marriage vs. partnership

[Sailor Saturn]

Originally posted by fable
The bible is a book about a lot of things, not just eternal salvation; but this is beside the issue, in which I was hoping to find, in the bible some kind of positive endorsement for the institution of marriage and the married couple--after all, churches everywhere ring with praises for it and the family. But then, these probably derive directly from the attempts of the RCC to formalize personal relationships under Church control in the 13th century ACE.

When I have the time again, I'll be happy to find some more specific scripture on marriage. When I responded to your request for scripture, I was keeping my search limited to those scriptures having to do more with the relationship 'tween marriage and sex, since that is more specifically what we had been discussing.

ACE? I've seen BCE and CE, but not ACE? I just have one quick little, off topic, comment/question about the BCE/CE thing. What is the point in using the terms Before Common Era and Common Era(which I've been told is done in order to get away from the Christian influence) if you're still dividing time up at the same point that Christian influence caused it to be divided up? Since it's obviously ridiculous to change that point, why not just stick with the BC and AD tags that have been used for however long they've been used?

[fable]

Originally posted by Sailor Saturn


When I have the time again, I'll be happy to find some more specific scripture on marriage. When I responded to your request for scripture, I was keeping my search limited to those scriptures having to do more with the relationship 'tween marriage and sex, since that is more specifically what we had been discussing.

I understood you were very busy, @Sailor Saturn, and thought you were leaving, which was one reason I focused on Eminem's quotes. It might be more fruitful for future discussion to consider the content of quotes from the so-called "Patriarchs of the Church," and I'll try to post some of those, as well.

ACE? I've seen BCE and CE, but not ACE? I just have one quick little, off topic, comment/question about the BCE/CE thing. What is the point in using the terms Before Common Era and Common Era(which I've been told is done in order to get away from the Christian influence) if you're still dividing time up at the same point that Christian influence caused it to be divided up? Since it's obviously ridiculous to change that point, why not just stick with the BC and AD tags that have been used for however long they've been used?

I've seen ACE and CE used interchangeably, and ACE was what occurred to me at the moment. The reason for writing "CE" as opposed to "AD" is that the latter specifically endorses a given religious tradition--Anno Domini implies that the godhood was/is Christ--while the former is the kind of labeling was a given calendar system that can be accepted by anybody, regardless of their religious affiliations. As mine aren't Judeo-Christian (and I know that's the case for some other people on this board), CE or ACE feels more appropriate without abandoning the calendar system, itself.

[Sailor Saturn]

Originally posted by fable


I understood you were very busy, @Sailor Saturn, and thought you were leaving, which was one reason I focused on Eminem's quotes. It might be more fruitful for future discussion to consider the content of quotes from the so-called "Patriarchs of the Church," and I'll try to post some of those, as well.

Well, I'm supposed to be very busy, and I am too busy to look up scriptures right now. But, since my computer is in my room, as are the clothes and such I'm supposed to be packing, it's not difficult to still post even when I'm supposed to be busy.

I've seen ACE and CE used interchangeably, and ACE was what occurred to me at the moment. The reason for writing "CE" as opposed to "AD" is that the latter specifically endorses a given religious tradition--Anno Domini implies that the godhood was/is Christ--while the former is the kind of labeling was a given calendar system that can be accepted by anybody, regardless of their religious affiliations. As mine aren't Judeo-Christian (and I know that's the case for some other people on this board), CE or ACE feels more appropriate without abandoning the calendar system, itself.

Okay, you make a lot more sense than my World Religions textbook and World Religions Professor. Personally, I don't have a problem with BCE and CE/ACE in general as they aren't any less accurate, imo, than BC and AD, though if we were to use CE on this board, people might start thinking that C Elegans is a time period.

[fable]

Originally posted by Sailor Saturn


Okay, you make a lot more sense than my World Religions textbook and World Religions Professor. Personally, I don't have a problem with BCE and CE/ACE in general as they aren't any less accurate, imo, than BC and AD, though if we were to use CE on this board, people might start thinking that C Elegans is a time period.

