ReligionDiscuss General Theology, Religions and Denominations, God's Attributes, Predestination and Free Will, Dispensationalism, Eschatology, Philosophy, Origins, Archaeology, Science, World History and other such topics.
That could be an explanation, as in such times, children were tentamount to personal as well as future growth. Lifespans were not so long then, and a farmer for example would need children as farm hands and whatnot.
The world was a lot smaller back then.
Exactly. God made an acception because of those things.
Quote:
But I personally think that marriage was more for necessity anyway. It kept poverty and 'scattering' at bay. However, having one wife has and will always be more sacred because it is more fulfilling and personal.
Scripture is quite clear about the importance of marriage.
•God created marriage as a loyal partnership between one man and one woman.
•Marriage is the firmest foundation for building a family.
•God designed sexual expression to help married couples build intimacy.
•Marriage mirrors God's covenant relationship with His people.
"Smoking cannabis makes people more intelligent."
Dope smoker and attempted Presidential assassin Oscar Romero Ortega-Hernandez
If she were post pubescent then it would not be immoral in your eyes, correct?
Watch aCW NOT answer.
Quote:
Now if a 14 year old post pubescent female married a 16 year old male during Biblical times, are you saying that is immoral? Would it be immoral today if they had parental consent?
During biblical times? No. Today. Yes.
Is it moral today to allow a 14 year old to marry, have sex and children?
What if the man were 30. Would such a marriage and consummation be immoral?
Quote:
Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
There was a shortage of men, what was the alternative? "God seems to have allowed polygamy to solve a problem,.."
Polygamy was moral then but is immoral now? Moral relativist.
That's alaCarte relativism, "warrior".
God is not discoverable or demonstrable by purely scientific means, unfortunately for the scientifically minded. But that really proves nothing. It simply means that the wrong instruments are being used for the job. ~John Bertram Phillips
Quote:
Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
Yes, the "Prophet" Muhammed marrying Aisha when she was 6, and consummating the marriage when she was 9 (he was 54) is pretty sick Ralphie. http://www.faithfreedom.org/Articles/sina/ayesha.htm
Quote:
Originally Posted by WizardofOz
If she were post pubescent then it would not be immoral in your eyes, correct?
Watch aCW NOT answer.
First of all, you're attempting to compare the Koran with The Holy Bible. You can't.
Secondly, you're the one that started this issue in the Libertarian thread and then went on to make a thread of your own on the subject.
Since Scripture doesn't speak against post pubescent women/girls marrying and having babies, it would be God that doesn't see it as wrong, i.e. immoral. I'm just following what Scripture says.
I'll gladly wait while you pull up Scripture showing otherwise Ralphie.
Slogan/motto:
“Theist and atheist: The fight between them is as to whether God shall be called God or shall have some other name” S.B.
Reputation:
May 10th, 2012, 10:17 AM
As predicted, alaCarteWarrior answers no questions.
Quote:
Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
First of all, you're attempting to compare the Koran with The Holy Bible. You can't.
I'm making no such comparison. I asked if muhammad's child-bride was post pubescent, would their union have been immoral?
Quote:
Since Scripture doesn't speak against post pubescent women/girls marrying and having babies, it would be God that doesn't see it as wrong, i.e. immoral. I'm just following what Scripture says.
I'll gladly wait while you pull up Scripture showing otherwise
Let me know when, as a "warrior", you build up the courage to do battle with the questions I asked you in my previous post.
In the meantime, your moral relativism on polygamy is noted.
Quote:
But then, someone that defends homosexual marriage like you do, wouldn't understand God's word.
I don't defend homosexual marriage. Marriage should be between one man and one woman. I don't think I can make it more clear than that. You'll lie about any ole thing, won't you?
God is not discoverable or demonstrable by purely scientific means, unfortunately for the scientifically minded. But that really proves nothing. It simply means that the wrong instruments are being used for the job. ~John Bertram Phillips
Slogan/motto:
love others as u love yourself... and thank God you dont have to like them
Reputation:
May 10th, 2012, 11:34 AM
i dont even want to be married to ONE man
much less several... but of course polygamy is never meant to say that WOMEN should have more than one husband... God forbid (!)
no, its always men having umpteen wives... geez..
also..
i wouldn't even want to the ONE wife of a man...
even a man who doesn't cheat...
one of the reasons is
u never KNOW whether he is of a mind to cheat or not..
I also think that many abusive men have twisted principles that were originally meant to help in order to give their abuses a veneer of justification.
Is this what occurred when Joseph had been secretly marrying other women, and to reign in his wife’s objections and so along comes Section 132 of the Doctrine and Covenants, effectively saying she would either accept the other wives or be damned?
Quote:
And let mine handmaid, Emma Smith, receive all those that have been given unto my servant Joseph …
I command mine handmaid, Emma Smith, to abide and cleave unto my servant Joseph, and to none else. But if she will not abide this commandment she shall be destroyed, saith the Lord; for I am the Lord thy God, and will destroy her if she abide not in my law. (D&C 132:52, 54)
As predicted, alaCarteWarrior answers no questions.
Sorry Ralphie, I wasn't ignoring you, I was dealing with much more important issues such as perverts "marrying".
I briefly looked at your post but didn't see where you added Scripture showing where God disapproves of post pubescent girls/women marrying.
He is pretty specific on sexual sins (homosexuality, incest, bestiality), yet there is no mention of an age that women or girls should marry.
That's not to say that it's wise in today's culture. I'm a strong proponent for allowing children to be children (unlike the homosexual agenda that you back where they have kids holding up signs supporting perversion), but in Biblical times they didn't always have that luxury.
