This question is not a truth question and I only mention "Protestant doctrine" to appease those mods who would say something about it NOT having a specific doctrine context - which I even striked out after a comment by a user to do so.

I have found Caleb's comments and placement of "on-hold" non-constructive. He could have made a suggestion w/o putting it on hold. I believe the over zealous mod has returned and have found comments by others with similar opinions... I will list them if you'd like.

  • The encouraged order of things is 1) vote to close 2) help make it better if possible 3) if the user doesn't bother and posts a similar question downvote first then vote to close then try to help. A closed question can always be reopened. – 3961 Feb 7 '14 at 17:01
  • Yes, but a mod can just close / hold it w/o any helpful suggestion. So, if a mod has a problem with a specific user, he could be over critical and maybe not take the proper steps - especially if he's overwhelmed with the volume at that particular point in time. – The Freemason Feb 7 '14 at 18:55
  • 2
    Caleb can come off as abrasive sometimes, but I have never seen him not turn out to be right. I have always seen him act impartially too. I promise, he is not out to get you. He did comment by the way, then I edited it, which he commented on too. The more I think about it the more I think that to get to a conclusion on your question you will need to ask several targeted questions as wax suggested below. I am actually starting to lean that it is too broad. But you have two decent answers and it might get reopened anyway; you only need two more open votes. – 3961 Feb 7 '14 at 19:46
  • If you haven't see "Newcomers: Be patient." yet please take a look. It seems like your frustration might be at stage two and moving into stage three. – 3961 Feb 7 '14 at 19:48
  • @fredsbend Nice post. However I think I'm at Stage 8, I don't think this sight is good for anyone but the mods. I've actually be here longer then you and some of them - until Narnia (I think it was him, at least I blame him for it :) ) posted a question about Freemasonry which it and the answers trashed the fraternity. I then posted a response which was completely edited to the point that it wasn't what I posted at all. user1054 I then deleted my account. – The Freemason Feb 7 '14 at 20:38
  • My rep was in the 3 / 4 thousands. – The Freemason Feb 7 '14 at 20:39
  • I see. Well, I'm sorry that things have been rough for you. I like the site and I've been here about a year. – 3961 Feb 7 '14 at 22:16
  • I'm just glad mods have only one year in office. – WelcomeNewUsers Feb 13 '14 at 4:40
  • 1
    @AaronKorn They keep getting re-elected, especially the zealous. – The Freemason Feb 13 '14 at 13:53

If you want to know what marriage looked like in Biblical times, that's a question for the history site. Or the Judaism site, though they'd likely prefer those be asked on History.

If you want to know what specific passages of the Bible that talk about marriage mean, that's a question for the hermeneutics site.

If you want to know how specific groups of Christians define "biblical marriage" then that's a question for this site.

However, your question asks the first, and implies the third. That makes it off topic on the first, and too broad on the second. No, protestantism is not narrow enough, different groups of protestants define Biblical marriage differently.

We, as moderators, and as a community, aspire to put questions on hold before they attract answers so that answers match the final state of the question as closely as possible. Your question is either off topic or too broad (you can choose via edits). That means it should be closed pending an edit to correct or deletion.

This does bring up a slightly larger issue, what issues are open to straight up general biblical interpretation, that's slightly out of scope for this meta question and I'm going to leave that alone for now as it needs to be part of a more specific discussion with more community input than we are going to get here.

  • 1
    @TheFreemason It' really not appropriate for migration IMO, you'd do better to do a bit of research and ask a question tailored for History – wax eagle Feb 6 '14 at 20:42
  • I would agree with migrating the question – The Freemason Feb 6 '14 at 21:36
  • @waxeagle, I don't think the mods should be quite so zealous in labeling something off topic due to lack of denominational specifications (for another example, see here). I think the general rule should be to assume something more along the lines of C.S. Lewis's "mere Christianity" as the context, unless a denomination is specified in the question. Where appropriate, the answers, of course, could/should say something like, "I'm answering this from a Catholic POV" or whatever. – metal Feb 10 '14 at 14:50
  • @metal No. There have been repeated campaigns for some kind of default Christianity to be the norm here and we all think that this is a bad idea. We need to be just as welcoming to the non-orthodox as the orthodox and as such we acknowledge no default position. – wax eagle Feb 10 '14 at 14:53
  • @waxeagle, That's a fair point, but still. I think the default response to such posts should not be to reject them as too broad but to ask the OP to identify his target and/or ask answerers to identify their answering context ("From an LDS point of view..."). Among this point of view, "mere Christianity" should be a suggested option, as I think it is what a lot of people popping in here are looking for. – metal Feb 10 '14 at 15:04
  • @metal that's why we close them. We're happy to reopen when the context is given. The closure prevents answer mismatches which saves everyone a bunch of time. – wax eagle Feb 10 '14 at 15:14

