Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

19th Century Marriage Manuals: Advice for Young Husbands

mimimatthews.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 115 posts

Re: 19th Century Marriage Manuals: Advice for Young Husbands

#11

Post by imissmyjuno »

notdonspaulding wrote: post #6

From the article: > Indeed, in many conservative religious denominations, > the same tenets are echoed today. While I'm not going to claim I hold the same tenets as a book I've never read, I guess that I'm in one of the "conservative religious denominations" which the author is indicating here. I can certainly see some resemblance between a few of the examples cited from the book and my current (religiously-inspired)…

This is potentially a very ignorant question but, how do you choose which passages should not be followed?

Re: 19th Century Marriage Manuals: Advice for Young Husbands

#12

Post by blowski »

notdonspaulding wrote: post #6

From the article: > Indeed, in many conservative religious denominations, > the same tenets are echoed today. While I'm not going to claim I hold the same tenets as a book I've never read, I guess that I'm in one of the "conservative religious denominations" which the author is indicating here. I can certainly see some resemblance between a few of the examples cited from the book and my current (religiously-inspired)…

I agree. Every verse in the New Testament has to be viewed through the lens of Mark 12:30-31.

> Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength. The second is this: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' There is no commandment greater than these.

Re: 19th Century Marriage Manuals: Advice for Young Husbands

#13

Post by imissmyjuno »

vezzy-fnord wrote: post #2

The destruction of Western society's moral backbone through the degeneration of traditional marriage such that the Victorian account reads anachronistic to a modern reader, is, I'd venture, a relatively positive development. The conception of traditional marriage that cruder familialists and social conservatives promote then is not really that traditional, nor divinely enshrined.

are you saying social conservatives are sexist in a way that's similar to the patronizing behaviour quoted from the book? i'm a little confused about the 2nd sentence too.

Re: 19th Century Marriage Manuals: Advice for Young Husbands

#14

Post by TeMPOraL »

imissmyjuno wrote: post #11
notdonspaulding wrote: post #6

From the article: > Indeed, in many conservative religious denominations, > the same tenets are echoed today. While I'm not going to claim I hold the same tenets as a book I've never read, I guess that I'm in one of the "conservative religious denominations" which the author is indicating here. I can certainly see some resemblance between a few of the examples cited from the book and my current (religiously-inspired)…

This is potentially a very ignorant question but, how do you choose which passages should not be followed?

It's less about chosing passages, and more about reading them in the context of the whole book they're in. A passage by itself may sound stark, but the wole chapter is in fact toning it down.

Re: 19th Century Marriage Manuals: Advice for Young Husbands

#15

Post by throwitback »

imissmyjuno wrote: post #11
notdonspaulding wrote: post #6

From the article: > Indeed, in many conservative religious denominations, > the same tenets are echoed today. While I'm not going to claim I hold the same tenets as a book I've never read, I guess that I'm in one of the "conservative religious denominations" which the author is indicating here. I can certainly see some resemblance between a few of the examples cited from the book and my current (religiously-inspired)…

This is potentially a very ignorant question but, how do you choose which passages should not be followed?

Loosely speaking, God/"Moses" put a bunch of rules in play for the early Israelites. Then Jesus came around and said "it's all about love." Then Paul clarified Jesus with more specific directions. So Paul > Jesus > Moses, mostly because of chronology.

Let's take gay people as an example. Moses said no, Jesus said it's all about love, and Paul said no to gay people. So even though Jesus is always right, in practice he was usually pretty vague, so Paul ends up with the overrule.

*Side note: some people believe that Paul and/or Moses were only referring to gay people in the context of pagan ritual sex, and that Jesus's "love" should take priority. I'd believe Moses was about pagan sex and Paul is non-canon if I were still Christian. This shows that there's plenty of room for interpretation. The previous paragraphs are simply the evangelical mainstream interpretation.

Edit: A cynical me would also say that interpretation depends on agenda.