Perhaps (since you have a twisted view of the Bible and it's teachings) you could "call a friend" to come up with Scripture on this issue.
"Smoking cannabis makes people more intelligent."
Dope smoker and attempted Presidential assassin Oscar Romero Ortega-Hernandez
God created Adam and Eve, not Adam, Eve, Rachel, Kate, Joanna, Sylvia et al and the NT clearly says "the husband of ONE wife"
But the Bible describes the perfidy of men, without endorsing it, and that includes the thuggish violence of the 12 sons of israel, the shady dealings and cowardice of Abraham in egypt, and these men's procilivities to adultery, aka polygamy
Slogan/motto:
“Theist and atheist: The fight between them is as to whether God shall be called God or shall have some other name” S.B.
Reputation:
May 12th, 2012, 11:45 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
Sorry Ralphie, I wasn't ignoring you, I was dealing with much more important issues such as perverts "marrying".
I briefly looked at your post but didn't see where you added Scripture showing where God disapproves of post pubescent girls/women marrying.
Weird. I looked at your post and saw not one answer, just deflection.
Let's try again:
If the nine year old girl that Muhammad had sex with were post pubescent then it would not be immoral in your eyes, correct?
Watch aCW NOT answer.
Is it moral today to allow a 14 year old to marry, have sex and children?
What if the man were 30. Would such a marriage and consummation be immoral?
Regarding your ignorant "challenge": show me in scripture where God disapproves of Muhammad having sex with a 9 year old. Must be OK then, right?
Still a moral relativist on polygamy?
God is not discoverable or demonstrable by purely scientific means, unfortunately for the scientifically minded. But that really proves nothing. It simply means that the wrong instruments are being used for the job. ~John Bertram Phillips
Slogan/motto:
“Theist and atheist: The fight between them is as to whether God shall be called God or shall have some other name” S.B.
Reputation:
May 12th, 2012, 12:00 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eeset
Why wouldn't it be?
Good question. You'll have to ask alaCarteWarrior.
I think it's because the Israelites did it in the OT times and God never directly forbade such?
God is not discoverable or demonstrable by purely scientific means, unfortunately for the scientifically minded. But that really proves nothing. It simply means that the wrong instruments are being used for the job. ~John Bertram Phillips
wrong
Exodus 21:10 (NIV): "If he marries another woman, he must not deprive the first one of her food, clothing and marital rights."
Deut 17:17 (NIV) says of the King: "He must not take many wives, or his heart will be led astray. He must not accumulate large amounts of silver and gold."
Deut 21:15 If a man have two wives, one beloved, and another hated, and they have born him children, both the beloved and the hated; and if the firstborn son be hers that was hated:
16 Then it shall be, when he maketh his sons to inherit that which he hath, that he may not make the son of the beloved firstborn before the son of the hated, which is indeed the firstborn:
17 But he shall acknowledge the son of the hated for the firstborn, by giving him a double portion of all that he hath: for he is the beginning of his strength; the right of the firstborn is his.
2 Samuel 12: 7 And Nathan said to David, Thou art the man. Thus saith the Lord God of Israel, I anointed thee king over Israel, and I delivered thee out of the hand of Saul;
8 And I gave thee thy master’s house, and thy master’s wives into thy bosom, and gave thee the house of Israel and of Judah; and if that had been too little, I would moreover have given unto thee such and such things.
Slogan/motto:
In a world with so many ready to hear, why waste words on the willfully deaf?
Reputation:
May 13th, 2012, 10:27 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by WizardofOz
If the nine year old girl that Muhammad had sex with were post pubescent then it would not be immoral in your eyes, correct?
Are you aware of any historical time period where it's been found that females of that age were sufficently physically mature to have children? Otherwise it's a meaningless hypothetical.
Quote:
Is it moral today to allow a 14 year old to marry, have sex and children?
I assume here you're speaking of modern, Western Culture, in which case the answer is no. Due to the way we choose to rear children and such, there simply isn't sufficent maturity by that age. Go back half a millenia and things would be different.
Quote:
What if the man were 30. Would such a marriage and consummation be immoral?
So long as both parties are adults the specifics of age don't intrinsically alter the morality one way or the other.
"When the lights go out all over the world, when history seems headed only into a dead end and total disaster, God brings forth light. He changes the direction of history and regenerates men and redirects events and institutions to fulfill His purposes."
Slogan/motto:
“Theist and atheist: The fight between them is as to whether God shall be called God or shall have some other name” S.B.
Reputation:
May 14th, 2012, 11:08 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by WandererInFog
Are you aware of any historical time period where it's been found that females of that age were sufficently physically mature to have children? Otherwise it's a meaningless hypothetical.
It's possible for a girl to be post pubescent at 9 years. If alaCarte is basing the morality of marriage and consummation on the girl being post pubescent, then it is not a "meaningless hypothetical".
Perhaps you didn't fully grasp the dynamic of the conversation thus far.
Quote:
Originally Posted by WandererInFog
I assume here you're speaking of modern, Western Culture, in which case the answer is no. Due to the way we choose to rear children and such, there simply isn't sufficent maturity by that age. Go back half a millenia and things would be different.
I agree. Just don't shy away from being labeled a "moral relativist".
Quote:
Originally Posted by WandererInFog
So long as both parties are adults the specifics of age don't intrinsically alter the morality one way or the other.
Two 18 year old's getting married is moral but an 18 year old marrying a 17 year old is not?
God is not discoverable or demonstrable by purely scientific means, unfortunately for the scientifically minded. But that really proves nothing. It simply means that the wrong instruments are being used for the job. ~John Bertram Phillips
Linear Mode