LOL! Good one. @CE, you've been reinvented as a calendar!

[fable]

An interesting variant on Paul's comments occurs in Clement of Alexandria's Stromateis (roughly dated 203 AC): "And one is not really shown to be a man in the choice of a single life; but he surpasses men, who, without pleasure or pain, has disciplined himself by marriage, by the begetting of children, and by care for the household; who, in his solicitude for the household, has been iseparable from God's love...Caring, then, for himself alone, he is surpassed by one who is inferior to him in what pertains to his own salvation, but is superior to him in the conduct of life."

Submitted for your consideration.

[Sailor Saturn]

Originally posted by fable
An interesting variant on Paul's comments occurs in Clement of Alexandria's Stromateis (roughly dated 203 AC): "And one is not really shown to be a man in the choice of a single life; but he surpasses men, who, without pleasure or pain, has disciplined himself by marriage, by the begetting of children, and by care for the household; who, in his solicitude for the household, has been iseparable from God's love...Caring, then, for himself alone, he is surpassed by one who is inferior to him in what pertains to his own salvation, but is superior to him in the conduct of life."

Submitted for your consideration.

To be honest, I haven't a clue what this Clement person is saying. I think the King James Version of the Bible would be easier to understand. @.@

[fable]

Originally posted by Sailor Saturn


To be honest, I haven't a clue what this Clement person is saying. I think the King James Version of the Bible would be easier to understand. @.@

Heh. He seems to be accepting what Paul writes on the subject of marriage, but acknowledges a second dimension, a social one. Clement says that the person who is a very good husband/father and Christian (implied) is inferior to the person who remains celibate in so far as obtaining his salvation is concerned, because he's more in the enmeshed in the world; but he's superior to that same celibate, in the conduct of society and relationships. If I read it correctly.

[Sailor Saturn]

Originally posted by fable


Heh. He seems to be accepting what Paul writes on the subject of marriage, but acknowledges a second dimension, a social one. Clement says that the person who is a very good husband/father and Christian (implied) is inferior to the person who remains celibate in so far as obtaining his salvation is concerned, because he's more in the enmeshed in the world; but he's superior to that same celibate, in the conduct of society and relationships. If I read it correctly.

Hmm...I think you are reading it correctly, though I'm not sure I agree with Clement's analysis. Suggests a works-based rather than saved-by-grace interpretation.

[C Elegans]

I agree with most of what Frogus, Astafas and Beldin have posted as comments on MM:s arguments why pre-marital sex is bad. Frogus points out something central IMO, namely that MM:s arguments in several cases are directed towards "young sex" rather than "pre-marital".
MM also refers to correlation studies, and as Astafas points out, a correlation says absolutely nothing about the causality. MM argues that a correlation between A and B means A caused B, and this is not a correct interpretation of correlational data. This is very obvious in the case of the 1991 article in Pediatrics which I just read (I'm up reading on Medline anyway). "The data suggest that early sexual experience among adolescents is associated with other potentially health-endangering behaviors and that the syndrome of problem behaviors is important in this age group". does not mean A caused B or that B caused A, it can also mean a background factor C, D and/or E cause both A and B. So a correlation between early sex, dissatisfaction with later relationships, alcohol intake, depression or what have you, can all be effects of a background factor, for instance psychological problems, rather than one causes the other.
PS about this particual study, also note that there was a stong age-effect: we can't rule out the possibility that the virginal cohort simply matured a bit later and therefore wasn't interested in either sex or alcohol and had no puberty-depressions yet. I mention this just to demonstrate that data interpretation aren't so clear always.

Originally posted by EMINEM
The height of sexual pleasure, psychologists tell us, usually comes after ten to twenty years of marriage.

I'm sorry I have to ask for a reference here - who says this and in what studies? As you know I'm a licensed psychologist as well as a researcher, and during all my years in education, clinical work and research, I've never heard this. It is not a common opinion among psychologists.

Cultures that were more sexually permissive displayed less cultural energy, creativity, intellectual development and individualism, and a slower general cultural ascent.