Re: 19th Century Marriage Manuals: Advice for Young Husbands

#16

Post by rat87 »

throwitback wrote: post #10
notdonspaulding wrote: post #6

From the article: > Indeed, in many conservative religious denominations, > the same tenets are echoed today. While I'm not going to claim I hold the same tenets as a book I've never read, I guess that I'm in one of the "conservative religious denominations" which the author is indicating here. I can certainly see some resemblance between a few of the examples cited from the book and my current (religiously-inspired)…

Perhaps a problem is that this passage tends to be the most taught marriage-related passage in the evangelical churches and para-church organizations I've attended? One can make many cases for models of Biblical marriage (David, a "man after God's own heart" was polygamous. This is not spoken against in the Bible, but his adultery with another man's wife was condemned. To me, this is implicit support.) One can also t…

The Torah allows polygamy.

Ashkenazi Jews(descendant of those living in Germany around 900 or so AD many of whom later move east to Poland, Ukraine, and Russia) banned polygamy around ~1000 AD.

I think it mostly died down in Sephardic and Yemeni after most of them moved to the Israel but I'm not sure if it was that common before that time.

Re: 19th Century Marriage Manuals: Advice for Young Husbands

#17

Post by __alta__ »

notdonspaulding wrote: post #6

From the article: > Indeed, in many conservative religious denominations, > the same tenets are echoed today. While I'm not going to claim I hold the same tenets as a book I've never read, I guess that I'm in one of the "conservative religious denominations" which the author is indicating here. I can certainly see some resemblance between a few of the examples cited from the book and my current (religiously-inspired)…

> If this is all you know of "Christian marriage philosophy", please take the time to inform yourself. I'd suggest you find someone who claims to follow the Bible in their marriage and ask them how this passage specifically plays out in their married life. (Hint: If the passage is truly being followed, what you will find is anything but a bully of a man and a brow-beaten woman)

I'll admit that passage is often what I think of when I think of Christian marriage philosophy from the Bible – and am willing to correct that notion. What, in your mind, should be the outcome of someone who claims to follow the Bible in their marriage w.r.t. this passage? Your hint didn't really lay out an answer; only a non-answer.

I interpret the church to mean members of Christianity. In that lens, it doesn't seem like the relationship between a woman submitting to her husband ought to be like how a Christian submits to Christ. Does it?

Re: 19th Century Marriage Manuals: Advice for Young Husbands

#18

Post by Someone »

throwitback wrote: post #15
imissmyjuno wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is potentially a very ignorant question but, how do you choose which passages should not be followed?

Loosely speaking, God/"Moses" put a bunch of rules in play for the early Israelites. Then Jesus came around and said "it's all about love." Then Paul clarified Jesus with more specific directions. So Paul > Jesus > Moses, mostly because of chronology. Let's take gay people as an example. Moses said no, Jesus said it's all about love, and Paul said no to gay people. So even though Jesus is always right, in practice he…

But for Catholics, the pope can override ^W interpret what all those long dead people said, (mostly) because of chronology.

For Protestants, Luther came along and more or less said "make up your own mind", so everybody can make their own interpretation.

So, yes interpretation at the very least depends on where one wants to put the accents.

Re: 19th Century Marriage Manuals: Advice for Young Husbands

#19

Post by InclinedPlane »

vezzy-fnord wrote: post #2

The destruction of Western society's moral backbone through the degeneration of traditional marriage such that the Victorian account reads anachronistic to a modern reader, is, I'd venture, a relatively positive development. The conception of traditional marriage that cruder familialists and social conservatives promote then is not really that traditional, nor divinely enshrined.

A good sentiment, though I'd quibble about the use of the word "moral" here. It's a shame there isn't better developed terminology, but the social norms and standards of the Victorian elite were quite far from anything I would term moral. Selfish, oppressive, iniquitous, abusive, racist, hypocritical, and worse. This was the culture that spawned and supported numerous physical and cultural genocides against native populations around the world. The culture that was so iniquitous it gave rise to the backlash of Marxism and totalitarian communism which had such a disastrous impact on humanity in the 20th century.

Re: 19th Century Marriage Manuals: Advice for Young Husbands

#20

Post by gd1 »

DougN7 wrote: post #3

Call me old fashioned, but as a father and husband I do try to act this way: "He should always be ready to sacrifice his present personal pleasure to the future well-being of those who have the first and best claim to his regard.”

“The same law which imposes upon the husband the duty of supporting his wife, gives him a general and paramount claim to her obedience.”

I bet you don't get this bit in return.

Post reply on HN