Crosswords3 mins ago
Is Marriage Becoming An Out Dated Institution?
61 Answers
It is the nature of man not to lead a solitary life but to try to settle down and have children.(mark 10:6-9)
However, marriage has become less and less popular. Is it the divorce rate that scares people off or the way society has changed in recent years?
However, marriage has become less and less popular. Is it the divorce rate that scares people off or the way society has changed in recent years?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by goodlife. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Eddie51 you are correct. OH and I had two witnesses and our 2 best friends at our wedding. We went to the local pub for a meal afterwards then back home to cut the homemade wedding cake and have a couple of bottles of bubbly. We went to Scotland B&B for a few days. We've been married for 20 odd years. One of my friends had a £10K wedding and was divorced within 3 years.
Goodlife - “...It is the nature of man not to lead a solitary life but to try to settle down and have children.(mark 10:6-9)...”
I'd be careful in attributing the Gospel of Mark with any great insight and knowledge about the nature of things. For example, it also says: “And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues. They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.” [Mark 16:17-18]
So according to Mark, true believers are able to wrangle snakes with impunity, drink deadly poison without suffering any harm whatsoever and heal the sick simply by touching them. If I were you, I wouldn't take such claims too seriously.
I'd be careful in attributing the Gospel of Mark with any great insight and knowledge about the nature of things. For example, it also says: “And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues. They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.” [Mark 16:17-18]
So according to Mark, true believers are able to wrangle snakes with impunity, drink deadly poison without suffering any harm whatsoever and heal the sick simply by touching them. If I were you, I wouldn't take such claims too seriously.
-- answer removed --
Birdie @ First a person who would deliberately handle poisonous snakes or drink a deadly potion would be considered either very foolish or mentally deranged, even by the Pentecostal.
The fact of the matter is that Bible scholars are agreed that the last twelve verses shown with the book of Mark, which speak about tongues and not being injured by snakes, were not written by Mark but were added,so do your home work.
Ok,Jesus shows it is not just a matter knowing what to do, what makes the difference between success and failure is the doing of what the wise counsel says. “If you know these things, happy you are if you do them.”—John 13:17.
This is certainly true of marriage. If we build our marriage on a rocklike foundation, it will stand the stresses of life. But from where does this fine foundation come.
The fact of the matter is that Bible scholars are agreed that the last twelve verses shown with the book of Mark, which speak about tongues and not being injured by snakes, were not written by Mark but were added,so do your home work.
Ok,Jesus shows it is not just a matter knowing what to do, what makes the difference between success and failure is the doing of what the wise counsel says. “If you know these things, happy you are if you do them.”—John 13:17.
This is certainly true of marriage. If we build our marriage on a rocklike foundation, it will stand the stresses of life. But from where does this fine foundation come.
A good place to go would be Aberdeen, goodlife, if you are looking for solid foundations. Lots of granite there. Downside of living in Aberdeen is you might accumulate a greater radioactive exposure than most people. Still there are up and down sides to everything.
I do find it interesting though how those especially religious types will latch onto any excuse to discount criticism of their hallowed book. Classic case in point here- GL believes in the literal account of creation and all of that jazz, and rejects evolution, because the bible is inerrant. Birdie points out just some of the more stupid bits of advice, and that bit of the bible is "written by someone else".
I am pretty sure that most evidence points to the bible having been written by "someone else". Highly edited, too. And this is the sum total of your evidence base for, well, anything really.
I do find it interesting though how those especially religious types will latch onto any excuse to discount criticism of their hallowed book. Classic case in point here- GL believes in the literal account of creation and all of that jazz, and rejects evolution, because the bible is inerrant. Birdie points out just some of the more stupid bits of advice, and that bit of the bible is "written by someone else".
I am pretty sure that most evidence points to the bible having been written by "someone else". Highly edited, too. And this is the sum total of your evidence base for, well, anything really.
Birdie@ Don't make me laugh! I can't take it! LOL!
//true believers are able to wrangle snakes with impunity, drink deadly poison without suffering any harm whatsoever and heal the sick simply by touching them.//
When I see TV programmes about such cults/sects I don't see them surviving snake bites or poison. Like the majority of misinformed people they follow men rather than God and the verses that you quote, although The King James Version and other older translations present those verses as if they were part of the original text. The New Revised Standard Version, and The New King James Version note that those verses do not appear in most of the oldest manuscripts of Mark’s Gospel.
