SPC, I’d say the onus is on you to make sure that your lack of belief in God is not going to have you end up in hell. You call that a threat (which is ridiculous, because I’m not creating the consequences) – I call it a warning or maybe an excellent reason to seek God to see if there really is something to Christianity.

Many of the atheists here think themselves very clever and look down their noses at Christians. When I read CS Lewis’ Mere Christianity and realised he was smarter than me by a long shot and 50 years ago had addressed all of my essentially schoolboy objections to Christianity, I was able to set them aside temporarily and actually seek God myself (and fortunately, find Him).

The are ‘Old Earth’ Christians, by the way, and many (like me) who have no problem with the possibility that evolution was central in creating the world we have today. However, I diverge from ‘evolutionists’ in believing that whatever the mechanism, God set everything in motion.

Silly academic objections or logical arguments are a poor substitute for seeking an actual experience of God by reading the Bible and praying.

I just don’t know why people abandon faith in God to embrace evolution and consequently atheism.

We all start as atheists. Some are taught about God as children, and some of those subsequently revise their beliefs. Others remain as atheists or move to some hybrid view.

It’s a terrible world view to live by. No hope, no purpose, no love, just blind pitiless indifference.

That’s extremely arrogant and extremely offensive directed at anyone you deem doesn’t meet your standards. Standards that appear to be very low by what you have said here.

And it’s this sort of wretched attitude that is the cause many moderate and reasonable people who have a faith in a god to be given a hard time, tainted by the nonsense espoused by a few extreme intolerants.

1. there is no evidence for a period when there were only two human beings alive – there is for evolution (out of earlier homo erectus) and homo sapien existence for over 150,000 years and nearly 100,000 for homo sapien sapiens.
2. the only theory of a first couple that co-exists with evolution is ancient astronaut DNA. But there is no evidence.
3. the de facto relationships precedes marriage idea is a product of our awareness of anthropology (way group culture is formed and develops).

The idea that faith in God cannot coincide with respect for historical fact is the real problem for God religion today and why people abandon it, but not God.

Slander of those who no longer belief in the religious myth created by men, in their knowledge of good and evil creating a god in their own image, as people without hope, purpose or love – only pitiless indifference, is unsurprising. Threatening unbelievers with a place down below is the practice of all authoritarian cults when their nakedness is exposed. The Inquisition made it manifest by burning people on crosses – now that was pitiless indifference to human life.

By the way Pete, when you die, which way are you going to go? Up or down?

Down obviously. Just as well accepted as evolution is something called gravity. I’ll be sprinkled back to the earth. Recycled nature.

Thus you expect others to have to prove their position or withdraw their dissenting statements – such as the more recent one, withdraw from evolution as a first (evidential) principle in this matter. Asked for, thus with less menace than during the Inquisition, as it must be in modern secular society (Darwin feared prison for releasing his first book on evolution). This is unsurprising from those who would exploit God to position their faith in dominance of society. I will simply note this is why modern society is rejecting God religion (if not God).

I suppose some people believe that others are supposed to be directed and instructed by them – in fact they see it as part of their duty in their work of faith. Being in a positon of authority over others in religion does this to some people. But it is not advantageous in public debate, and probably has disenchanted people change churches as well.

We should cut to the chase, those who claim marriage preceded government only do so because they are seeking (desperately need) secular support for their religious based opposition to marriage law reform. They want support from right wingers against nanny state government. The attempt is to claim marriage as an institution that is accountable to something both before and greater than government. Thus form an alliance between those who claim this is God and those who claim it is the people, all of a design to block liberal change by government legislation.

I find it amusing that religious people taking this approach are thus not prepared to say what they believe that God ordained marriage for the first couple and thus marriage is of God and a ritual of religion. Possibly because marriage tests for religious marriage in a church and a civil ceremony are already different (remarriage of dovorced people etc). So one more change means little. I did outline earlier the many changes to marriage law that occured within biblical religion, so change by man is a long standing practice within Judeo-Christian tradition.

I will say, the bible word (of and about God and man in faith relationship) says God gave man dominion on Earth – governance that clearly included the marriage bed. Man then acting on knowledge of good and evil governed the rules of the marriage bed.

We are born mortal and as for Romans and who is deserving of death, Jesus simply said men should stop presuming to be worthy of determining this – whether in Galilee streets or anywhere else. We die soon enough, we should simpy love each other and let live.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1200486/The-Genesis-enigma-How-DID-Bible-evolution-life-3-000-years-Darwin.html

So in the beginning were de facto relationships lacks historical evidence.

So does in the beginning there was marriage. And there must have been coupling of humans before marriage at some stage back in history, so ‘de facto’ first is really the only practical possibility.

Lastly I would respectfully suggest you abandon evolution as a first principle. It offers little explanatory value and I actually think it is not true. Creation makes a lot more sense.

Evolution of humans and human communities and societies with eventually enough thought and communication to form some sort of “marriage” like relationships makes far more sense.

In fact ‘suddenly marriage being created’ before any other type of relationship makes no sense at all.

Chuck Bird, hanging your hat on binding referenda is doing the same thing Craig is. I want someone who will nail his colours to the mast, and behave consistently and predictably. A politician shouldn’t be a funnel for the vagaries of popular opinion, he should be his own man and have strong principles so voters can make a choice confident in his integrity.

Politicians like this are obviously a very rare breed. Ron Paul seemed to be although too libertarian for my liking.

That was my point. The reference to marriage existing before governments, I need to be more precise. I am saying government in the sense of nation states. Abraham and Sarah lived in an age of tribes and extended family groups, similar to NZ Maori, who incidentally also had marriage and not de facto relationships.

