Qur'an Vs Bible Vs Bhagavad Gita Vs None

[PearlSeeker]

And what is it that they were meant to mean?

What many liberal theologians believe about Jesus' death

Many liberal and some mainline Christian leaders believe that Jesus died during the crucifixion, did not resurrect himself, and was not bodily resurrected by God. At his death, his mind ceased to function and his body started the decomposition process. Returning to life a day and a half later would have been quite impossible. The story of having been wrapped in linen and anointed with myrrh seems to have been copied from the story of the death of Osiris -- the Egyptian God of the earth, vegetation and grain. The legend that he visited the underworld between his death and resurrection was simply copied from common Pagan themes of surrounding cultures. One example again was Osiris. "With his original association to agriculture, his death and resurrection were seen as symbolic of the annual death and re-growth of the crops and the yearly flooding of the Nile." 1

They also believe that Paul regarded the resurrection to be an act of God in which Jesus was a passive recipient of God's power. Paul did not mention the empty tomb, the visit by a woman or women, the stone, the angel/angels/man/men at the tomb, and reunion of Jesus with his followers in his resuscitated body. Rather, he believed that Jesus was taken up into heaven in a spirit body. It was only later, from about 70 to 110 CE when the four canonic Gospels were written, that the Christians believed that Jesus rose from the grave in his original body, and by his own power.

Later, perhaps after Paul's death, there was great disappointment within the Christian communities because Jesus had not returned as expected. They diverted their focus of attention away from Jesus' second coming. They studied his life and death more intensely. Legends without a historical basis were created by the early church; these included the empty tomb and described Jesus returning in his original body to eat and talk with his followers.

In previous centuries, almost all Christians believed in miracles as described in the Hebrew Scriptures (Old Testament). These included creation, the story of Adam and Eve, a talking serpent, the great flood of Noah, the drying up of the Red/Reed sea, a prophet riding on a talking ***, the sun stopping in the sky, etc. From the Christian Scriptures (New Testament), they believed in the virgin birth, the Christmas star, angels appearing to the shepherds, Jesus healing the sick, etc. Many, perhaps most, liberal Christians now believe that these stories are not to be interpreted literally as real events. Their faith has not been damaged by losing faith in the reality of these events. A growing number of liberals are now taking the final step by interpreting the stories of Jesus' resurrection and his appearances to his followers and to Paul as other than real events.

The stories say the miracles are literally true. If we believe them or not is a different matter.

 

[Trailblazer]

The stories say the miracles are literally true. If we believe them or not is a different matter.

I do not believe Jesus rose from the dead but the other miracles may or may not have really happened.

However, I do not think it matters whether they happened or not because I do not believe in Jesus because of the any miracles He performed.

 

[joelr]

“Hindu text does.”
Where, please.

A Marriage vow
I take hold of your hand for good fortune, so that with me, your husband, you may attain to old age. The gods, Bhaga, Aryaman, Savitur and Pushan gave you to me for leading the life of a householder. (Rig Veda X. 85.36)

A marriage blessing
Bounteous Indra, endow this bride with great sons and fortune. Give her ten sons and make the husband the eleventh. (Rig Veda X.85.46)

The philological and linguistic evidence indicates that the bulk of the Rigveda Samhita was composed in the northwestern region (see Rigvedic rivers) of the Indian subcontinent, most likely between c. 1500 and 1000 BCE,[11][12][13] although a wider approximation of c. 1900–1200 BCE has also been given.[14][15][note 1]

And then immediately after, “Oh look, more Mesopotamian stuff.”
Was that deflection?

You're really asking that after I just demonstrated the OT has clear links to Mesopotamian mythology? There is almost nothing original in the OT. Please go back to my last response and listen to a Hebrew Bible Old Testament professor say this exact thing. What you are looking for does not exist. The wisdom is copied and the myths are copied. Every new religion just has a slightly different take. The really old flood stories for example say God decided to flood the Earth and picked out one man and his family to build a boat to survive but the reason was because God was annoyed at humans for being noisy.

