It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Was Religion's Main Agenda For Marriage Military Conquest?

page: 1

log in


posted on Jul, 18 2010 @ 03:22 PM
First of all I want to say that I completely and utterly respect the institution of marriage
I do and always will

But the religion part and it's interpretation of it however......
that's something else

See the video, and yes I know the Mormon comment was VICIOUS!
I know I know

But if you really inspect so many different religions.... especially the top 3 abrahamic religions.. it all seems like marriage is about military conquest, increasing the empire's land, keeping the women to give birth to more soldiers etc.. etc...


posted on Jul, 18 2010 @ 03:33 PM
reply to post by ModernAcademia

I don't see the connection.
It could just as easily be about giving birth to more farmers.
In any case. there's no direct connection between monogamous marriage and having lots of children.
Can you quote any actual instances of, say, Biblical teaching that "we must have marriage for the sake of the army"?

posted on Jul, 18 2010 @ 03:46 PM

Originally posted by DISRAELI
Can you quote any actual instances of, say, Biblical teaching that "we must have marriage for the sake of the army"?

That's like the Bible saying that Adam made two pies and Eve made another two pies and you ask me:
"Can you quote me any actual instances that they made a total of 4 pies?"

Honestly if you watch the video it will summarize alot and they do state passages.

Please watch the video and respond back

[edit on 18-7-2010 by ModernAcademia]

posted on Jul, 18 2010 @ 04:01 PM
reply to post by ModernAcademia

In the Old Testament (allegedly a root word coming from "testes", or male testicles) it does appear so. The Hebrews were told to multiply, and the Cananite tribes (like the Amorites) were either wiped out man, woman and child, or conquered virgins could be kept as concubines and discarded at will. That genocidal disparity is typical for conquest and colonialism. In colonialism, the male colonizer gets to sleep with the slaves and conquered women in a kind of genetic warfare. The conquered males are killed, castrated or sexually restricted. Mixed children become the property of the conquerors until they are bred out. That tendency was found throughout colonialism into recent history - from American slavery and apartheid, to Australia's stolen generation. Sometimes it was openly defended with religious tracts.
That is exactly what one finds in Leviticus, Exodus and Joshua.

There have been several attempts with threads on porn and masturbation (which usually become too sexual and end up in the trash bin). However, male masturbation is banned in Genesis (38:7-11), and there is a fear that the Muslim nations (who ban all non-procreative sex) will outbreed the Christians. So the subtext to anti-gay and anti-porn sermonizing (essentially male anti-masturbation campaigns) is really a deep-rooted fear that Western civilization will lose a culture war by numbers alone. That is an old colonial trend: stop wasting seed and get busy for your God, your country and your culture!

[edit on 18-7-2010 by halfoldman]

posted on Jul, 18 2010 @ 04:10 PM
this is definately talking about something-

The light of a lamp will never shine in you again. The voice of bridegroom and bride will never be heard in you again. Your merchants were the world's great men. By your magic spell all the nations were led astray.-Rev18.23

posted on Jul, 18 2010 @ 05:12 PM
Our current legal form of civil marriage derives directly from the first Roman Emperor, Augustus Caesar (Octavian).

When he came into power and brought Rome into it's Golden Age the Pax Romana, he brought back many traditions in order to restore Dignity.

Now please keep in mind, I am talking about the Legal form of marriage we have right now.

Marriage laws, established to encourage the growth of the citizen population, brought back a more conservative moral foundation. While his own family, most noticeably the escapades of his daughter Julia, fell short of some of Augustus' conservative policies, his marriage to Livia for over 50 years, ending only with his death, provided a shining example for the Roman people to emulate.

This is not the source I learned this information from, as it was instead a history book at least a decade ago.

In fact finding even that paragraph took an hour, it was buried deep I have no idea why.

posted on Jul, 18 2010 @ 06:09 PM

Originally posted by halfoldman
the Muslim nations (who ban all non-procreative sex)

Lol, what?

So, you think muslims only have sex when they wanna make children?

posted on Jul, 18 2010 @ 09:14 PM
reply to post by muzzleflash

Fascinating, and thanks for your work ! I never heard that
what good information. : )
It is a conundrum, to me. I like the ideal of
marriage, but it is not thick yet elastic enough to
contain all those years, as far as I have seen !
I feel in the long run it would be best for most individuals and for society at large, financially, spiritually, to have a tight family structure.
I personally long for such, but who can achieve this thing?
For example, years ago I got really pizzed when they told me my new hubby's driving record would be tied to mine. lol. WTH?
The legal aspects are so restrictive, IMO, that IF I ever found a new husband, which I won't, I would insist on creating our own union, our own rules and contracts, amongst ourselves and our friends and higher power.
Also I would not want to be tied to a violent or drunk or cheating person.
But that attitude will not promote a cohesive society. What to do with marriage?

posted on Jul, 18 2010 @ 09:15 PM
reply to post by skajkingdom

Ha, ha ... no - but what are considered "Islamic countries" do ban anything that encourages non-procreative sex. I'm not sure about contraception in marriage, but porn, homosexuality and abortion are generally banned.
Limited polygamy and divorce and remarriage are allowed and tend to support further procreation.

If one looks at fundamentalist Christian anti-Islamic propaganda (such as Peter Hammond's: "Slavery, Terrorism and Islam: The historical roots and contemporary threat", Christian Liberty Books: Cape Town) they have graphs in the appendices. These graphs are supposed to shock Christians, because they show that Islam is the fastest growing religion, not by missionizing, but by population growths in the Muslim countries. Several traditionally Christian countries on the other hand have declining population growth.
For people who view a "culture war" between Islam and Christianity this is very concerning.

It therefore follows that Christian fundamentalist pastors who consider Islam a threat (quite a few in the US mainstream) would also aim to restrict non-procreative sex, and limit sex to a partner in heterosexual marriage. At least the culture clash they perceive gives a new urgency to procreation, when for a long time marrying young or large families had declining support, and liberal attitudes had few convincing counter-arguments in Western society.

[edit on 18-7-2010 by halfoldman]

new topics

top topics


log in