A more slippery statement will be hard to find. Is it “more or less … one or more”? The fact is, such a theory is seriously flawed. While it is true that some creatures apparently mate for life (e.g. some species of geese), the ape family, supposedly higher on the evolutionary scale than birds, is quite “promiscuous”! That does not square with the notion that marriage gradually developed as various kinds of organisms were becoming more sophisticated.
Biblical teaching is unequivocal. Jehovah created man, and from his side – in earth’s initial surgical procedure – fashioned his wife. The two were designed to “cleave” to one another (Gen. 2:21-25). In a discussion with the Pharisees, Jesus cited this Old Testament evidence, and declared: “What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder” (Mt. 19:6).
Here is a crucial point. If it is the case that marriage was designed and inaugurated by the Creator, then he has the authority to set the rules. Men and women do not have the right to treat this sacred human relationship in a cavalier, self-directed manner.
According to anthropologists, there is no society wherein marriage does not exist in some format.The institution is, therefore, a universal phenomenon. Since every effect must have an adequate cause, there must be some reasonable explanation for this feature of global society. Actually, there are but two logical possibilities. Marriage either is of supernatural origin, or it had a naturalistic beginning.
Those who subscribe to the theory of evolution allege that marriage is “a human development from animal mating relationships”. A writer in a popular encyclopedia says:
“Some scholars are in inclined to trace the origin of marriage to pairing arrangements of animals below man. Studies reveal that a more or less permanent association between one or more males and one or more females is common among birds and higher mammals” (Locke, p. 311).
PS. NEXT TIME, PLEASE READ POSTINGS ALL THE WAY THROUGH BEFORE MAKING RIDICULOUS COMMENTS IMPLYING THINGS SAID OR MEANT- THINGS THAT ARE CLEARLY NOT WRITTEN. (IE: EVERY ADULT HAS THE RIGHT TO LOVE AND BE LOVED BY AN ADULT WHO LOVES THEM. EVERYONE HAS THE RIGHT TO EQUAL TREATMENT UNDER THE LAW!) AGREED!!!! LOVE LOVE LOVE! I WAS SIMPLY STATING MY OPINION ON THE HYPOCRITICAL BEHAVIOR I OBSERVED DURING THIS PARTICULAR INSTANCE- AS WELL AS MY BELIEFS ON "MARRIAGE". IF I'M NOT MISTAKEN OBAMA HASN'T TAKEN THAT CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT AWAY YET???
UM- DO YOU REALIZE HOW UNNECESSARILY HATEFUL YOUR POST COMES ACROSS? AND ADDITIONALLY SIR, YOUR ARE FORTUNATELY INCORRECT. THE ORIGIN OF MARRIAGE DOES IN FACT PRE-DATE RECORDED HISTORY, THEREFORE IT IS IMPOSSIBLE THAT THE BASIC CONCEPT OF HOLDING A CEREMONY TO COMMEMORATE A LIFE PARTNERSHIP BEGAN IN ANY ONE CULTURE- INCLUDING HAMMURABI. MARRIAGE DEVELOPED IN DIFFERENT WAYS IN DIFFERENT CULTURES BEFORE THOSE CULTURES WERE ABLE TO INTERACT, ERGO ELIMINATING THE POSSIBILITY OF A SINGLE ORIGIN. BUT THE ONE THING THESE CULTURES HAD IN COMMON- UNION OF ONE MAN AND ONE WOMAN BEFORE GOD.. AND WEATHER OR NOT WE AGREE ON SPECIFICS OF RIDICULOUS "RELIGIONS".. GOD, THE AUTHOR AND FINISHER OF LIFE- IS IN FACT VERY REAL. IF NOTHING ELSE, (AND ALL NECESSARY FAITH ASIDE, THE GOD PROVING SCIENTIFIC "PROOF" LIST GOES ON AND ON..) SCIENCE ITSELF PROVES THERE HAS TO BE A CREATOR. RESEARCH THAT. LOVE ALWAYS.
I COMPLETELY AGREE THAT EVERYONE SHOULD HAVE THE SAME LEGAL RIGHTS UNDER THE LAW- WE ARE ALL EQUAL. HOWEVER, "MARRIAGE" AS FAR AS IT DATES BACK IS A RELIGIOUS CEREMONY OF ONE MAN, ONE WOMAN BEFORE GOD. AND WE SIRS, HAVE NO AUTHORITY TO CHANGE THAT. BUT MORE IMPORTANTLY, WHY THE HELL DID YOU EVEN ASK A QUESTION THAT IF NOT GIVEN THE "RIGHT" ANSWER WOULD CAUSE SUCH HATE? SEEMS VERY HYPOCRITICAL.
A more slippery statement will be hard to find. Is it “more or less … one or more”? The fact is, such a theory is seriously flawed. While it is true that some creatures apparently mate for life (e.g. some species of geese), the ape family, supposedly higher on the evolutionary scale than birds, is quite “promiscuous”! That does not square with the notion that marriage gradually developed as various kinds of organisms were becoming more sophisticated.
Biblical teaching is unequivocal. Jehovah created man, and from his side – in earth’s initial surgical procedure – fashioned his wife. The two were designed to “cleave” to one another (Gen. 2:21-25). In a discussion with the Pharisees, Jesus cited this Old Testament evidence, and declared: “What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder” (Mt. 19:6).
Here is a crucial point. If it is the case that marriage was designed and inaugurated by the Creator, then he has the authority to set the rules. Men and women do not have the right to treat this sacred human relationship in a cavalier, self-directed manner.
According to anthropologists, there is no society wherein marriage does not exist in some format.The institution is, therefore, a universal phenomenon. Since every effect must have an adequate cause, there must be some reasonable explanation for this feature of global society. Actually, there are but two logical possibilities. Marriage either is of supernatural origin, or it had a naturalistic beginning.
Those who subscribe to the theory of evolution allege that marriage is “a human development from animal mating relationships”. A writer in a popular encyclopedia says:
“Some scholars are in inclined to trace the origin of marriage to pairing arrangements of animals below man. Studies reveal that a more or less permanent association between one or more males and one or more females is common among birds and higher mammals” (Locke, p. 311).
PS. NEXT TIME, PLEASE READ POSTINGS ALL THE WAY THROUGH BEFORE MAKING RIDICULOUS COMMENTS IMPLYING THINGS SAID OR MEANT- THINGS THAT ARE CLEARLY NOT WRITTEN. (IE: EVERY ADULT HAS THE RIGHT TO LOVE AND BE LOVED BY AN ADULT WHO LOVES THEM. EVERYONE HAS THE RIGHT TO EQUAL TREATMENT UNDER THE LAW!) AGREED!!!! LOVE LOVE LOVE! I WAS SIMPLY STATING MY OPINION ON THE HYPOCRITICAL BEHAVIOR I OBSERVED DURING THIS PARTICULAR INSTANCE- AS WELL AS MY BELIEFS ON "MARRIAGE". IF I'M NOT MISTAKEN OBAMA HASN'T TAKEN THAT CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT AWAY YET???