What a strange study, do you have a reference, I'd like to see it? Not because I don't believe you, but because I want to find out how they made those estimations. Premarital sex and unfaithfulness to your spouse is very common in Europe and the US. It's is much less common in the Muslim world, like in Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Pakistan, Iran or Syria. Does this mean you view the Arab world as more developed and having greater cultural ascent than US/Europe?

[VoodooDali]

This is long, but pretty interesting.

GENDER: "Male and Female Created He Them"
Ancient Israel, like other nations of the ancient Near East, was a patriarchal society, meaning that it was centered around the fathers of families, with descent and inheritance being patrilineal or through the male line. (A daughter could inherit property from a father who had no son, but she had to marry within her father's tribe: see Num. 27:1-8 and 36:6-12 on the daughters of Zelophehad.)
Women in this society had subordinate status and were under the sexual control of men. Thus a daughter was to stay a virgin till married off (she could be stoned to death if she didn't), earning her father a mohar or bride price from the bridegroom's family. Once married, the woman's principal role was that of childbearing. She was considered for all practical purposes to be the property of her husband (Hebrew baal, "lord" or "master"), who was free to have more than one wife--monogamy was the ideal, but there was no set limit--all the more to obey the divine commandment to "be fruitful and multiply" (Gen. 1:28).

By New Testament times, a Jewish man was usually the lord or master of only one wife at a time. But the image of woman suffered from the stress that postexilic priests placed on ritual purity, which, to quote Leonie J. Archer, made women, due to the blood of menstruation and childbirth, "unclean for a large part of their lives." Hellenistic Jewish writers began expressing the same contempt for women that made the views of the Greeks on gender, in Giulia Sissa's words, "distinctly unpalatable." Thus the Jewish philosopher Philo (first century B.C.E.) identifies man with mind and reason, and woman with irrationality and the senses. "A silent wife," says the apocryphal Sirach (second century B.C.E.), "is a gift from the Lord" (26:14). The Jewish historian Josephus, a contemporary of Philo, puts it succinctly: "Women are inferior to men in every way" (Against Apion II:201).

The behavior of Jesus Christ toward women--he included them among his disciples (Matt. 27:55-56; Mark 15:40-41; Luke 8:2-3), spoke indiscriminately to women in public (John 4:5-27), and in general treated females as if they were equal to males--was scandalously unconventional. In the Apostle Paul's day women were among leaders of the early Christian community (see Fiorenza's In Memory of Her, and Newsom and Ringe's The Women's Bible Commentary), but leadership roles for women in the church died soon after Paul did. (See PAUL.) The Apostle, though saying there is "neither male nor female," for all are "one in Christ Jesus" (Gal. 3:28), ironically set a standard for the misogyny that would become institutionalized in the church after him, and that would return all women to subordinate status, with his statement (not actually his--Paul is reading the Corinthians' words back to them), "It is good for a man not to touch a woman" (1 Cor. 7:1). Convinced that the world was soon coming to an end, Paul preferred that men and women forget about marriage and its hassles, and thus sexually abstain. (Procreation, in the world's last days, was naturally no longer a concern.) The Apostle nonetheless felt that those who could not contain their desire should marry (1 Cor. 7:9), and that husbands and wives, for fidelity's sake, should have sex on a regular basis (1 Cor. 7:2-5).

What Fiorenza calls the post-Pauline "patriarchalization" of the church is reflected in the subordination of women that is required in the First Letter to Timothy (purportedly written by Paul but, most scholars agree, based on content and style, composed after Paul's death): "Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence" (2:11-12). (Also suspected by scholars to be a later non-Pauline insertion in the First Letter to the Corinthians is the command, "Let your women keep silence in the churches" [1 Cor. 14:34].)

But such subjection, it appears, was not something originally meant to exist between the sexes. According to Hebrew legend, the first woman God created as a companion for the first man Adam was a strong-willed lady named Lilith. (See Graves and Patai's Hebrew Myths and Reuther's Womanguides.) As both had been created from dust, Lilith considered herself equal to Adam. (They differed anatomically, of course, with the Bible referring to a male as one who "pisseth against the wall" [1 Sam. 25:34; 1 Kings 14:10; 21:21].) Lilith objected to having to lie beneath Adam during sexual intercourse, but Adam would have it no other way. Lilith up and left him, winding up in rabbinic tradition as a baby-killing demoness who seduces sleeping men. Lilith is mentioned in Isa. 34:14, though the KJV renders lilith as "screech owl." This first wife of Adam may safely be called the world's first uppity woman.

