Welcome to Feedback Friday! Today’s comment continues a disjointed series of very short rants from a regular caller and long time listener. Under THIS ARTICLE she says:
You cant seriously be trying to defend the statement “atheists have no reason to get married”, that’s insanely absurd.
Marriage has existed for far longer than Christianity has.
To which I reply: Yes, marriage predates Christianity, but NOT a relationship with the one true God. It was GOD who invented marriage back in Genesis. Marriage did not EVOLVE.
But then, neither did we.
And what I am defending is the idea that, if atheism is true, then marriage is meaningless, and if you REALLY believed Atheism, then you would have no reason to get married.
Feel free to make a case if you think I am wrong, by which I mean give logical reasons leading to a conclusion, not merely your emotional response to my statements.
Having been given this challenge, she responded with the following, and failed entirely to make a case for… well, anything. Here is her unedited comment:
There are religious marriage ceremonies, and there are all the other legal religious ceremonies.
Religious marriages are no less valid than atheist marriages. Marriage is a legal binding of finances and assets; When people are married they can visit each other in critical condition in the hospital, which unmarried couples cant do.
Religions have nothing to do with marriage until the couple introduces them to their marriage.
And I answered thusly:
I would disagree. Atheism offers NO basis for objective morality of any kind. Thus, when two atheists make “vows” in an atheist marriage ceremony, neither of them has the slightest reason to even TRY to keep those vows. Its an empty and baseless gesture where in they pretend they have (and hope strongly that their intended has) Christian morality.
But where the Bible says Do not lie, do not make promises in vain, do not commit adultery, atheism says NONE of those things. Of what value is a ceremony where two people pretend to make promises they have no reason to keep? What is an ATHEIST MARRIAGE but a lie two people share which the government pretends is valid- until they get divorced of course. Because it is almost easier to break those vows legally that to make them in the first place.
Also, if your definition of marriage, “Marriage is a legal binding of finances and assets” were true, then atheists would not have a ceremony with a white dress to celebrate what is essentially a business merger- and I would remind you that “married” couples can and often do have separate finances, legal rights to certain assets, checking and savings accounts, ownership of large items, etc. Do you suggest that no married woman can own a car which is not legally ALSO owned by her husband? Maybe in Islamic nations, but not in the Christian west.
You know this definition is a lie.
And the idea that marriage should be perverted so two people can see each other in the hospital is absurd. First, because it destroys a sacred institution, and second because I think anyone with half a brain could realize that your problem is not with the definition of marriage as instituted by God, but with hospitals being strangely restrictive. If this is truly a concern, then why not change the hospital policies? Why must marriage be perverted to allow you to visit someone in a hospital? What possible sense does that make?
Its a ridiculous red herring to claim that this validates the perversion of marriage.
Marriage is a sacred institution designed by God to join one man to one woman for a lifetime of becoming one- as having been made in his image, we do not complete the image until we are joined in marriage. It is not merely a state recognized legal condition. But as an atheist, you have no basis for anything to have meaning and value, so the best you can do is have a powerful and heavily armed organization like a government force other people to pretend that your imagined definitions and values are real under threat of physical punishment. An atheist marriage or gay marriage is a lie the government forces ME to pretend is true at the point of a gun. Is that not the textbook definition of oppression? Or at least Bullying?
And while I could go further into detail about these matters, I would like you to consider the fact that you have failed to actually address the content of the article you are leaving a comment under. I would suggest, in the future, you try to stay on topic. Just a suggestion, but one I find a lot of content creators appreciate.
Thanks again for stopping by.