Marriage and Religion

[sami_Iraq]

Is Islamic marriage like Christian marriage?


A Muslim marriage is not a 'sacrament', but a simple, legal agreement in which either partner is free to include conditions. Marriage customs thus vary widely from country to country. As a result, divorce is not common, although it is not forbidden as a last resort. According to Islam, no Muslim girl can be forced to marry against her will: her parents will simply suggest young men they think may be suitable.



Now, let me say that I know about Muslim's marriage but I do not know more about Christian's marriage . Can you tell me ?? Cz I like to know more about other religions .

[hellsapoppin]

In Old Testament times men (especially those of wealth) practiced polygyny in which they had multiple wives. When Christianity came along they continued this practice but changed to comply with Roman pagan law which mandated monogamy. While the Bible teaches ''learn not the way of the heathen'', Christians violated this biblical teaching by adopting monogamy. I have read in the past that this was done in order to avoid more persecution from Roman authorities.

[togre]

That's an inaccurate characteristic of the Biblical treatment of marriage. It is true that there exists no explicit command "Thou shalt have one spouse." However there is plenty of evidence to say the Bible in both Testaments teaches monogamy.

First, the institution of marriage itself in Genesis chapter 2, establishes it as a union intended to benefit man (ie. mankind). The LORD leads Adam to recognize a need for companionship, the lack of the companionship being found among animals (sorry dog lovers) and then created Eve as a helper suited to him -- that is one different, but complementary. The section ends with the passage "For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh." Marriage is a lasting unity. While not explicitly prohibiting polygamy or polyandry, these practices are clearing incompatible with the pattern established here.

Second, what about all the cases of polygamy among Old Testament patriarchs? Answer: So what? Longer answer: The Bible does not have cardboard cutouts as heroes. The "good guys" don't wear white hats and have chiseled jaws. They are real people. They have warts. They sin. Sometimes terribly. Sometimes frequently. Never is polygamy commanded or excused. Often it is surrounded by sinful actions and circumstances that are rebuked (Abraham and Hagar, David and Bathsheba). Often it leads to strife in the family (Jacob, Rachel and Leah, Samuel's mother, etc.) and often to other sins (Solomon lead astray by his many wives false religions).

Third, the Old and New Testaments are a unit. They don't teach competing or conflicting truths. In the New Testament the understanding of marriage as a lasting union between one man and one woman is reaffirmed in the words of Jesus in the Gospels and throughout the Epistles. Particularly in Ephesians is the idea of a Christian marriage is fleshed out. The ideal is a husband as a head treating his wife with the same self-sacrificing love that Christ showed his Church when He died for her sins. In turn wives show their love for their husband with the same trust and submission that the Church has for Christ. This is only possible when both husband and wife have a relationship with Christ, know what is like to be forgiven, know how to forgive, worry about their responsibilities (not those of their spouse) and trust one another and Christ. Yes, this all is somewhat contrary to current cultural norms. Yes, this has been misused and abused in the past. Doesn't make it less true.

Finally, in 1 Timothy 3 the qualifications for a "overseer" or bishop or pastor are listed (we could argue terms, but that's not the point). He must not be a lover of money, given to drunkenness, quarrelsome, violent, etc. These are not requirements any different from what is expected of all Christians--this is a list of things everyone strives for. Among that list is "the husband of but one wife" or you could translate "a one-woman-man" emphasizing a quality of fidelity vs. womanizing. The point is while not requiring overseers to be married, it requires those who are to be monogamous. In a section that lists nothing other than what is expected of all Christians.

So again, no explicit command, but the previous post ignored alot of evidence. The Bible clearly holds monogamy as the pattern for marriage.

To the OP, I hope I've also answered some of your original question along the way.

[hellsapoppin]

''1 Timothy 3''

The word for 'one' wife in the original Greek is ''mia'' which may mean one or someone. In others words, the bishop should be married and maintain a household. But a household could encompass many wives, concubines, or mistresses. The import here is that the bishop should be married, not single. Note that no other office in the church has any such requirement. Furthermore in I Peter 3:6 we are told is the ideal wife because she called her husband ''Master''. It is shown that all Christian women are commanded to follow her example in order to be called ''Sarah's daughter''.

And what was so special about Sarah that she was so idealized in the Bible? She selected mistresses and concubines for her husband. Now in the New Testament we are told the ideal Christian woman follows her example.

How many of you Christian women reading these lines select mistresses and concubines for your husbands as you are commanded to do?

