But wait a minute!

Are you the very person who started this thread,… A "scientific" question???

Are you suffering from short-term memory loss Spider?

I’m serious. You can never seem to even remember what you post.

I don't believe that sarcasm is necessary. Now you know I can have a bad temper, so when you annoy me to the point that I get sarcastic to you, please don't look to anyone but yourself for blame.

Marriage is clearly stated as necessary, in Genesis 2:24. Eve is called Adams wife in Genesis 2:25. If you met an old friend and she said "Oh, let me introduce you to my husband", would you demand to watch their wedding video before you admitted that they were actually married? You are asking for an unreasonable burden of proof here. The Bible clearly states that Eve was Adam's wife.

This was never intended to be a discussion of science vs religion. It was never meant to be answered, it was a question I wanted others to think about.

How the f**k could they have been married when there was nobody else about?
And if there was, why wasn't it mentioned in the bible when it is important.
So, it's either the bible is written by men, and they didn't know nothing, or the bible was written with God's inspiration and He either forgot, or it just didn't happen.
Don't try to defy the logic of the old Testament with the new Testament. Don't try to proof the bible with the bible, it doesn't work with me.

It's important that men and women are married...that's covered in Genesis 2:24. Right after creating men and women, God said "Men and women should get married". The fact that Adam and Eve's marriage isn't described has absolutely no significance. Eve is described as Adam's wife from Geneiss 2:25 on. You guys are suggesting a completely unreasonable burden of proof. Eve is called Adam's wife...what else do you want, wedding pictures?

Or it happened and it wasn't important enough to be included in the Bible. Why do you ignore the fact that the Bible describes God as walking through the garden? Why do you ignore the fact that God could have married Adam and Eve? Why do you ignore the fact that Adam and Eve could have simply dedicated themselves to each other before God? You have a pre-determined conclusion and you are trying to find evidence to support that conclusion.

My point being: If it was IMPORTANT, it would have been mentioned.
So: Either marriage is not that important for having sex, or if it was it would have been mention at the FIRST opportunity, being the old testament.

Genesis 2:23


Here's the first marriage ceremony. Eve was created, then Adam saw her, declared her " bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh" and they were married.

Marriage is important. There are thousands of married couples in the Bible and only a couple marriages described. If God commands something of us, it's important. Regardless of if the marriage ceremony is described (it appears Adam and Eve's is described).

My apologies then.

I thought these were discussion forums.

I didn’t realize these forums were intended for the purpose of direct other people’s thoughts.

My mistake obviously.

Sarcasm again. Really original. I suppose I'm the first person to ever pose a thought question?

James, did you just apologize for thinking out loud????

Cripes, what a ceremony

I just hope that I never have to hear that

1) It was the first ceremony
2) Adam was only a couple hours old

They have gotten better since then. This particular ceremony is the reason why women are now in charge of the wedding plans.

Still: No, thank you
I prefer to cohabit

I confess to being bored to death.

I've never seen Christianity presented in such a negative light. Spider could drive away the most devout believers. In fact, he’s probably doing that in droves and not even realizing it.

"Bolded" for emphasis.

Oh, you are right, I did put that link on there. I verified the information off the CIA world factbook and should have linked that one instead. So, yes, I did use Wikipedia. Good catch, sorry about that.

Chef, here is the rock I live under:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dating

"Radiocarbon dating is a radiometric dating method that uses the naturally occurring isotope carbon-14 (14C) to determine the age of carbonaceous materials up to about 60,000 years."

Issue #1 - it only works up to 60,000 years.

"...For approximate analysis it is assumed that the cosmic ray flux is constant over long periods of time; thus carbon-14 is produced at a constant rate and the proportion of radioactive to non-radioactive carbon is constant."

Issue #2 - "it is assumed that the cosmic ray flux is constant over long periods of time" This has not been proven. It is an ASSUMPTION. This materials are very heat and weather sensitive. We have no way of proving it or knowing if some atmospheric event (extreme cold weathers, natural disasters, etc) effected these materials over thousands of years.