With Lilith departed, Adam was back where he started, being without a fit helper. According to a Hebrew tradition cited in Graves and Patai, God let Adam watch while he put a second woman together. The process of anatomical assemblage was so disgusting that Adam found the woman repulsive even though she was beautiful when finished. God sent this first Eve away and tried again: while Adam slept, Yahweh created the Eve found in Genesis 2 from Adam's rib. God presented her to Adam, who said happily, "This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man" (Gen. 2:23).

Being "taken out of Man" need not imply a subordinate role, but rather, as Adam's rhapsodizing words suggest, a oneness of flesh. Phyllis Trible points out that the Hebrew word ezer is mistranslated "helper," as the word rather connotes "companion," an equal partner. Such equality is more explicit in the first Genesis creation account (1:26-27), in which man and woman are created simultaneously ("male and female created he them"). Indeed the Bible makes it clear that the subordination of women is the result of the first couple's disobedience (the eating of forbidden fruit): Yahweh tells Eve that, as part of her share of divine punishment, "thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee" (3:16). Thus the Bible's patriarchal social system, far from being presented as an ideal, is seen as the result of a fall from grace.

The Christian church, influenced by the same Hellenistic misogyny that helped inspire Josephus, Philo, and such pseudepigraphical works as the Testament of Reuben ("For women are evil, my children" [5:1]; see Kee), would blame the Fall on Eve: "Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression" (1 Tim. 2:14). ("She gave me of the tree," Adam whines to God, "and I did eat" [Gen. 3:13]. Thus Adam defends himself, notes William E. Phipps, by complaining about "having to eat what his wife served him.") Yet woman can still be saved, the First Letter to Timothy allows, by having man's babies: "she shall be saved in childbearing," as long as she also has "faith and charity" and stays sober (2:15).

Can egalitarian grace be restored? Not in this world, if we are to judge by the pronouncements of Paul, whether Paul actually pronounced them or not. According to Christ, such a blissful time ultimately will come: in the hereafter ("the resurrection"), says Jesus in Luke 20:34-36, there will be no marriages, for men and women alike will be "equal unto the angels." But that's little comfort to feminist women, who would like to have equality with mere mortal men this side of eternity.

[fable]

Interesting, @VD. I'm not going to give any general comments until I can read it at length. Two very specific points, though:

But such subjection, it appears, was not something originally meant to exist between the sexes. According to Hebrew legend, the first woman God created as a companion for the first man Adam was a strong-willed lady named Lilith. (See Graves and Patai's Hebrew Myths and Reuther's Womanguides.)

Both Graves and Patai are highly biased sources--the former in particular was known to have "created" much of the mythic material he claimed to report (and later in life, admitted as much). Damn good poet, though.

The Christian church, influenced by the same Hellenistic misogyny that helped inspire Josephus, Philo, and such pseudepigraphical works as the Testament of Reuben ("For women are evil, my children" [5:1]; see Kee)...

Not applicable. The Testament of Reuben was Jewish Pseudipigrapha, and never accepted into the Christian pseudipigrapha, much less the Christian Apocrypha, much less the Christian bible. The fact that the author quotes this work leads me to suspect it was done for shock value, and that leads me in turn to wonder whether the author is molding a theory to fit the facts, or massaging the facts to fit a theory.

But again, I'm not saying the theory is wrong. I want to go over this in more detail, later.