 

[CG Didymus]

The stories say the miracles are literally true. If we believe them or not is a different matter.

I agree. My argument is that 2000 years ago, if the average person were told that Jesus came back to life and ascended to heaven, what scientific knowledge would they have to dispute it? I think the writers wrote the stories believing Jesus brought a couple people back to life, that people came out of their graves when Jesus was crucified, and that Jesus himself came back to life. Today, scientifically, there's no reason to believe those things could have happened or did happen. Yet, some Christians still believe they did. What's ironic to me, is that Baha'is believe in virgin birth as having really happened. And I don't see any reason why they'd have to. I don't understand why they don't add that in with the other supposed miracles and call it symbolic.

It seems to me the only reason Baha'is make most of these miracles symbolic is so they can say the NT and the Bible are "symbolically" true, just not "literally" true. To me, that's just another way of saying they didn't happen.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

A Marriage vow
I take hold of your hand for good fortune, so that with me, your husband, you may attain to old age. The gods, Bhaga, Aryaman, Savitur and Pushan gave you to me for leading the life of a householder. (Rig Veda X. 85.36)
A marriage blessing
Bounteous Indra, endow this bride with great sons and fortune. Give her ten sons and make the husband the eleventh. (Rig Veda X.85.46)

Oh goodness….
I was asking about what these documents described regarding the origin of marriage. How it began.

Not vows or blessings, which are ubiquitous.

The wisdom is copied and the myths are copied.

if that were true, then why don’t we find the Genesis Ark’s detail of the dimension ratios, 30:5:3 (which BTW are seaworthy and found among modern ships), in any ancient Sumerian writings? Or any others of the hundreds discovered?

If anything, the commonalities in these myths describing the same events, are indications of the general veracity of these events. The Genesis account, of the Flood, is just more accurate with the details.

Actually, there’s a lot of evidence not only for the Israelites’ residence in Egypt, but also for the exodus.
The “Patterns of Evidence” series of videos, by film maker John Mahoney, presents substantial & strong evidences for the Israelites’ Egyptian occupation about 300 years or so earlier, during the Middle Kingdom, than the period that the weak evidence suggests & which is currently accepted by some Egyptologists.

It’s all interpretation….but some lines of evidence are stronger than others.

 

[joelr]

I believe the Qu'ran and Bible are on the same basis as to whom wrote them and who inspired them but the Qu'ran does not have the gospel.

Quran does have scripture. Actually since you believe in this stuff, an Angel from the OT, Gabrielle came down and gave revelations to Muhammad and it turns out Jesus was just a human prophet, Paul was wrong and God is mad at Christians and Jews. In fact you are all going to hell for a painful doom unless you follow the correct message.

 

[joelr]

Oh goodness….
I was asking about what these documents described regarding the origin of marriage. How it began.

Not vows or blessings, which are ubiquitous.

You would have to find out what text describes the origin? The Rig Veda was written around 1900 BC so it's older than the OT.

if that were true, then why don’t we find the Genesis Ark’s detail of the dimension ratios, 30:5:3 (which BTW are seaworthy and found among modern ships), in any ancient Sumerian writings? Or any others of the hundreds discovered?

The story is basically the same with small changes. Whomever wrote the Noah story may have had actual experience with building boats. Those dimensions are not known to be sea worthy. It might float yes but there are many factors in boat making not just the ratios. People build boats? That isn't evidence for Gods?
Another thing is the story isn't complete, they haven't found every tablet to every story.