But even if these verses were authentic, they do not command the handling of serpents or the drinking of poison, and they say nothing of fire
//true believers are able to wrangle snakes with impunity, drink deadly poison without suffering any harm whatsoever and heal the sick simply by touching them.//
When I see TV programmes about such cults/sects I don't see them surviving snake bites or poison. Like the majority of misinformed people they follow men rather than God and the verses that you quote, although The King James Version and other older translations present those verses as if they were part of the original text. The New Revised Standard Version, and The New King James Version note that those verses do not appear in most of the oldest manuscripts of Mark’s Gospel.
But even if these verses were authentic, they do not command the handling of serpents or the drinking of poison, and they say nothing of fire
"Remember that if your (unmarried) partner dies you have to pay tax on anything left to you in their will (if there is one) otherwise their relatives get the ineritance which could be the house in which you are living and on which you will have to pay tax if bequeathed to you. So you will probably have sell it to pay the tax."
Most estates don't have to pay Inheritance Tax because they're valued at less than the threshold (£325,000 in 2013-14).
http://
Most estates don't have to pay Inheritance Tax because they're valued at less than the threshold (£325,000 in 2013-14).
http://
@LazyGun
//I am pretty sure that most evidence points to the bible having been written by "someone else". Highly edited, too.//
A bit like Wikipedia, then?
Goodlife might have a get-out, in that - according to one set of LDS doorsteppers - they went right back to the Aramaic texts and started from scratch. Of course this doesn't guarantee their resulting translation is free of 'spin' but at least it is free of inherited Aramaic>Greek>Latin>English errors and any applied Orthodox/RC/Protestant/King James spin.
@Goodlife
Is it an outdated institution?
No. See all the AB threads about the law pertaining to Wills and inheritance issues. Shared life is shared wealth. Society needs a way to enshrine the transition from independence to that state of affairs.
Not getting married should perhaps be acknowledged for what it is - a statement to the effect that the partners are not of equal wealth/status. A hedge against the eventuality that the partner might be in it for the money, after all. Shall we refer to this as mild financial paranoia, perhaps?
Actually, what is outdated is this idea that partnerships between people of unequal social status are somehow 'forbidden'. Something I read today even suggested that 'marriage for love' is a relatively new concept, another of those things that people copied from Queen Victoria and that, prior to that, a system which we might now label as "arranged marriages" was the norm.
In other words, it was all about social politics. Religious strings only became attached to the ceremony in the first place because the powers that be wanted to stop people marrying in secret, against parental wishes.
http://
See under "6. State Control"
//I am pretty sure that most evidence points to the bible having been written by "someone else". Highly edited, too.//
A bit like Wikipedia, then?
Goodlife might have a get-out, in that - according to one set of LDS doorsteppers - they went right back to the Aramaic texts and started from scratch. Of course this doesn't guarantee their resulting translation is free of 'spin' but at least it is free of inherited Aramaic>Greek>Latin>English errors and any applied Orthodox/RC/Protestant/King James spin.
@Goodlife
Is it an outdated institution?
No. See all the AB threads about the law pertaining to Wills and inheritance issues. Shared life is shared wealth. Society needs a way to enshrine the transition from independence to that state of affairs.
Not getting married should perhaps be acknowledged for what it is - a statement to the effect that the partners are not of equal wealth/status. A hedge against the eventuality that the partner might be in it for the money, after all. Shall we refer to this as mild financial paranoia, perhaps?
Actually, what is outdated is this idea that partnerships between people of unequal social status are somehow 'forbidden'. Something I read today even suggested that 'marriage for love' is a relatively new concept, another of those things that people copied from Queen Victoria and that, prior to that, a system which we might now label as "arranged marriages" was the norm.
In other words, it was all about social politics. Religious strings only became attached to the ceremony in the first place because the powers that be wanted to stop people marrying in secret, against parental wishes.
http://
See under "6. State Control"
LazyGun@Yes you do see headlines like this from time to time? Maybe you wonder how they know the fossil is half a million years old.