[Sailor Saturn]

Originally posted by VoodooDali
But such subjection, it appears, was not something originally meant to exist between the sexes. According to Hebrew legend, the first woman God created as a companion for the first man Adam was a strong-willed lady named Lilith. (See Graves and Patai's Hebrew Myths and Reuther's Womanguides.) As both had been created from dust, Lilith considered herself equal to Adam. (They differed anatomically, of course, with the Bible referring to a male as one who "pisseth against the wall" [1 Sam. 25:34; 1 Kings 14:10; 21:21].) Lilith objected to having to lie beneath Adam during sexual intercourse, but Adam would have it no other way. Lilith up and left him, winding up in rabbinic tradition as a baby-killing demoness who seduces sleeping men. Lilith is mentioned in Isa. 34:14, though the KJV renders lilith as "screech owl." This first wife of Adam may safely be called the world's first uppity woman.

May I ask what Bible you are using? While the language is like that of the KJV, I know the KJV and the New Living Translation do not vary this much.

"For I swear by the LORD, the God of Israel, who has kept me from hurting you, that if you had not hurried out to meet me, not one of Nabal's men would be alive tomorrow morning." ~ 1 Samuel 25:34

I will bring disaster on your dynasty and kill all your sons, slave or free alike. I will burn up your royal dynasty as one burns up trash until it is all gone. ~ 1 Kings 14:10

The LORD is going to bring disaster to you and sweep you away. He will not let a single one of your male descendants, slave or free alike, survive in Israel! ~ 1 Kings 21:21

Wild animals of the desert will mingle there with hyenas, their howls filling the night. Wild goats will bleat at one another among the ruins, and night creatures will come there to rest. ~ Isaiah 35:14

I don't see how those verses correlate to the comments in what you said.

[Georgi]

@SS the Bible I have (which simply identifies itself as "Authorized version", which I take to be KJV) has those passages as follows:

"For in very deed, as the Lord God of Israel liveth, which hath kept me back from hurting thee, except thou hadst hasted and come to meet me, surely there had not been left unto Nabal by the morning light any that pisseth against the wall." - I Samuel 25:34

"therefore, behold, I will bring evil upon the house of Jereboam, and will cut off from Jereboam him that pisseth against the wall, and him that is shut up and left in Israel, and will take away the remnant of the house of Jereboam, as a man taketh away dung, till it be all gone." - I Kings 14:10

"Behold, I will bring evil upon thee, and will take away thy posterity, and will cut off from Ahab him that pisseth against the wall, and him that is shut up and left in Israel" - I Kings 21:21

It looks like your Bible translates the phrase that VDali is pointing to as "men"/"sons"/"male descendents"

"The wild beasts of the desert shall also meet with the wild beasts of the island, and the satyr shall cry to his fellow; the screech owl also shall rest there, and find for herself a place of rest." - Isaiah 35:14

[Sailor Saturn]

Originally posted by Georgi
@SS the Bible I have (which simply identifies itself as "Authorized version", which I take to be KJV) has those passages as follows:

"For in very deed, as the Lord God of Israel liveth, which hath kept me back from hurting thee, except thou hadst hasted and come to meet me, surely there had not been left unto Nabal by the morning light any that pisseth against the wall." - I Samuel 25:34

"therefore, behold, I will bring evil upon the house of Jereboam, and will cut off from Jereboam him that pisseth against the wall, and him that is shut up and left in Israel, and will take away the remnant of the house of Jereboam, as a man taketh away dung, till it be all gone." - I Kings 14:10

"Behold, I will bring evil upon thee, and will take away thy posterity, and will cut off from Ahab him that pisseth against the wall, and him that is shut up and left in Israel" - I Kings 21:21

It looks like your Bible translates the phrase that VDali is pointing to as "men"/"sons"/"male descendents"

"The wild beasts of the desert shall also meet with the wild beasts of the island, and the satyr shall cry to his fellow; the screech owl also shall rest there, and find for herself a place of rest." - Isaiah 35:14

Interesting. IIRC, King James regulated what they could or could not translate certain things as. I wonder if it was his idea to use the term "pisseth against the wall." Oh, and I wouldn't say that "pisseth against the wall" definitely means men/males because I have seen a girl "pisseth against the wall." (You don't want to know.)

