7 Simple Tips for a Successful Marriage

[GMDino]

http://mic.com/articles/121596/bibles-guide-to-a-successful-fundamentalist-christian-marriage?utm_source=huffpost&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=partner

Quote:The Supreme Court ruling that legalized same-sex marriage nationwide Friday is terrible. Many of them leaned on arguments gleaned from the Bible to make their point, insisting God's word is a literal instruction manual for public policy in the 21st century.

But what if that shoe was on the other foot? Here are eight passages taken verbatim from Christianity's holy book that, if as applied as virulently as the scant references to same-sex relationships in the Bible, might give Americans some disturbing tips on how to manage a truly successful fundamentalist marriage.

Note: For consistency, all passages are taken from Bible Gateway's searchable online archive of the New International Version.

1. Let the husband run the show.
"Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands as you do to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything." - Ephesians 5:22-24

The Bible also commands men to love their wives as themselves and take their well-being into account when making decision, but this passage is pretty clear: At the end of the day women should submit to their husbands' decisions.

So better hope you married one of the good ones, ladies!

2. No, really, he's in charge.

"But I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God." - 1 Corinthians 11:3

For all Christian conservatives' talk of "traditional" gender roles as fair to both man and wife, the Bible is pretty clear about this being a hierarchal relationship.

3. Seriously, listen to your husband and otherwise shut up.

"A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet. For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner. But women will be saved through childbearing — if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety." - 1 Timothy 2:11-15

Christian website Ship of Fools refers to this passage as the "worst verse in the bible." In it, St. Paul says women shall never be permitted to serve as priests in the Christian church and instead commands them to earn their place in heaven through a life of permanent subservience through childbearing.

It also instructs men to be suspicious of their wives — and more broadly, all women — who are weak creatures easily bent by temptation and sin.

4. Polygamy is fine.

"If he marries another woman, he must not deprive the first one of her food, clothing and marital rights." - Exodus 21:10

Just make sure that the first wife is prioritized appropriately. She might get jealous!

5. Single ladies, marry your rapist and never divorce.

"If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, he shall pay her father fifty shekels of silver. He must marry the young woman, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives." - Deuteronomy 22:28-29

Wow, that sounds pretty terrible.

But as Christian site Got Questions explains, this passage is actually countered by Exodus 22:17, which gives the rape victim's father the right to refuse the marriage and just fine the rapist 50 silver shekels instead. It could also "be viewed as merciful to the woman, who, because of the rape, would be considered unmarriageable."

"This is why the passage leaves marriage to the discretion of the father, because every situation is different, and it is better to be flexible than have a blanket rule," added Got Questions.

Yep! Still terrible.

6. Rape slaves to ensure a healthy bloodline.

"... so [Sarai] said to Abram, 'The Lord has kept me from having children. Go, sleep with my slave; perhaps I can build a family through her.' Abram agreed to what Sarai said." - Genesis 16:2

Confronted with a barren womb, Sarai and her husband Abram turned to awful methods that were fortunately later endorsed by God.

It's not said whether Sarai's slave, Hagar, consented to the sexual encounter, but one might assume no such thing as real consent exists under the considerations of slavery.

As the Annotated Bible points out, Hagar was impregnated by Abram, beaten by Sarai out of jealousy, fled and then ordered to return by an angel so that her rapists' son could grow up to be the famous Ishmael of the Israelites.

7. Murder your cheating spouse.

"If a man commits adultery with another man's wife — with the wife of his neighbor — both the adulterer and the adulteress are to be put to death." - Leviticus 20:10

God was pretty clear on this one: Cheating spouses should be executed.

Sorry, Christian politicians who commit adultery. Any last words?

But this is a selective reading of the Bible, trimmed to its worst parts!

That's precisely the point. These passages come from many sources that range significantly in style, message and tone, and they're mostly over 2,000 years old. The Good Book has to be read in its original context. Reducing the Bible to a series of literal instructions devoid of that perspective makes many of the passages seem extremist.

As the Not All Christians Are Like That Project explains on their website, the few references to homosexuality in the Bible are taken from the same kinds of fire-and-brimstone sections as those endorsing polygamy, executions and violent misogyny, or otherwise likely contextually refer to male prostitution or rape committed by the Roman Empire.

The rapidly growing population of religiously unaffiliated or less-religious Americans has little desire to debate the arcane particulars of a holy book that does not strictly dictate every aspect of their lives. Freedom of religion necessarily suggests a degree of freedom from religion. As the Supreme Court ruled last week, the civil institution of marriage cannot be limited by the bigoted demands of the shrinking minority of the population that wants to impose their religion on others.