But if people wants to find fault with the Bible history of man’s creation, he can use the contradictory claims of scientific dating methods to justify his position. But, to be fair, he really ought to acknowledge that such methods are too fallible and unreliable to challenge successfully the faith of one who accepts the Bible as God’s word of truth.
//Naomi, the Gospel writers are unknown, so homework from you is called for - but having said that we have now yet another bit of the bible you don't like. ;o) //
Then look at the new king james version and other revised versions. I have found three versions that differ, and no doubt there are more.
But if people wants to find fault with the Bible history of man’s creation, he can use the contradictory claims of scientific dating methods to justify his position. But, to be fair, he really ought to acknowledge that such methods are too fallible and unreliable to challenge successfully the faith of one who accepts the Bible as God’s word of truth.
//Naomi, the Gospel writers are unknown, so homework from you is called for - but having said that we have now yet another bit of the bible you don't like. ;o) //
Then look at the new king james version and other revised versions. I have found three versions that differ, and no doubt there are more.
@hypognosis Aye, rather like wikipaedia, although wikipaedia does not make claims to inerrancy, and any editing you see is less to do with some kind of over-arching policy and more down to bloody minded editors and pedantry :)
@GL If we are going to compare the biblical account of creation with the scientific account of big bang - matter accretion - planet formation - abiogenesis - evolution, we would have to compare evidence and studies - but we cannot, because the bible offers us no evidence beyond the claim that scripture is inerrant.
And any inconsistency regarding radio-isometric dating that you see is very probably much more down to your lack of science comprehension rather than a genuine problem that invalidates the science.
Come back when you can offer some evidence, GL.
And the more I think about it, the more I like the idea of marriage being on a renewable contract basis :)
@GL If we are going to compare the biblical account of creation with the scientific account of big bang - matter accretion - planet formation - abiogenesis - evolution, we would have to compare evidence and studies - but we cannot, because the bible offers us no evidence beyond the claim that scripture is inerrant.
And any inconsistency regarding radio-isometric dating that you see is very probably much more down to your lack of science comprehension rather than a genuine problem that invalidates the science.
Come back when you can offer some evidence, GL.
And the more I think about it, the more I like the idea of marriage being on a renewable contract basis :)
//“And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues. They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.” [Mark 16:17-18]//
Goodlife, //Then look at the new king james version and other revised versions. I have found three versions that differ, and no doubt there are more.//
There most certainly are - yours for one. I googled that verse in your bible without success. However, I just happen to own a hard copy of that dubious tome - and lo and behold, the verse is not there. Your translators have removed it from the main text altogether. (They have, however, added a little addendum stating that "certain ancient manuscripts and versions" add it).
Now let's think. Why would they have removed it? Could it be that curing the sick by the laying on of hands doesn't work, and touching serpents and drinking poison may indeed harm the faithful? Can't have the bible proving false, can we? ;o)
Goodlife, //Then look at the new king james version and other revised versions. I have found three versions that differ, and no doubt there are more.//
There most certainly are - yours for one. I googled that verse in your bible without success. However, I just happen to own a hard copy of that dubious tome - and lo and behold, the verse is not there. Your translators have removed it from the main text altogether. (They have, however, added a little addendum stating that "certain ancient manuscripts and versions" add it).
Now let's think. Why would they have removed it? Could it be that curing the sick by the laying on of hands doesn't work, and touching serpents and drinking poison may indeed harm the faithful? Can't have the bible proving false, can we? ;o)
goodlife //But if people wants to find fault with the Bible history of man’s creation, he can use the contradictory claims of scientific dating methods to justify his position. But, to be fair, he really ought to acknowledge that such methods are too fallible and unreliable to challenge successfully the faith of one who accepts the Bible as God’s word of truth. //
The faithful come from a position where they cannot question the Biblical myths and hence incorrectly assume the scientific methods are unreliable without any attempt to honestly assess the facts.
Faith can't be changed by logic because it has no basis in logic.
The faithful come from a position where they cannot question the Biblical myths and hence incorrectly assume the scientific methods are unreliable without any attempt to honestly assess the facts.
Faith can't be changed by logic because it has no basis in logic.
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.