We tend to think there is a decline in the ‘sanctity’ of marriage in the modern world and put the blame on high divorce rates on the shoulders of our youth who don’t seem to have much respect for ‘old’ institutions and who seem to expect instant gratification and drop something the instant they get ‘bored’ with it.
Maybe some of our older members of society who we are led to believe had better and stronger values than today might also be suffering from some selective memory loss?
What value did the older generation teach the younger ones when their ‘heroes’ said things like this:?”
Always get married early in the morning. That way, if it doesn’t work out, you haven’t wasted a whole day.” Mickey Rooney
Modern divorce rates might be high – getting close to 50% – but that pales into insignificance compared to Elizabeth Taylor – one of the 30’s and 40’s and 50’s greatest and most admired actresses – and a close friend of Mickey – who divorced SEVEN times herself. (She was saved having to divorce Hubby #3, Mr Todd, when he died in a plane crash!)
BLob's Blog 
In comparing divorce rates of fifty, or more, years ago to today, I can see one important factor, women have a greater ability to get a decent job, and live on their own. Even in the 1950’s when I was growing up many women had little choice but to remain married, even when they were being abused.
I don’t know what the accurate numbers are, but my guess is that divorce rates continue to go up. I will guess this is now mostly because marriage is no longer seen as a life long commitment by many couples.
Of course in some parts of the world a women is treated more as her husbands property. Divorce is not really an option.
For couples of religious faith I would think one part of the quotation is are they making a commitment to God as part of their marriage contract(?), as well as to their spouse.
I would think that in your/their God’s eyes both the man and woman are equally obligated to be faithful to each other. In the more conservative religious societies I can think of this obligation seems to fall mostly on women. Given the opportunity, moving to America, the UK, Australia, where women have more options, I think many of these women would consider a divorce, if given the chance.
LikeLike
ED – agreed, since the ‘liberation’ of women from being a housewife in the 60’s and 70’s women have a greater fredom of ‘choice’.
i find it interesting to note that while no choice is generally considered ‘bad’ many scientific tests have shown that having TOO much choice stifles our mental processes. The ideal is having a limited number of choices ( over a reasonably broad range) so as to make the best decisions for survival/growth!
My post shows i think that those ‘leading lights’ of ‘Hollywood Heroes’ of our grandparent’s generation that so many of the masses followed closely to the degree that they named their children after them, had some very poor atttitudes to ‘commitment’.
You are exactly right – in God’s eyes man and woman are both equally obligated to be faithful to God and to each other.
While so much of the Bible follows the Jewish Male dominated religious structure where the male is considered of ‘Prime’ importance (as evidenced by the number of references to He and Him compared to Her and She) Paul says it very clearlty for those who ever read ‘that far’:
3 Let the husband render unto the wife due benevolence: and likewise also the wife unto the husband.
4 The wife hath not power of her own body, but the husband: and likewise also the husband hath not power of his own body, but the wife.
1 Cor 7:3,4
Paul also states that just as God made man first and Eve from Adam’s Rib that man is to be the head of the woman, Just as Christ is to be the Head over the church.
And in conclusion it is interesting to note that in Judaic law inheritances are passed down through the Matriarch and not the Patriarch of the household.
This is because, just as continues to this day, it was never able to be proven conclusively who a person’s father was while there was never any doubt who one’s mother was.
LikeLike
Are marriage rates also down? My opinion is that people get married too quickly and too easily. They don’t appreciate the idea of commitment. Make it harder to get married and it will reduce the divorce rates considerably.
Also Genesis 1:27 seems to show that Adam and Eve were created together. “Man” being a generic term for humanity. Of course the second creation myth in Genesis 2 has things in a different order anyway and appeals to different parts of ancient society.
LikeLike
Hov – i admit to sharing the feeling at times that marriage, but particularly having kids is FAR too ‘easy’ and that tighter controls should be placed upon it if our society is to ensure a more ‘moral’ set of standards to live by.
However i have come to realise that this is both impractical and possibly also amoral – unfortunately 😉
You cannot (as much as i might have once wish to) legislate against human nature (or the Will of God for that matter) ;-). Mankind will always procreate and all societies have some form of ‘marriage’ freely allowed once participants are deemed ‘old enough, if not always wise enough.
Reducung divorce rates as a goal is not sufficinet in and of itself. What society should be doing is increasing the understanding we all need to make better commitments – to ourselves and to others – and as i believe – to God First and Foremost, which has to be, optional of course and not enforced. It is a matter of free will but understanding the heirarchy of the Order of The Universe.( and our place and role in it)
Which brings me to Genesis and i am very happy to hear you quoting Gen 1 and 2 – it’s a start 😉
If you read the few verses before Gen 1:27 for a little contextual understanding you see that God tells the Waters to bring forth all the creatures of the sea – He Commands it be done and it is done – by the waters at His instruction.
Ditto for the creatures of the Earth – it is the Earth doing the creating at God’s Command ( He provides the circumstances and the essential intiial ‘spark’ for life)
Then in vs 26 He says let US Create man after OUR image (plural)?? i find that somewhat curious and am not yet fully sure what to make of it. It goes on to say in 27 as you rightly point out that all mankind was created after His (their – male and female) Image. He created THEM ( singular and collective meaning God created both man and (then) woman).
Nowhere does Gen 1 specify that all creature:, fish, beast, crawling things, nor man and woman, were created at exactly the same instant, but were created ‘in a day’ (and not the same day).
Then we come to the ‘specifics’ in Gen 2 – it is not a ‘separate’ creation story any more than D-Day was a separate story to World War Two.
There is no conflict in understanding that a single man was created by God in His image and that He used a part of his initial crreation as the ‘seed’ for His second one – the female. Nor that He crreated them so as to be fruitful and multiply so as to cover the whole earth. Genesis 2 does not state it directly but there is no reason to assume that He stopped His Creation with either Adam or Eve but could have created other models/images with which Adam and Eve’s progeny could procreate. This neither refutes Gen 1 nor denies the truth of Gen 2 it does not require any contortions of truth or logic.
If you accept the Truth of God and His Word it is easy enough to find the logicality it cvontains and to be able to se where our own interpretations and not the Word is incorrect as it often may be on first reading or by only looking at parts of the whole ‘picture’ as humans are so good at doing )(specially Scientists) 😉
LikeLike
Good grief Love, it’s a story. You’re not supposed to take it literally.
LikeLike
The Bible is FAR more than ‘just a story book’ Hov.
I was showing that by applying LOGIC and reasoning to the First two chapters of Genesis as they compare the ‘story’ of the creation of man (and woman) it is perfectly reasonable to state that you had it wrong in saying they showed Creation as ‘different’ in the two versions but that they actually agree and that anyone who reads them as they were meant to be read can see how they and all other elements of biblical scripture ‘hold together’ in logical Truth far more than any simple collection of ‘stories’ ever could.
There is a huge difference between taking something literally and not believing it is a True ‘story’.
Mankind writes pure fiction, fiction based upon a or some truths and stories that are true and are made into a more readable story for mass consumption, as well as ‘literal’ works.
The Bible is written so that ALL readers can gain in spiritual knowledge and know that what its written is true on many levels.
The only ‘falsehoods’ attributed to it are in mankind’s various ‘fixed’ interpretations caused by their own personal biases/failings. 🙂
LikeLike
Actually I enjoy the “truth” of many stories but I don’t need to believe that they are literally true to do so. Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 detail events in different orders and in different ways. A cynic might suggest that this is to appeal to different audiences and so maximize the selling potential but I think that it is simply two verbal tales that have gotten mixed up.
Right and mankind also writes factual accounts of real events. Mankind also keeps records of experiments and conclusions drawn from scientific enquiry. We’re the only species that writes things down. The bible, of course, was written by man. 🙂
LikeLike