"Their hope is not to be condemned to live in loneliness, excluded from one of civilization's oldest institutions," Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote in the court's majority opinion. "They ask for equal dignity in the eyes of the law. The Constitution grants them that right."

[Ben Richards]

This seems totally reasonable to me, and I for one, am glad Jesus took the time to write this stuff down.

[Benton]

Quote:But what if that shoe was on the other foot? Here are eight passages taken verbatim from Christianity's holy book that

...


These passages come from many sources that range significantly in style, message and tone, and they're mostly over 2,000 years old.

Well, except ...

a- that's not Chrstianity's book. Christianity is based around the NT; Judaism is based around the OT. It's like confusing the assembly diagram for your car with the owner's manual.

b- those passages (OT) are 4-6,000 years old and are more reflective of the society than religious beliefs.

[Ben Richards]

4-6,000 years old. Wow. I always thought most people that believed in that stuff thought the Earth was like 3,000 years old.

[Benton]

(07-02-2015, 11:02 AM)Ben Richards Wrote: 4-6,000 years old.  Wow.  I always thought most people that believed in that stuff thought the Earth was like 3,000 years old.

There are fewer people who think that. Thankfully. There's not a lot of time stamps, but, from what I've read, most of the OT books were written between 4-6,000 years ago.

[*Nately120*]

(07-02-2015, 11:30 AM)Benton Wrote: There are fewer people who think that. Thankfully. There's not a lot of time stamps, but, from what I've read, most of the OT books were written between 4-6,000 years ago.

Meh, isn't OT God just Zeus with a different name and a new coat of paint?  Or was the OT older than tales of Zeus?  Meh, Ida know.

[fredtoast]

(07-02-2015, 11:37 AM)Nately120 Wrote: Meh, isn't OT God just Zeus with a different name and a new coat of paint?  

Nah, Zeus was a total stud who screwed everything in sight and sired dozens of children.

The Christian god is a nerd that never got laid.  That is why he hates women and sex so much.

[Belsnickel]

(07-02-2015, 11:30 AM)Benton Wrote: There are fewer people who think that. Thankfully. There's not a lot of time stamps, but, from what I've read, most of the OT books were written between 4-6,000 years ago.

(07-02-2015, 11:37 AM)Nately120 Wrote: Meh, isn't OT God just Zeus with a different name and a new coat of paint?  Or was the OT older than tales of Zeus?  Meh, Ida know.

The OT as we know it today is from about 600BCE onward. It was during Babylonian captivity that the Jews came into contact with Zoroastrianism and that changed their faith from a more polytheistic approach to monotheistic. When this occurred, many of their stories were reworked to go with the idea of one god. The deity that remained was but the highest ranking of the gods in their pantheon.

[fredtoast]

The best part of this article begins with this line


But this is a selective reading of the Bible, trimmed to its worst parts!


Instead of just smugly listing the bad parts of the Bible to attack all Christians it tries to give a reasonable perspective and explain how people can be good Christians and still reject the crazy parts of the Bible.

[*PhilHos*]

(07-02-2015, 12:20 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: The OT as we know it today is from about 600BCE onward. It was during Babylonian captivity that the Jews came into contact with Zoroastrianism and that changed their faith from a more polytheistic approach to monotheistic. When this occurred, many of their stories were reworked to go with the idea of one god. The deity that remained was but the highest ranking of the gods in their pantheon.

Oh geez.

[*PhilHos*]

I didn't want to comment on the article originally, 'cause I understand the point it's trying to make, but because this will just lead to more misinformation, the very first verse that discusses Christian marriages (in Ephesians chapter 5), it says: "Submit to one another" (Ephesians 5:21).

Plus, it also goes into more detail about the relationship of husbands to wives.

[fredtoast]

(07-02-2015, 12:31 PM)PhilHos Wrote: Oh geez.

His claims are backed up by actual archaeological proof.  There is plenty of evidence that the Hebrews were much more polytheistic before the diaspora.

[Belsnickel]

(07-02-2015, 12:31 PM)PhilHos Wrote: Oh geez.

Do you disagree with the opinions of numerous religious scholars on this issue? This is the prevailing stance these days when looking at the history of Judaism.

[*Nately120*]

Everything I care to know about Christianity came from a double LP.

[*PhilHos*]

(07-02-2015, 12:39 PM)fredtoast Wrote: His claims are backed up by actual archaeological proof.  There is plenty of evidence that the Hebrews were much more polytheistic before the diaspora.

Were there Hebrews that worshiped more than the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Yes. Heck, the Israelites were constantly turning to other gods. That does not make Judaism polytheistic. I have seen nothing that suggests that Judaism the religion involved the worship of anything other than the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.

