The snark is the core point?
-
Biblical Families is not a dating website. It is a forum to discuss issues relating to marriage and the Bible, and to offer guidance and support, not to find a wife. Click here for more information.
General What do we know about TTWCM?
- Thread starter The Revolting Man
- Start date
It’s marked “general”.
And it would be inappropriate for it to be marked "support", because it is not a call for support in a particular real situation, it's a general discussion topic. It is labelled appropriately.
I wasn't talking about the tone, but the content.
If I need to tone down the snark, let me know bud. I figured we both talk the same way and can trade punches without getting bent outta shape. Let me know and I'll be happy to edit down to more gentlemanly tone. I'm just trying to punch through the haze surrounding this topic and shake it up a bit.
On second review, I don't see what's snarky. What am I missing? Sometimes I come across as @$$#0/&ish when I'm just trying to be flat and to the point.
That was an over sight. I meant to make his one support too. My bad.
It was my intention.
The support aspect comes in because we are supposed to be cooperating on compiling the common beliefs on the topic.
Sorry bout that, there's so many common threads currently it's hard to keep track of em. And keeping a thread between the ditches around here... Hah!
That would make almost every single thing on this website "support". That tag is very specifically for real people asking for support on a real-life problem, and exists to tell people to tone down the criticism and be constructive realising this is someone who may be in emotional stress. If other stuff uses that tag then it dilutes it and makes it meaningless. Let's not debate this though even if you disagree, better to stick to the topic.
Given you stated you wanted the thread to be kept to strict niceness. I'm happy to remove my posts. Like I said, my bad, there's so many threads I didn't know which one was which. I just looked at the meat/general/support to try and keep tabs on them all.
Let me know what you want done as it's your thread @The Revolting Man.
I'll be happy to remove to a different thread. But I do want to save it cause I feel like there's some good info in there.
Let me know what you want done as it's your thread @The Revolting Man.
I'll be happy to remove to a different thread. But I do want to save it cause I feel like there's some good info in there.
Did you change the heading then?
I don't think I changed it.
Now that I noticed it, I did just change the tag on the "what makes a marriage covenant" thread, for the reason above. However, as I said, let's not debate this also. Refer back to the thread on thread prefixes:
biblicalfamilies.org
From Staff - Thread prefixes
I have added some thread prefixes that people can use to help flag what type of discussion is intended to take place (or is taking place) in their thread. You'll see these as an option in the thread title area when starting a new thread, and if you select "edit thread" on an existing thread of...
biblicalfamilies.org
BiblicalLiteralist
Member
-We know "Marriage" is a monogamous relationship between a single man and a single woman (Covenant). Gen. 3:16
-We know there is no provision that limits the amount of marriages (covenants) a man may participate in at any given time, with the exception of kings and possibly church positions.
-We know the man is the head and the women joined to him are to submit to him as unto the the most high. He is able to override her vows and she is considered his property based on the list of things one should not covet in the 10 commandments.
-We know a man is to love his women as messiah loves the church.
-A man is the only one given the authority to divorce, and it is only allowable under very specific covenant violations.
-We know adultery is only committed based on the *marital status of the woman.
I have more but break is over, feel free to correct anything I botched. I will add passages later.
*Edit* Perhaps you should have reserved a couple spots at the beginning of this thread to compile a list. I could see this turning into a sticky.
-We know there is no provision that limits the amount of marriages (covenants) a man may participate in at any given time, with the exception of kings and possibly church positions.
-We know the man is the head and the women joined to him are to submit to him as unto the the most high. He is able to override her vows and she is considered his property based on the list of things one should not covet in the 10 commandments.
-We know a man is to love his women as messiah loves the church.
-A man is the only one given the authority to divorce, and it is only allowable under very specific covenant violations.
-We know adultery is only committed based on the *marital status of the woman.
I have more but break is over, feel free to correct anything I botched. I will add passages later.
*Edit* Perhaps you should have reserved a couple spots at the beginning of this thread to compile a list. I could see this turning into a sticky.
Last edited:
BUZZZZ!!! Wrong, if for no other reason than using a nuclear bomb-word.
A bit like saying it's a 'relationship between person 1 and person 2,' or working 'cis-gender' in there somewhere...
Aaargh. Likewise, it's good to use words where the definition isn't fluid and so oft-twisted...
And the "allowable" conditions are another invitation to pagan-speak.
BiblicalLiteralist
Member
I used the words I did for that very reason, the cognitive dissonant. There are no other parties in a marriage covenant aside from the man and the woman who have joined together. Other marriage covenants can exist parallel to each other stemming from the same man, but they do not cross.
1 man + 1 woman = 1 covenant marriage, which is the definition of monogamy, otherwise it would be polygamy.
*edit* I suppose that is not the correct word (every definition I could find for monogamy includes a time limit to define itself) to use but how else could one define a single partner covenant in a single word? Thoughts?
Last edited:
Trouble is, it's NOT. "Mono-" gamy without question, and to the vast majority of those so deceived, means "one," and ONLY one. Thus the issue.
One-at-a-time, is not the same at all. And, for confusion, see what's been done with "her own husband," (I Cor. 7:2) to bring the point home.
I thought the point of the thread was clarity.
Try "marriage."
PS> "polygamy" is NOT correct, either, Same issues.
This is what I was looking for, except for the covenant stuff. That’s far from something we know .
BiblicalLiteralist
Member
We know that sex does not equal marriage, sex with a betrothed virgin is adultery, and a man who seduces a virgin is required to pay the bride price, but the father can deny the marriage. Rape of an unbetorthed virgin requires the man to marry her and he cannot divorce her. In all three of these witnesses marriage and sex are handled as two seperate instances, if/then.
Last edited: