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

41–50 of 115 posts

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

#41

Post by Stratoscope »

throwitback wrote: post #30
notdonspaulding wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

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

Polyester? A sacrilege!

No, I wear a California uniform. 100% cotton Aloha shirt, 100% cotton pants, long or short depending on the season. (Mostly short.) Birkenstock Arizonas (soft footbed only!), with or without socks.

Can't vouch for the underwear, though. I hope it's mostly cotton, but what are those stretchy bands made of?

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

#42

Post by mattlutze »

Someone wrote: post #18
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…

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.

Luther was still mostly about the Catholic church's canon. His opposition was mostly to the business and political practices of the Church. Or, in other words, against the sale of indulgences for absolution of purgatory-condemning sanctions against living and dead parishioners.

In the beginnings of the 95 Theses he actually puts a favorable light on the Pope, in my brief re-reading [1].

Luther's protestants still held to the catacism(sp?), sacraments, transmutation of the hosts, etc. As far as I've ever understood it.

[1]: http://www.luther.de/en/95thesen.html

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

#43

Post by mikeash »

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.

Back when traditional marriage was strong, it was acceptable for people to own people, for young children to be forced to work in sweatshops, and for people to be persecuted, imprisoned, or even killed because of homosexual activity.

If that's what qualifies as society's "moral backbone" then I am extremely grateful to have destroyed it.

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

#44

Post by mikeash »

atlantic wrote: post #22
InclinedPlane wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I'd wager that India and China would say there's a pretty big difference between then and now.

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

#45

Post by Swizec »

mikeash wrote: post #44
atlantic wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I'd wager that India and China would say there's a pretty big difference between then and now.

Would the middle east also consider the difference positive?

Hell, the NATO bombings in Serbia happened just 15 years ago. That was pretty damn close to home for some of us. I have many friends who remember the bombings.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NATO_bombing_of_Yugoslavia

And 20 years ago NATO bombed a different part of Yugoslavia that was even closer to where I grew up.

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Deliberate_Force

I am really happy that Slovenia was able to secede from Yugoslavia without NATO bombings. Although I do remember hiding in the cellar one night when the sirens went off. Luckily no actual air raid occured.

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

#46

Post by _urga »

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…

Firstly, you've misunderstood Ephesians 5 (and probably the rest of the letter).

Secondly, you're using an argument from silence based on one particular passage to misrepresent the Bible's view of polygamy. The Bible only has one perspicuous model of marriage.

Thirdly, you can't really slip a piece of paper between Paul (or Peter or James or John or any other apostle for that matter) and Jesus. They either stand or fall together. You can't pick or choose.

Actually, the more I study the various Epistles and Jesus' teaching, the more encouraged I am to see how remarkably harmonious it is. Not that this should surprise anyone, Jesus himself said of Paul: "This man is my chosen instrument to proclaim my name to the Gentiles and their kings and to the people of Israel." (Acts 9:15).

You can't have the Father but reject his Son. You can't have the Son but reject his servants.

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

#47

Post by jpt4 »

mattlutze wrote: post #42
Someone wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Luther was still mostly about the Catholic church's canon. His opposition was mostly to the business and political practices of the Church. Or, in other words, against the sale of indulgences for absolution of purgatory-condemning sanctions against living and dead parishioners. In the beginnings of the 95 Theses he actually puts a favorable light on the Pope, in my brief re-reading [1]. Luther's protestants still hel…

The Lutheran Catechism differs from the Catholic on several points of theology, particularly the Lutheran orthogonality of salvation and sanctification [0], which are joint pursuits in Roman Catholicism. Regarding the nature of the hosts, Roman Catholics argue transubstantiation [1], and Lutherans speak "mu" to the question [2].

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sola_fide

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Real_presence_of_Christ_in_the...

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Real_presence_of_Christ_in_the...

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

#48

Post by _urga »

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…

> "Loosely speaking"

I would encourage you to read Jesus more closely, for example, the Sermon on the Mount:

"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished. Therefore whoever relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven." - Matthew 5

If you are sincerely interested in understanding things like the ceremonial law, civil law, moral law, Old Covenant, New Covenant, then I can point you to some excellent study guides and sermons.

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

#50

Post by _urga »

throwitback wrote: post #30
notdonspaulding wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

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

That's an odd way to answer someone who's actually given you a thoughtful reply.

Post reply on HN