(07-02-2015, 12:40 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Do you disagree with the opinions of numerous religious scholars on this issue? This is the prevailing stance these days when looking at the history of Judaism.

Considering that the prevailing suggested date of Zoroaster's birth is considered to be the 6th Century BC, I find it hard to believe that it was he that had an effect on Judaism and not the other way around (at least, when it comes to the similarities between the 2).

[Belsnickel]

(07-02-2015, 12:58 PM)PhilHos Wrote: Considering that the prevailing suggested date of Zoroaster's birth is considered to be the 6th Century BC, I find it hard to believe that it was he that had an effect on Judaism and not the other way around (at least, when it comes to the similarities between the 2).

The archaeological evidence suggests a significant shift in the theology of the Semitic people during the Second Temple Period. Early Semitic theology held a pantheon of deities with each nation having a corresponding deity. Elohim was the deity of the Semitic people, the Israelites, and was the most powerful. While Elohim was the deity worshiped almost exclusively by them, there was the existence of multiple deities. When they returned from their exile and the Second Temple period happened, the archaeological evidence shows a loss of any mention of other deities. They disappear. So during their time away the religion transformed into Judaism from the ancient Semitic religion.

Now, I don't know what the majority of scholars say in regards to Zoroaster's time frame because I've seen many conflicting opinions on it ranging from 1700 to 500 BCE. I don't know what the majority opinion is on that. There is a lot of archaeological evidence suggesting, however, that there was a monotheistic religion in existence in Persia before the exile of the Israelites into Babylon where there is also evidence of this Persian religion having a presence. Whether this was a proto-Zoroastrianism or what, hard to say, but it was there.

So, when combined with the exile to Babylon and the theological shift of the Israelites upon their return, the opinion has come about to be that this religion influenced the ancient Semitic religion into Second Temple Judaism.

[Beaker]

I have one tip for a successful marriage:

1. Pick your battles.

90% of the crap she wants to "discuss" (i.e. argue about or get her way), I really don't care about anyway. It doesn't matter to me what color throw pillows we get, or whether or not we need sconces in the hallway. If I let her have her way on most of the stuff she wants (which don't matter to me), then when I really do want something, she thinks to herself "he usually lets me have my way, this must really be important to him, ok, I'll let him have it". She thinks she is controlling most of the decisions and letting me have a few things to keep me happy, when in reality I get the things I want plus I don't have to listen to the bitching because I didn't let her have the things I don't care about anyway. Simple.

[*Nately120*]

(07-02-2015, 01:35 PM)Beaker Wrote: I have one tip for a successful marriage:

1. Pick your battles.

90% of the crap she wants to "discuss" (i.e. argue about or get her way), I really don't care about anyway. It doesn't matter to me what color throw pillows we get, or whether or not we need sconces in the hallway. If I let her have her way on most of the stuff she wants (which don't matter to me), then when I really do want something, she thinks to herself "he usually lets me have my way, this must really be important to him, ok, I'll let him have it". She thinks she is controlling most of the decisions and letting me have a few things to keep me happy, when in reality I get the things I want plus I don't have to listen to the bitching because I didn't let her have the things I don't care about anyway. Simple.

I was in a relationship where I attempted to give in and let her do things her way after a number of pointless battles involving stating my actual thoughts on things, but she was unhappy because she didn't want me to give in.  Basically, she wanted to do things her way but she wanted me to WANT to do things her way without having to give in and just let her win.  It was pretty frustrating.

She would get upset when I argued or attempted to even debate my point/my way but when I gave in and decided that just doing things her way was good enough for me she took that as me not wanting or being capable of being involved in a working relationship.  She was a pain in the arse.  So in summation, just giving in doesn't always work either.

[Beaker]

(07-02-2015, 01:39 PM)Nately120 Wrote: I was in a relationship where I attempted to give in and let her do things her way after a number of pointless battles involving stating my actual thoughts on things, but she was unhappy because she didn't want me to give in.  Basically, she wanted to do things her way but she wanted me to WANT to do things her way without having to give in and just let her win.  It was pretty frustrating.

She would get upset when I argued or attempted to even debate my point/my way but when I gave in and decided that just doing things her way was good enough for me she took that as me not wanting or being capable of being involved in a working relationship.  She was a pain in the arse.  So in summation, just giving in doesn't always work either.

Not giving in...picking your battles. The chick you had simply decided she wasn't going to be happy no matter what.

[*Nately120*]

(07-02-2015, 01:48 PM)Beaker Wrote: Not giving in...picking your battles. The chick you had simply decided she wasn't going to be happy no matter what.

The numbers of battles I picked diminished over the course of our relationship.  I don't blame anyone for not being particularly happy with me, but this was just unfair.