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

21–30 of 115 posts

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

#21

Post by Natsu »

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…

With respect to homosexuality, as far as I'm aware, all of the verses that describe a punishment for it say that the person who partakes of it will end up on a sickbed. Given the times, it probably carried a high risk of STIs. Proverbs has similar warnings with respect to men who lose their vigor to prostitutes, or as a result of fornication.

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

#22

Post by atlantic »

InclinedPlane wrote: post #19
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 po…

I don't think that physical and cultural genocide is exclusive to the Victorian era. How much difference is there in reality between the Victorian drive to civilize and Christianize, and the modern Western impulse to ram "democracy" and "freedom" down the throats of unwilling societies at the point of a gun? If anything, they were a lot less hypocritical than we are.

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

#23

Post by jdjdirn »

InclinedPlane wrote: post #19
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 po…

Oh how things have changed /s

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

#24

Post by jdjdirn »

InclinedPlane wrote: post #19
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 po…

Oh how things have changed /s

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

#25

Post by ars »

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…

> This is not spoken against in the Bible

Deuteronomy 17:17 begs to differ: "And he [the king] shall not take many wives for himself"

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

#26

Post by ars »

rat87 wrote: post #16
throwitback wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Even when permitted it was very rare.

For one thing only the very wealthy could afford it - each wife was required to have her own house (separate rooms in one house was not enough).

For the most part it was practiced mainly by traveling businessmen/salesmen who would have a wife in each city where they worked. (Don't forget how slow and long travel used to be.)

The main reason for permitting it is that historically males died more often than females, so there is a small surplus of females, and permitting a small amount of polygamy helps with that.

It's no longer relevant these days.

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

#27

Post by notdonspaulding »

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…

    > 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...
It is a misconception of Jesus' teachings to say that he invalidated the Mosaic law with a message of "it's all about love". Notice in the Sermon on the Mount for example how he is constantly going one level more conservative than the Mosaic law would allow, condemning not just immoral actions but immoral thoughts as well!

Here on the issue of homosexuality you believe Moses, Jesus and Paul say 3 different things. And yet Jesus clearly states that he didn't come to change the Mosaic law in any way!

https://www.bible.com/bible/59/mat.5:17-20

Martin Luther took that last verse to mean that Jesus is not merely giving a list of do's and don'ts, but rather setting an impossibly high standard for anyone but God to meet. Regardless, you have to either understand Jesus to mean that he's not contradicting Moses, or take Jesus to be a liar. There aren't many reasonable options in between.

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

#28

Post by notdonspaulding »

Natsu wrote: post #21
throwitback wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

With respect to homosexuality, as far as I'm aware, all of the verses that describe a punishment for it say that the person who partakes of it will end up on a sickbed. Given the times, it probably carried a high risk of STIs. Proverbs has similar warnings with respect to men who lose their vigor to prostitutes, or as a result of fornication.

The practical consequences of homosexuality and prostitution (STIs and reduced vigor) are of much less concern to Jesus and Paul (and other Biblical figures) than the immediate problem of ignoring God's design and intentions for sex.

Here's a quick list of passages dealing with sexual immorality:

http://www.openbible.info/topics/sexual_immorality

Notice the theme where the immoral person does not get to inherit the kingdom of God. That's a way-out-in-the-future concept, not any kind of concern for the physical body of the immoral person.

Which isn't to say there aren't practical benefits to Biblical sexuality. Certainly your chance of getting an STI is dramatically reduced (eliminated?) by remaining faithful to your spouse in marriage. Abstinence for the unmarried has the same obvious benefits. Heterosexuality is clearly the easiest way to procreate, and the inherent differences between men and women gives children a broader experience of physical, mental, emotional interaction with the world (seeing how mom and dad handle the same situation in gender-unique ways, for instance).

But again, all of that is the secondary concern. The primary concern of all sin is the immediate effect it has on the spiritual condition of a man. The preeminent theme throughout the Old Testament and New is that God is Holy. He takes his holiness seriously. Man has sinned. God judges all sins. There is one way back to God, and that's by taking advantage of the path He made back to Himself, via his son, Jesus.

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

#29

Post by notdonspaulding »

plonh wrote: post #8
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)…

Bully and browbeaten seems to be a common complaint in modern Biblical families. Obviously there are millions of Christians who have lives they call Christian that are informed by centuries of culture that postdates the Bible.

    > Bully and browbeaten seems to be a common complaint in modern Biblical families
I'm certain this passage is taken out of context in support of that philosophy. However, it's an abuse of the text, and not a reasonable conclusion from reading it in its entirety.

Are you saying we should judge all philosophies by their abuse? We should ignore climate scientists because of ClimateGate? We should outlaw religions because there are crazy people in the world who claim to be killing in the name of some of them?

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

#30

Post by throwitback »

notdonspaulding wrote: post #27
throwitback wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> 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... It is a misconception of Jesus' teachings to say that he invalidated the Mosaic law with a message of "it's all about love". Notice in the Sermon on the Mount for example how he is constantly going one level more conservative than the Mosaic law would allow, condemning not just immoral actions b…

I hope you don't wear any cotton/polyester blends.

> Thou shalt not wear a garment of divers sorts, as of woollen and linen together. (Deut 22:11, KJV)

Most Christians I've known believe that some combination of Matt 15:11 (Jesus) and Acts 10 (Paul) mean that while the morality expoused in the original Law is forever relevant, the practical concerns (what to eat, what clothing to wear, how to handle menstruation) and the ritual concerns (sacrifice, temple practices) are no longer relevant.

So Jesus takes morality to 11, but not the other things. And according to Jesus, morality == love.

All this to say: I'm pretty comfortable with my interpretation. I'm not ignorant of the spectrum of Christian doctrine, and I feel like I'm mostly doing it justice while keeping it simple.

Post reply on HN