[hellsapoppin]

Isaiah 4:1

''In that day, seven women ... shall take one man''

Biblical scholars have said this refers to two prophetic periods in history ~ one biblical, the other apocalyptic. That a cataclysmic war will occur and there will be fewer men around than women. Because of this polygynous marriage will take place. Note that the second period will take place in the modern era which means that Old Testament plural marriage will be permissable in the time to come according to that verse. Therefore, a man may have as many as seven wives at one time. Nothing in New Testament teaching voids this in any manner.

[The Atheist]

Is Islamic marriage like Christian marriage?


A Muslim marriage is not a 'sacrament', but a simple, legal agreement in which either partner is free to include conditions. Marriage customs thus vary widely from country to country. As a result, divorce is not common, although it is not forbidden as a last resort. According to Islam, no Muslim girl can be forced to marry against her will: her parents will simply suggest young men they think may be suitable.



Now, let me say that I know about Muslim's marriage but I do not know more about Christian's marriage . Can you tell me ?? Cz I like to know more about other religions .

Well, now you have the history, I'll give you how it works now.

Parents don't really get involved until after the marriage has been agreed upon - it is a mutual decision by both parties to get married.

Divorces are easy to obtain legally, but some christian churches, notably the Roman Catholic, do not recognise divorce unless the marriage has been annulled by the church itself. This does not stop people marrying at another church, or just in a civil wedding.

While marriage is a legal state in most christian countries, it is considered quite sacred by most churches.

The marriage itself is merely a series of vague vows "love and honour" etc, but no legal conditions. Husbands and wives are considered equal in law, and by most churches. No physical violence or punishment within the marriage is allowed by either church or state.

[togre]

''1 Timothy 3''

The word for 'one' wife in the original Greek is ''mia'' which may mean one or someone. In others words, the bishop should be married and maintain a household. But a household could encompass many wives, concubines, or mistresses. The import here is that the bishop should be married, not single. Note that no other office in the church has any such requirement.

Actually, the Greek word "mia" is an adjective (although it sometimes acts as a pronoun). It is a feminine adjective because it is modifying the noun "gunaikos," which by no stretch of the imagination means household. It means woman or wife.

The clause in question reads "a one woman/wife man" or "a man of one wife." It is open to interpretation as to whether this requires a bishop to be married, but it clearly is prohibiting polygamy.


''1 Timothy 3''

Furthermore in I Peter 3:6 we are told is the ideal wife because she called her husband ''Master''. It is shown that all Christian women are commanded to follow her example in order to be called ''Sarah's daughter''.

And what was so special about Sarah that she was so idealized in the Bible? She selected mistresses and concubines for her husband. Now in the New Testament we are told the ideal Christian woman follows her example.

How many of you Christian women reading these lines select mistresses and concubines for your husbands as you are commanded to do?

Again, look at what is actually there, not what you are told or imagine is there. The point of comparison to Sarah (as expressed in the previous verses) is that she is one of "the holy women of the past who put their hope in the God" and that hope made them "beautiful." The comparison also revolves around trusting in God enough to be submissive to their husband. [Note instructions to husbands follow that ought to prevent them from abusing their position]. Any idea about providing mistresses is foreign to the text and must be imported by someone's preconceived notions.




''In that day, seven women ... shall take one man''

Biblical scholars have said this refers to two prophetic periods in history ~ one biblical, the other apocalyptic. That a cataclysmic war will occur and there will be fewer men around than women. Because of this polygynous marriage will take place. Note that the second period will take place in the modern era which means that Old Testament plural marriage will be permissable in the time to come according to that verse. Therefore, a man may have as many as seven wives at one time. Nothing in New Testament teaching voids this in any manner.

Again, look at what it actually says. In the time described there will be great war and great suffering. The lack of men (dead in battle or through other disaster) will lead to polygamy. Does that make polygamy right? The prophet is describing what will happen, not commanding it and not excusing it. Does a crime scene reporter condone a murder by describing it? Does the Bible say murder and wife stealing is okay when it tells how King David had an affair with Bathsheba and then had her husband killed? NO!


Finally, to the Atheist...

You are fairly accurate in describing American marriage practices in general. I am kinda surprised that you of all people would assume that Americans do and what Christians do are completely interchangeable.:D

[The Atheist]

Finally, to the Atheist...

You are fairly accurate in describing American marriage practices in general. I am kinda surprised that you of all people would assume that Americans do and what Christians do are completely interchangeable.:D

Well, I'm not an American and all the American couples I know are atheist, so I based my description on christian married couples I know outside of USA. Some of them are my brothers & sisters, so I've had a while to observe them.

When you think about it, taking the 80% christian makeup of the US population, it's simply that most American couples adhere to the same kind of christian marriage principles which are embraced elsewhere. For a start, the by-far biggest church works the same in all parts of the world, so universality of religious behaviour isn't unusual.