I took the question to mean (especially after the OP's comment on my answer): Among "mere Christians" (or perhaps Protestants generally) what makes a valid marriage? What parts need to be there? What rituals are required? What biblical data influence or control this discussion for them?

  • The problem is that the first group is undefined and the second group is too broad for it to mean anything worthwhile. – wax eagle Feb 7 '14 at 23:59
  • 'To a layman, it seems obvious that what unites the Evangelical and the Anglo-Catholic against the “Liberal” or “Modernist” is something very clear and momentous, namely, the fact that both are thoroughgoing supernaturalists.... This unites them not only with one another, but with the Christian religion as understood ubique et ab omnibus.... Perhaps the trouble is that as supernaturalists, whether “Low” or “High” Church, thus taken together, they lack a name. May I suggest “Deep Church”; or, if that fails in humility, Baxter’s “ Mere Christians”?' -C.S.Lewis – metal Feb 11 '14 at 13:32
  • Lewis's focus on so-called "mere Christianity" (that is, ignoring secondary disputes like baptism, etc. and focusing on the common core of the church) is part of what has made him a "rock star" among evangelicals, Catholics, et al. It appeals to and draws from various Christian traditions. – metal Feb 11 '14 at 13:34
  • If you want to make the case, make it in a new meta post where it can be properly responded to. – wax eagle Feb 11 '14 at 13:41
  • Cf. the comments on this recent question. – metal Feb 11 '14 at 16:52
  • Please don't drag this into multiple posts, if you want to make a point, ask a question on meta, you can use that and others as examples. Argue the case in the proper venue so more than me can evaluate it. – wax eagle Feb 11 '14 at 17:34

You may want to check out the Levirate marriage. It's written in the Torah and a guide to Jewish life and culture. :)

Jesus did say a word or two about marriage: do not commit adultery. But then, that's also stated in the Old Testament.


"Over zealous Mod"

Ha Ha, I like the expression.

My question "Is Jesus still human in Heaven? Does He still need to sleep?" was also closed by the zealous mod. :)

However, though I still like it to be reopened because I really want to know some interesting thoughts about it, I actually also see no good reason why the mods should reopen it. I''ll be very happy if it is reopened but I think it's too late for that. I'll think other better ways to ask the question and avoid closing.

You need to be clever out here to avoid getting hit by the mods. If one way doesn't work, try the other way. There is no limit for asking questions anyway. Just keep on asking, but not the same thing over and over again. Just think of something new. Learn the tricks!

  • First, I agree with your answer. Second, I would like to bring up two points. 1st: It's sad that we have to play a game, play politics, and "learn the tricks." 2nd: I've seen too many questions asked, closed, and deleted that eventually someone else asks and the process continues to cycle. At some point, we have to realize for ourselves, "these are the questions that people have regarding Christiantiy." To say, "this is not a good question for the site" is often more of a "these are questions that we don't want to deal with because the answers are not consistent in Christendom". – The Freemason Feb 10 '14 at 16:20
  • I would like to see, "the FAQ of Christianity" of questions commonly closed and addressed in Blog posts as to the reason why they cannot be asked here. Lots of work, but then a question could be directed to that blog post instead of just closed with little or rude explanations and mass driveby downvotes. @waxeagle wanted to get the blog going again, if the mods could provide a list, people could pick and choose a topic to write on, best answer (by measure of references) gets posted. – The Freemason Feb 10 '14 at 16:21

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .