The biblical view of marriage

[Inchante]

Do you really think pellaz's statement was a commitment to "seeing a thing in only one dimension"? I thought it was a fair observation reflecting what came to his mind at the time, what he had the patience to type or the amount of time he had to respond at that moment. Since there are hundreds of us on here one would hope for a range of responses and impressions. Each time I come back to one of these films I see something either new or with a slightly different emphasis.

It has been my experience that people in general are far too likely to see only one dimension of a subject, on either side of a subject. Why, the essence of the video you posted is about peoples tendencies to see a single dimension of a subject. Is that not true?

The one dimensional perspective for some can even become an obsession. They start inserting it into conversations where that topic has really nothing to do with their own perspectives or even the situation at hand. Each of their arguments rest upon it. The thing that those people often don't realize is that, as with every obsession, their in rests dimensions of both love and hate for the subject. They end up perversed by it, like Echo loving Narcissus for his cruelty and hating him for his beauty.

So, I find a reminder from time to time helps people to remember that the world functions, not in categoricals but continuems, not in single dimensions but multiple. This is certainly not a condemnation of that person. We all have those tendencies within us. It is valuable to resist them and to practice at it continually.

Perhaps that is my own obsession, to try and examine things from both sides of the looking glass.

[jbrowder24]

Loved it, thanks marsh!

I thought it was a fair observation reflecting what came to his mind at the time, what he had the patience to type or the amount of time he had to respond at that moment.

Sometimes that is all our posts are - a rushed thought. Things can certainly get lost in translation doing this, but I wish more people would realize this. When someone gets judged unfairly, it can put a damper on their mood and day. (And for the record, am using this as a general thought, I didn't think anything in this thread was bad but there's been others).

[marshlander]

It has been my experience that people in general are far too likely to see only one dimension of a subject, on either side of a subject. Why, the essence of the video you posted is about peoples tendencies to see a single dimension of a subject. Is that not true?...

So, I find a reminder from time to time helps people to remember that the world functions, not in categoricals but continuems, not in single dimensions but multiple. This is certainly not a condemnation of that person. We all have those tendencies within us. It is valuable to resist them and to practice at it continually.

Perhaps that is my own obsession, to try and examine things from both sides of the looking glass.

At the risk of diverting away from the topic I think it is far more useful to keep discussing ideas. Our thoughts on here, as in the case of a short film, can effectively make only one point at a time. I'm happy to read a contrary point of view. I have occasionally been known to change my mind

[Inchante]

I'm happy to read a contrary point of view.

I'm sorry, I thought that is what my original post was providing, most specifically.:eek:

[Craig]

Loved it LOL!
Thank you for sharing

[Zophia]

Funny video!! And relevant to my current interests. Haha. I've been reading a book on the history of marriage (I sound so cool, don't I? Nerd alert). I am pretty sure that most people (women especially) would have no wish to return to "traditional" marriage, if they read about it.

There are some errors in the video, though (I give it a break because it was created for humor's sake and definitely succeeded on that front).

In short: Solomon's many wives and concubines was something that was looked down upon, and viewed as his weakness/folly, if I remember correctly, and not an acceptable standard of marriage. Sarah was Abraham's half-sister. And Eve had more children than just Cain and Abel - Genesis 5:3. (Both of the previously mentioned cases are still incestuous, though).

I do think that it is alright if we view these things outside of the context of their culture and time.

As an example: men being commanded to marry the women they raped. I would assume this was a backwards way of protecting the woman from being unable to survive. Once raped, she would no longer be seen as a virgin. No one would want her because she would be impure. Women back then were not independent and she would be alone, childless, and poor for the rest of her life.

But why should that change our judgment? I think it should make it more scathing. They had women marry their rapists because they did not allow them to be equal to men, and put way too much emphasis on virginity -- sometimes to the point of executing women who had sex before marrying. I don't think proper context helps their case at all, but instead hinders it.

[Inchante]

But why should that change our judgment? I think it should make it more scathing. They had women marry their rapists because they did not allow them to be equal to men, and put way too much emphasis on virginity -- sometimes to the point of executing women who had sex before marrying. I don't think proper context helps their case at all, but instead hinders it.

Thank you for the nuanced examination of the video. It was very informative.

[jbrowder24]

But why should that change our judgment? .... I don't think proper context helps their case at all, but instead hinders it.

Do you mean helps/hinders the case of the people that made the video, or helps/hinders supporters of traditional marriage?

[Zophia]

Do you mean helps/hinders the case of the people that made the video, or helps/hinders supporters of traditional marriage?

Eh, neither, really. What I meant was, viewing scripture in context of the culture of the time it was written does not make the ancient peoples' viewpoints more understandable, or the scripture defensible.

People try to explain Biblical passages that modern people would find disgusting or baffling through the context of the ancient culture's beliefs, and sometimes it is used to try to lessen our judgment of the people who believed that those things were moral, just actions. (Like, as mentioned, why women married their rapists). But in most cases, the cultures reasons for believing those things are JUST as unjust to the modern mind.

Take for example the Bible saying that people who perform homosexual acts should be stoned. People try to explain that away by saying that back when that scripture was written, the Hebrews were small in population and needed to reproduce. They used it as justification. But the way I see it, well, stoning a gay person lowers the population... and it still robs the individual of their rights. So how is it justified, really? How does the context of the culture matter when the viewpoint is still just as abhorrent to my modern mind as it was before I considered it?

It would be like saying slavery was acceptable back in early American history and we just have to look at the context of the culture back then and we'll understand it. They believed blacks were lesser human beings so that's why they enslaved them. NO!!! That sort of thing is never justifiable or acceptable, cultural differences or not.

Hopefully I am making sense. I am sick and slightly medicated, and not all that confident that I'm communicating this well.

Edit: And just for clarification's sake, I agree with the point the people in the video are making, and I believe that marriage does not have to be and should not be traditional only... not to mention the meaning of the word "traditional" in "traditional marriage" has changed throughout time... Marriage as we know it today is nothing like it used to be.

[jbrowder24]

Thanks, I get where you are coming from now.

I do feel like a lot of people don't put much thought into context though - they simply hear it's wrong to be gay in the Bible and that's enough, even though there are tons of other things they ignore. So I love that things like this might get people to think about the context of something. But for those that do explore the context, I think you are right that learning reasons why something might have been allowed is not at all the same as condoning it.