[hellsapoppin]

Mia ''means woman or wife'' ~ the fact that household is mentioned thereafter should give a hint as to the proper intent of the passage. Moreover, the fact that no other office is shown should also give a hint that exemplification is what is truly intended here.

If Sarah's actions were not intended to be exemplary, I'm sure the New Testament could have shown single women from Old Testament times whose conduct would be held up as ideal for Christian women.

''The prophet is describing what will happen, not commanding it and not excusing it. '' Nor is the prophet condemning it. If it was not permissible, then why mention it at all? If it is such a bad idea then why give example after example of it in the Old Testament? Further, if it is so evil, then why give Sarah as exemplar in the New Testament when she was noted for selecting mistresses and concubines? When in that book is the practice of having mistresses and concubines explicitly forbidden?

[12weeks]

Is Islamic marriage like Christian marriage?


A Muslim marriage is not a 'sacrament', but a simple, legal agreement in which either partner is free to include conditions. Marriage customs thus vary widely from country to country. As a result, divorce is not common, although it is not forbidden as a last resort. According to Islam, no Muslim girl can be forced to marry against her will: her parents will simply suggest young men they think may be suitable.



Now, let me say that I know about Muslim's marriage but I do not know more about Christian's marriage . Can you tell me ?? Cz I like to know more about other religions .

But I think it's important here to stress that her consent is taken by her silence. So if they suggest someone, forcefully, and she remains silent out of obediance, then that is classed as consent.

Divorce is also not easy to obtain if you are the female in the union, unless you can prove serious abuse, and of course it all really depends on what form of Islam you follow.

I find Islamic marriages and the conditions are very similar to marriage conditions in the 19th century in England, minus the woman having to hand over all of her property something Islam doesn't demand off women.

Also when you ask about Christian marriages, which sect do you mean? just like in Islam, the conditions are entirely different from denomination to denomination.

I mean for instant Wahabi Islam does force girls into marriage, you only have to watch the news to see it happens, and yet more modern breakaway sects look down on that as barbaric, so really it does depend wholly on the angle you are approaching it from.

[togre]

Mia ''means woman or wife'' ~ the fact that household is mentioned thereafter should give a hint as to the proper intent of the passage. Moreover, the fact that no other office is shown should also give a hint that exemplification is what is truly intended here.

If Sarah's actions were not intended to be exemplary, I'm sure the New Testament could have shown single women from Old Testament times whose conduct would be held up as ideal for Christian women.

''The prophet is describing what will happen, not commanding it and not excusing it. '' Nor is the prophet condemning it. If it was not permissible, then why mention it at all? If it is such a bad idea then why give example after example of it in the Old Testament? Further, if it is so evil, then why give Sarah as exemplar in the New Testament when she was noted for selecting mistresses and concubines? When in that book is the practice of having mistresses and concubines explicitly forbidden?

I apologize for my lack of clarity. "mia" is a feminine adjective in Greek meaning "one." "Gunikos" is a noun meaning "woman or wife." Your comments about a household are not found in the words that exist. There is no way that this can allow for bigamy!

Second, the Bible describes and even predicts sin (things that are wrong/not permissible). Unless you think the Bible is saying "Yay! David!" when it describes his murder of Uriah the Hittite, and unless you think it is saying "Yay! Apostasy!" when it predicts that "the love of many will grow cold" and they will fall from faith, then to imagine that mentioning bigamy and polygamy is the same as permitting or promoting it is impossible.

The Bible shows people (real people) as they are--sinful and forgiven. It is no more impossible for Sarah to do something horrible and yet be held up as an example for other aspects, than it is for David to be called a man after the Lord's own heart and to be the model for Israelite kings. How do we know which aspects to copy and which to avoid? Read the actually words!! It's clear if you do.

You are attributing to the Bible attitudes and teachings that it does not contain. You may be able to make a case these teaching are good. You may be able to make a case that the teaching of the Bible is deficient. But unless you abolish the meaning of words and language you can not make the case that the Bible teaches these things.


So as to not side track this specific conversation, if you would like to discuss this point at greater length, please begin a thread for it and I will, as time permits, respond there.

[hellsapoppin]

''if you would like to discuss this point at greater length, please begin a thread for it and I will, as time permits, respond there. ''

No thank you. I am not one to engage in arm twisting. You are free to believe as you wish. To me it is obvious that people are held up as exemplars not just in name only but so as to stimulate people to imitate their deeds. If you do not wish to believe it, that's fine.

As for the thread, in Islam polygyny is permissible and for good reason. However, if you wish to view it as sin, that is your prerogative.