Yes, about.com is the definitive source for an ecclesiastical understanding of the history of marriage.  

Well, we have been trumped.  I guess the discussion is ended.

paleocon wrote:Yes, about.com is the definitive source for an ecclesiastical understanding of the history of marriage.  

Well, we have been trumped.  I guess the discussion is ended.

Is the source the problem or the information given ??  Even Freeretardlic can give facts, its the opinion part that is in question.

the Yeti wrote:

paleocon wrote:Yes, about.com is the definitive source for an ecclesiastical understanding of the history of marriage.  

Well, we have been trumped.  I guess the discussion is ended.

Is the source the problem or the information given ??  Even Freeretardlic can give facts, its the opinion part that is in question.

If you don't see the problem with quoting "about.com" as an authoritative source on the Christian concept and history of marriage then we have less to discuss than I previously imagined.  I doubt the source and the information.

paleocon wrote:

the Yeti wrote:

paleocon wrote:Yes, about.com is the definitive source for an ecclesiastical understanding of the history of marriage.  

Well, we have been trumped.  I guess the discussion is ended.

Is the source the problem or the information given ??  Even Freeretardlic can give facts, its the opinion part that is in question.

If you don't see the problem with quoting "about.com" as an authoritative source on the Christian concept and history of marriage then we have less to discuss than I previously imagined.  I doubt the source and the information.

Lets look at the information again and see what you DOUBT!!!
Most ancient societies needed a secure environment for the perpetuation of the species, a system of rules to handle the granting of PROPERTY RIGHTS, and the protection of bloodlines. The institution of marriage handled these needs. For instance, ancient Hebrew law required a man to become the husband of a deceased brother's widow. Is that not true???

Throughout history, and even today, families ARRANGED marriages for couples. TRUE, unless you think otherwise. i thought common knowlege. The people involved didn't and don't have much to say about the decision. Most couples didn't marry because they were in love but for ECONOMIC LIASONS. TRUE, unless Pleocon disagrees !

Some marriages were by proxy, some involved a dowry (bride's family giving money or presents to the groom or his family), some required a bride price (the groom or his family giving money or a present to the bride's family), FEW had any sort of courtship or dating, but most had traditions. Is that in DOUBT Paleocon??? seriously!!

The notion of marriage as a sacrament and not JUST A CONTRACT did not occur until St. Paul who compared the relationship of a husband and wife to that of Christ and his church (Eph. v, 23-32).  Prove otherwise Paleocon. Its called HISTORY.

There appeared to be many marriages taking place without witness or ceremony in the 1500's. YES The Council of Trent was so disturbed by this, which they decreed in 1563 that marriages should be celebrated in the presence of a priest and at least two witnesses. TRUE according to HISTORY, not according to Blog nanny, Paleocon Marriage took on a new role of saving men and women from being sinful, and of procreation. Love WASN'T a necessary ingredient for marriage during this era.

Years later, the Puritans viewed marriage as a very blessed relationship that gave marital partners an opportunity to not only love, but also to forgive. So be it

Many people hold the view that regardless of how people enter into matrimony, marriage is a bond between two people that involves responsibility and legalities, as well as commitment and challenge. That concept of marriage hasn't changed through the ages. Are you arguing that point too??

So Paleocon, which part of that did you find "doubtfull" ??  amuse me.

Your arguments and your sources are ridiculous.  If inserting snarky comments in red text inside a completely pathetic, non-authoritative source is taken for "serious discussions" or "intellectual argument" then I should have ignored you a long time ago.  I am not wasting my time with the likes of you any longer.  It just isn't worth the effort to attempt to educate you.  

Rather than listen to your rants I suggest we all add "the Yeti" to our ignore list.  I am tired of listening to infantile arguments and would prefer to engage in serious discussions with thoughtful people.  Responding to this lunacy distracts us from thoughtful discussions and encourages more trolling by uneducated and ineducable trolls.

paleocon wrote:Your arguments and your sources are ridiculous.  If inserting snarky comments in red text inside a completely pathetic, non-authoritative source is taken for "serious discussions" or "intellectual argument" then I should have ignored you a long time ago.  I am not wasting my time with the likes of you any longer.  It just isn't worth the effort to attempt to educate you.  

Rather than listen to your rants I suggest we all add "the Yeti" to our ignore list.  I am tired of listening to infantile arguments and would prefer to engage in serious discussions with thoughtful people.  Responding to this lunacy distracts us from thoughtful discussions and encourages more trolling by uneducated and ineducable trolls.

So pointing out the reality of the post is now trolling in your eye. I guess you have NO GOP FACTS to back up your laughable claims??  What part of that post was infantile???  why dont you start refuting my posts instead of dismissing them as Liberal talking points?  I have yet to see one intellectual thing out of you, why not start NOW.

How long must this go on?

Eyas wrote:How long must this go on?

It will go on as long as you respond to his rants.  I have put "the Yeti" on ignore and won't be reading his posts any longer.  It is pointless.

the Yeti wrote:

paleocon wrote:

If you don't see the problem with quoting "about.com" as an authoritative source on the Christian concept and history of marriage then we have less to discuss than I previously imagined.  I doubt the source and the information.

Lets look at the information again and see what you DOUBT!!!

Throughout history, and even today, families ARRANGED marriages for couples. TRUE, unless you think otherwise. i thought common knowlege. The people involved didn't and don't have much to say about the decision. Most couples didn't marry because they were in love but for ECONOMIC LIASONS. TRUE, unless Pleocon disagrees !

So Paleocon, which part of that did you find "doubtfull" ??  amuse me.

So, Yeti, it's true that most couples marry for "economic liasons"?

Is there any other "doubtfull" things that you know which are "common knowlege"?

Ou, Francais si vous aimez.

O, en español, si le gusta.

Или, на русском языке, если Вы любите.


Grasp of a language is essential to communication, vendejo.

paleocon wrote:

Eyas wrote:How long must this go on?

It will go on as long as you respond to his rants.  I have put "the Yeti" on ignore and won't be reading his posts any longer.  It is pointless.

I was typing that last one while you were posting.

I will take your advice.

BTW, how's my Russian?