To prove my point please read the next paragraph from Wikipedia:

"The need for calibration

A raw BP date cannot be used directly as a calendar date, because the level of atmospheric 14C has not been strictly constant during the span of time that can be radiocarbon dated. The level is affected by variations in the cosmic ray intensity which is affected by variations in the earth's magnetosphere caused by solar storms. In addition there are substantial reservoirs of carbon in organic matter, the ocean, ocean sediments (see methane hydrate), and sedimentary rocks. Changing climate can sometimes disrupt the carbon flow between these reservoirs and the atmosphere. The level has also been affected by human activities—it was almost doubled for a short period due to atomic bomb tests in the 1950s and 1960s and has been lowered by the admixture of large amounts of CO2 from ancient organic sources relatively depleted in 14C —the combustion products of fossil fuels used in industry and transportation, known as the Suess effect."

This paragraph clearly states that cosmic ray intensity, solar storms and changing climate "disrupt the carbon flow". In fact - "it was almost doubled for a short period due to atomic bomb tests in the 1950s and 1960s"

Like I said its all nice theories based on lots of assumptions and unknowns. I don't see how anyone can call this "fact."

Abra,

Physical contact between a man and a woman creates an intrinsic sense of hope for the woman in particular. Regardless if the man and woman have a discussion that their relationship is not serious; the physical contact causes the woman to start feeling that, “Maybe he will love me.”

When you kiss someone, touch them tenderly, or more – you are saying something very powerful. You are sending a very strong message without words. You are sending the message that, I care for you, I think your special, I can see your uniqueness, I value your heart and soul, and I love you.

This message is an eternal one. That physical contact is saying that you are so valued and loved; it has no expiration or time limit. Regardless of any words spoken between you to the contrary, that physical contact is creating a willingness to be vulnerable and give completely of yourself because you want and believe the message that the physical contact is sending to every nerve ending in your body.

That is why when a physical relationship ends there is such devastation and crushed feelings particularly for women. The unspoken promise has been shattered. The powerful loving eternal message has been a big fat lie. No wonder it creates so much pain and devastation.

If you think I am exaggerating check out this link about the devastation of a broken heart:

http://www.simpleromance.com/articles/brokenheart.htm

Or this excerpt from an article:

"I had talked to hundreds of single women in their 20s and 30s for a book, and most expressed a profound and ineffable sadness about the discrepancy in what they wanted to believe about sexual opportunities available to them, and what they actually found to be real. One disillusioned woman told me bluntly: "Junk sex is no better than junk food.''

My interviews coincided with the publication of The Cosmo Report -- a compilation of experiences of women who had been encouraged by Cosmopolitan magazine to believe that for hip, with-it women, good sexual experiences were possible without even a glance toward love. More than a 106,000 women who answered a questionnaire said they were lonely and depressed and felt they had bought the rewards of the sexual revolution at an exorbitant price.

The conclusion of a 24-year-old school teacher was typical: "Men never wanted to form commitments, but in the past they had to in order to obtain sex. Now that we women are no longer afraid of one-night stands, they don't have to commit themselves.''

Are such findings dated? Well, the language has changed. One-night stands have become "hook-ups.'' Last week in the same Washington Post, Patricia Dalton, a clinical psychologist who works in the nation's capital, rediscovered the psycho-sexual wheel. "If there is a disease of our time,'' she writes, "it's got to be loneliness.''

She sees women patients in their 20s and 30s who, according to their laments, bought a faulty sexual blueprint for life, overlooking the relentless urgency of the biological clock and the truism, however unfair, that unmarried men continue to seek mates who are younger and fairer. They ignore the corollary that male mating possibilities expand with age while female mating potential shrinks.

The woman who once waited for a knight on a white horse to sweep her off her feet finds herself waiting for the perfect mate she won't divorce like her mother did. As a result women marry later and so do men. The initial passion that once motivated men and women to marry dissipates when they live together.

One 31-year old female patient, who became discouraged in a sexual relationship that had gone on too long, told her therapist: "I've been acting like a wife, and he's been acting like a boyfriend.''

Spider,

Again it seems that you agree that according to your beliefs sexuality is inherently a negative thing. However since the majority of humans need it then the proper way to do it is through marriage. But clearly Christianity is seeing it as inherently negative and marriage as the lesser of two evils if you have to have sex. Would you agree with that?

My only point is that there is a very clear distinction with attitudes about sex between Christianity (negative towards higher spirtuality) and Judaism (sacred and positive towards higher spirtuality).