I was simply asking you to quote Gods commandment that required a man to love his wife, which should be somewhere in the Mosaic Law, right? You see, from what I have read, God explicitly told the woman that her desires would be for her husband and that he would rule over her (Gen 3:16), rather than love her.Not quite sure what you are asking me to quote here..but scripture does say that " LOVE is the perfect bond of union."
And the song of Solomon is full of expressions of the love between a man and a woman...so again I don't understand what the relevance of your questions is...
At any rate, I have asserted that from a biblical perspective, marriage was simply a form of servitude or slavery, whereas the woman was simply the mans property. In fact, according to the bible, the husband only had three responsibilities to his first wife if he decide to take a second wife, i.e., to feed, cloth, and satisfy her sexual needs (Ex 21:10).
Well,Does this somewhat refute the *let every woman have her own husband *claim that Paul made, if you do not mind my asking?Women do it today as well by hiring surrogate women to have their babies...there is a whole hospital full of Indian women in India carrying babies for infertile women..
From what I have research, being a surrogate mother did not pre-empt any of Gods laws, as long as the surrogate was neither married nor betrothed. But check this out: nowhere in the bible was any man every sterile ... it was always the woman who was barren. Wow! This seems to be somewhat arrogant or even misogynistic to me.I believe Abraham treated Hagar unjustly, but Sarah holds some responsibility, it was her idea to pre-empt God...
According to Abraham himself, Sarah was his half-sister, since they had the same father, right? But please do not take my word, but rather read the scripture for yourself as follows:And yet indeed she is my sister; she is the daughter of my father, but not the daughter of my mother; and she became my wife(Gen 20:12). So, if this is true, then God blessed an incestuous marriage, right?Abraham was a righteous man because he believed God and acted in FAITH, not because he was a paragon of goodness..he wasn't.
Wow! Please know that adultery in biblical days simply meant sexual violating another mans wife, because she was his property. Now, if you read Lev 20:10 carefully, you will find that the marital status of the man is not revealed in the bible simply because it was unimportant. You see, regardless if the man is married or single, he is an adulterer if he has sex with another mans wife. Nonetheless, you can easily refute my argument by citing a verse whereas a married man has sexual relations with an unmarried woman who was not betrothed to another man. So, with all due respect, please do not misconstrue what I am saying, i.e., adultery in biblical days does not mean the same thing as what adultery means today.Gods Law states ' thou shalt not commit adultery'
And God didn't give this commandment to one 'sex'