[Georgi]

Originally posted by Sailor Saturn
Interesting. IIRC, King James regulated what they could or could not translate certain things as. I wonder if it was his idea to use the term "pisseth against the wall." Oh, and I wouldn't say that "pisseth against the wall" definitely means men/males because I have seen a girl "pisseth against the wall." (You don't want to know.)

I would imagine the term is probably closer to the Hebrew texts, and has been updated for more modern Bibles Indeed, it's possible, but (one assumes) more difficult

[Sailor Saturn]

Originally posted by Georgi


I would imagine the term is probably closer to the Hebrew texts, and has been updated for more modern Bibles Indeed, it's possible, but (one assumes) more difficult

Actually, the more modern translations, such as NLT, NIV, NAS, etc, are translated from older manuscripts, with the NAS being the closest to the original Hebrew, IIRC.

Yes, much more difficult. Not that I know from experience. As I said, I've seen another girl do it.

[Georgi]

Originally posted by VoodooDali
But such subjection, it appears, was not something originally meant to exist between the sexes. According to Hebrew legend, the first woman God created as a companion for the first man Adam was a strong-willed lady named Lilith. (See Graves and Patai's Hebrew Myths and Reuther's Womanguides.) As both had been created from dust, Lilith considered herself equal to Adam. (They differed anatomically, of course, with the Bible referring to a male as one who "pisseth against the wall" [1 Sam. 25:34; 1 Kings 14:10; 21:21].) Lilith objected to having to lie beneath Adam during sexual intercourse, but Adam would have it no other way. Lilith up and left him, winding up in rabbinic tradition as a baby-killing demoness who seduces sleeping men. Lilith is mentioned in Isa. 34:14, though the KJV renders lilith as "screech owl." This first wife of Adam may safely be called the world's first uppity woman.

Actually Lilith is not directly mentioned in the early rabbinic literature. The earliest mention of her is in Sumerian myth; she appears as the lilith-demon (and incidentally, in Babylonian, Jewish, and Greco-Egyptian magical literature, exorcisms are performed against both male and female liliths). The earliest text containing the legend of Lilith cited is the Alphabet of Ben Sira, which is usually dated c.8-10th century CE. Although the myth may be centuries older, it doesn't fit with the earlier traditions involving the demon-lilith (one of the most frequently-exorcised demons in magical literature).

The "lilith" translation in Isaiah 35:14 makes sense in the context of the demon: as you can see from "find for herself a place of rest", the creature referred to is female, and mentioned alongside another demon, the satyr, which is a male parallel to lilith. Additionally, the desert was frequently referred to as a favourite haunt of demons. It seems likely that this mention of lilith refers to the demon-lilith.

Lilith is an interesting character though. The internet has quite a few sites devoted to her as "the first feminist" and the like

[Georgi]

Originally posted by Sailor Saturn
Actually, the more modern translations, such as NLT, NIV, NAS, etc, are translated from older manuscripts, with the NAS being the closest to the original Hebrew, IIRC.

Ok, well they might have translated them in terms that were more apt for a modern readership, then

[Curdis]

Originally posted by Sailor Saturn
Actually, the more modern translations, such as NLT, NIV, NAS, etc, are translated from older manuscripts, with the NAS being the closest to the original Hebrew, IIRC.

IIRC most modern translations are made from GREEK manuscripts(Which may or may not be closest to the original Hebrew) which may or may not be transcriptions/translations of earlier Hebrew texts.

As I have suggested in another thread a parallel bible is a good investment if you are interested in attempting to decypher meanings. The one I had contained the American Standard, King James, Good News, and a semi literal greek translation (Attempted to represent the closest meanings by word and sentence).

BTW there is a famous first printing of the KJ bible(?) where the printer made several typesetting errors including getting one of the commandments wrong, 'Thou shalt commit adultary' -Curdis !

[Georgi]

Originally posted by Curdis
BTW there is a famous first printing of the KJ bible(?) where the printer made several typesetting errors including getting one of the commandments wrong, 'Thou shalt commit adultary'

Yep, the 1631 version IIRC... It was recalled rather quickly, and the printers were fined, but a few copies survived Now referred to as the Wicked Bible