So in the beginning were de facto relationships lacks historical evidence. Lastly I would respectfully suggest you abandon evolution as a first principle. It offers little explanatory value and I actually think it is not true. Creation makes a lot more sense. Finally I wasn’t sneering, I was simply vigorously disagreeing with your argument.

The Jewish calender began 3761BCE. Counting the bible account from that time delivers a Terah born in 1883BCE and Abraham born in 1753BCE. Thus the period of his life in Canaan, age 75-175, would have been from 1678-1578BCE.

I suppose those using Christian Ussher dates for “Adam” c4000BCE presume they can recount that time back 240 years (thus Abraham age 75-175 in 1918-1818BCE). Coincidently the Hebrew alphabet count for the letters R (200) and M (40) is 240. I guess Ussher spoke and wrote in the Latin of RoMe.

In the beginning

1. who married the first couple – if you say someone not of humanity, then it is not a human insititution

OMG … you are claiming your God controls the institution and not human government. When did the unchanging God decide that men had to stop marrying close relatives (age of Moses?), stop marrying their wives sisters (age of Moses, after Jacob married Leah and Rachel), that polygamy was wrong (NT for Christians and 1000CE for Jews and Moslems still do it where allowed), not allow divorced people to remarry (NT for Christians). So if “God” keeps changing the rules for marriage, what makes anyone so sure that an unchanging God has been involved in making and presiding over the marriage bed insititution, rather than human governance?

2. when homo erectus evolved into homo sapiens were there really just two?

WTF has the existence of marriage in Egypt got to do with evidence for marriage preceding the emergence of government – they had government in Egypt, they even had modern marriage law for divorce – a property share to the wife.

De facto partnerships preceded marriages. Marriages required the development of public institution/collective recognition of individual property rights/government.

1. You claimed marriage preceded government – there is no evidence for this.
2. For marriage to exist, requires the capability to recognise their lawful validity (as distinct from just cohabiting) – that requires government/society collective.
3. Initial cohabitation has to have been de facto – via subsequent area procreation a collective can develop. Then cohabitations can be formalised, this as property rights are being developed to differentiate ownership in that community.

For your information – government existed in the world before the Pharoahs (shortly after 3000BCE). People were getting married at Jericho Canaan pre 5000BCE. It has existed since there was fixed settlement c10,000BCE – time of cultivation of crops and domestication of flocks. It probably occured within governance/public ceremony of hunter gather groups leaving Africa around 60-50,000BCE. But those forming their own group coupling up and having descendants were de facto (no one to perform the ceremony or to preside over the cultural norm/law of this obligation – from dowry to divorce arrangments). Those forming new settlements or hunter gatherer groups as a couple living in a new area would have been either runaways or survivors. The bible refers to Adam and Eve as runaways/outcasts and Noah as a survivor.

As for your dating of Abraham and Sarah – it is not biblical. But it is closer to the facts than the date given for the first couple.

In the beginning there were de facto relationships.

Marriage was created by society to formalise these relationships – generally because of property (inheritance) rights (there is also the issue of parent and control of the estate – the son’s partner would breed the grandchildren and the daughter could be leveraged to form inter-family alliances (protecting their property from others).

If one defines that of the culture/society that formalises de facto pairings as marriages, as not of government, then who recognised related property rights?

The reason marriage was heterosexual (and other rellationships were not formalised) was because of the nature of the link between procreation and inheritance of property.

In any case marriage/relationship property law is now a creature of government and civil union/same sex de facto partners have relationship issues so modernising the formal institution is a legal matter and now a political formality. The future is not a black President of the USA it is with a woman as President and her first lady.

I am disappointed Colin has not been prepared to debate the issues on this forum. He could do with the practice. He will have more challenges if he does get to be an MP.

It is a fair question if his policy would apply to abortion and euthanasia like he says it would for homosexual abortion and homosexual adoption.

My vote is going to a party that supports binding referenda on moral issues and has a realistic chance of getting into Parliament.

I can respect even evil liberals for nailing their colours to the flag and being predictable in what they will and won’t support.

The idea of voting for people who may slither and wriggle in any direction afterward is ghastly.

The private lives of politicians are OF COURSE incredibly important e.g. Shane Jones and his disgusting ‘private’ behaviour (lying, pornography, disrespecting his wife in the process) should have been a far bigger deal than it was, because of what it reveals about the creep.

It’s amazing to see how much stupidity and idiocy is being paraded by the liberals posting in this thread.

Keep up the good work Andrei, Lucia, Harriet and others – don’t let the evil go unchallenged.

Ryan, this is actually why I came onto this thread in the 1st place. The machinery of the state is being used to establish gay marriage. That is a fact.

Marriage existed before the State, before there were even kings and queens. When Abraham married Sarah there were no government officials or even nation states. So marriage preceded the state.

Gay activists are demanding that the state create gay marriage, which did not exist before. So you have it completely about-face. It is the other side using the machinery of the state to impose their morality, their view that it is right for a man and a man to marry, on society. Marriage between a man and a woman did not require the state to make it come into being. Gay marriage is purely an invention of the state.

Ideally, Scott, I’d like to see the Marriage Act removed entirely. People can get married, it’s no business of the State’s. But if we are going to have a State-legislated marriage, it should not discriminate on the basis of one group of people’s ideas about how everyone should live.

CG has a good point. The issue in the Herald article was about Colin Craig’s idea of democracy. There well be some conservatives Christian or not who only call for a binding referendum when it suits them. However, this sort of hypocrisy would be far more common from the left.

Just look at then calling for a referendum on any issue which way a major issue in the election. National was very clear on their policy regarding partial asset sales.