according to the history that we have recorded of those times)?

It’s seems obvious to me that people 3500 years ago lacked many of the problems we have today, and had many that we lack.

 

3500 years ago is the “Late Bronze Age”. Although a definitive estimate of life LBA human life expectancy is hard to make, source such as the wikipedia article “life expectancy” put it at 18 years. Assuming marriage at 13, this makes the average length of marriage 5 years, slightly less than the current than the current average of 7-8 years for marriage that end in divorce (according to http://www.onlinelawyersource.com/divorce/family-law/rates/index.html).

 

It seems like to me that for people 3500 years ago, short life expectancy made it impractical to have many sexual relationships, and still have a reasonable expectation of having children who survive to adulthood.

[cwes99_03]

3500 years ago is the “Late Bronze Age”. Although a definitive estimate of life LBA human life expectancy is hard to make, source such as the wikipedia article “life expectancy” put it at 18 years. Assuming marriage at 13, this makes the average length of marriage 5 years, slightly less than the current than the current average of 7-8 years for marriage that end in divorce (according to http://www.onlinelawyersource.com/di...tes/index.html).

 

18 huh, wow, people better start showing all the Egyptians, Hebrews, Athenians and what not as barbaric Lord of the Flies type kids.

[CraigD]

3500 years ago is the “Late Bronze Age”. Although a definitive estimate of life LBA human life expectancy is hard to make, source such as the wikipedia article “life expectancy” put it at 18 years. Assuming marriage at 13, this makes the average length of marriage 5 years, slightly less than the current than the current average of 7-8 years for marriage that end in divorce (according to http://www.onlinelawyersource.com/di...tes/index.html).

18 huh, wow, people better start showing all the Egyptians, Hebrews, Athenians and what not as barbaric Lord of the Flies type kids.

:) It revealing, I think, to consider that LBA societies, such as those contemporary with the writing of the first books of the Bible, had an age distribution that in most 21st century western countries would legally require child-sitters!

 

However, I don’t think the novel “Lord of the Flies” and its movie adaptations give an accurate description of these societies. This story involved the abrupt transition of children from a modern society into an atypical primitive one. In LBA societies, a young average age was the norm to which children were accustomed. LBA societies weren’t as primitive as the regressed “stone-age” one depicted in LOTF, having agriculture, domestic animals, metalworking, writing, etc. And, unlike in LOTF, old people weren’t non-existent, only unusual.

 

Consider the style of Old Testament scripture, which many 21st century readers find pedagogic and overly full of father-child metaphors. It the majority of its original audience were pre-teens, being taught by a 30+ “long-bearded ancients”, this style would have been appropriate and compelling.

 

Consider also the many biblical claims of people living for hundreds, or even thousands of years. Modern biology reveals this to be almost certainly impossible. To a young audience, some of who would eventually write the accounts of their society that form much of the OT, the rare man 60+ years old, who was old for as long as one's parents can remember, might seem nearly eternal. Today, we sometimes jokingly refer to older people as “being about 1000”. That such exaggerations might find their way into the writing of the time is not unreasonable.

[cwes99_03]

I don't think you catch my point. The source you have citing 18 as the average age, means that the average child would have been at best 5 years old when both of their parents were dead. Most children would never have known their grandparents. Most would not have had to take care of elderly ones, widows, etc. because these would have been young enough for remarriage, or at least to take care of themselves.

 

You source is flawed.

[cwes99_03]

Quote=cwes99_03:

You say, you can truly love someone without the religio/financial/governmental contract tieing you down. Perhaps, but how is anyone else ever to know that you've made such a commitment. You say "because I say so". Then say so under oath and put it to paper.

(LADIES AND GENTS, GET IT IN WRITING.)

 

When did I say this? Maybe I did, but I surely don't recall.

 

Check post 58.

[cwes99_03]

Quote:

I don't disagree that mutations occur randomly. However, evolutionists don't call them mutations, they call it microevolution, and microevolution is not random according to theory, but causal (radiation being one of those causes).

 

Wow... all of them, huh? Talk about an improper generalization.

 

Check the definition of evolution. It isn't improper. By the very definition of the theory of evolution, this is truth. If an evolutionist were to attribute some traits to simple mutation and say that simple mutation is not the same as microevolution, then they would be defeating their own point. Because then they are selecting only that data which supports their theory and not all of the data, which would of course make evolution a laughing stock. Now which do you want it to be, either they are random and have no cause, or they are causal and have to fit in with the theory of evolution.

 

Now would you care to answer the other quesiton.

 

1) Would you attribute the desire for variety with the commonality of divorce? Carefully consider that. Connected with the lack of love already mentioned is the desire to change one's mind (or the desire to have greater variety). Does that not then attribute the commonality of divorce today to evolution?

 

Then the points on evolution (made in post 57) will be felt most strongly.

[Zythryn]

You source is flawed.

 

Not necessarily.

My interpretation of a valid 18 year life expectancy is that the infant mortality rate was huge (say 50%, maybe even higher).

If that were the case, the average life of someone that had survied to 13 or so would probably be 27, perhaps even more. This would give much more time for kids to get to know their parents.