"Atra-Hasis refers both to one of the Mesopotamian myths focusing on the earth’s creation, and also the main character of that myth.[2] The myth possibly has Assyrian roots, as a fragmented version may have been found in the library of Ashusbanipal, though translations remain unsure. Its most complete surviving version was recorded in Akkadian. The myth begins with humans being created by the mother goddess Mami to lighten the gods' workload. She made them out of a mixture of clay, flesh, and blood from a slain god. Later in the story though, the god Enlil attempts to control overpopulation of humans through various methods, including famine, drought, and finally, a great flood. Mankind is saved by Atrahasis, who was warned of the flood by the god Enki and built a boat to escape the waters, eventually placating the gods with sacrifices.[2]"

If anything, the commonalities in these myths describing the same events, are indications of the general veracity of these events. The Genesis account, of the Flood, is just more accurate with the details.

Because there are so many common mythologies that didn't happen it's safe to say the flood story also didn't happen. There may have been a local flood way back. But Genesis was definitely using Gilamesh as a guide to write the story.

Actually, there’s a lot of evidence not only for the Israelites’ residence in Egypt, but also for the exodus.
The “Patterns of Evidence” series of videos, by film maker John Mahoney, presents substantial & strong evidences for the Israelites’ Egyptian occupation about 300 years or so earlier, during the Middle Kingdom, than the period that the weak evidence suggests & which is currently accepted by some Egyptologists.

It’s all interpretation….but some lines of evidence are stronger than others.

That is a bunch of crank. I can't believe you said "lots of evidence" and that is your source. Yeah, I've seen fundamentalists source this many times. It's ripped apart by scholars. These people are pandering to eager fundamentalists who will buy their media.

PETE ENNS, PH.D.
Peter Enns (Ph.D., Harvard University) is Abram S. Clemens professor of biblical studies at Eastern University in St. Davids,

"
The consensus view is that the biblical narratives do not depict “what happened” if someone were there with the proverbial video camera recording the birth of the people of Israel. Rather–as it is often put–these biblical narratives “mythicize” the long distant past, i.e., they present us with Israel’s reflections on its origins from a much later vantage point.

Among biblical scholars and historians, that much is not controversial. Even some evangelical scholars would be generally at ease with this assessment (e.g., James Hoffmeier and Kenneth Kitchen

), though they would want to qualify their view considerably.

But a “strong scholarly consensus” certainly exists. The exodus and conquest narratives do far more than “report history.”
The reason this scholarly consensus exists is that the archaeological evidence for the exodus and conquest is, to put the best face on it, circumstantial. Mostly, however, the evidence for either episode seems to be either non-existent or contrary to the biblical depiction (the latter especially with respect to the conquest of Canaan).
And if there were real reasons for casting serious, scholarly, doubt on the consensus concerning the exodus, I would be thrilled. But there isn’t.

Judging from what I’ve seen and read, the only “new” evidence brought forward in the documentary seems to be a minority theory that began gaining (and then losing) traction in the 1990s, often called the “New Chronology.”

The Wikipedia article on the New Chronology is very good if you want some background. The gist is that a respected Egyptologist David Rohl has called into question the scholarly consensus on Egypt’s chronology.

New Chronology has been debunked.
Radiocarbon dating[edit]
In 2010, a series of corroborated radiocarbon dates were published for dynastic Egypt which suggest some minor revisions to the conventional chronology, but do not support Rohl's proposed revisions.[42]

Egyptology has not adopted the New Chronology,[3] continuing to employ the standard chronology in mainstream academic publications. Rohl's most vocal critic has been Professor Kenneth Kitchen, formerly of Liverpool University, who called Rohl's thesis "100% nonsense."
New Chronology (Rohl) - Wikipedia



It's clear that there was marriage in the first cultures and may be no recorded record of it's origin. People likely were doing this way before writing was common and once writing became a thing they just wrote the rules. There are probably quotes from their Gods telling them things about marriage or why he/she "created it" as well.

Marriage in Ancient Mesopotamia and Babylonia | eHISTORY.

maybe this culture married to copy the deities...
The Sacred Marriage



Sacred marriage is a term from Greek religious history (hierons gamos), which in fact describes two different types of ritual in Iraq and Syria. The idea of marriage between two deities was used as a means of explaining creation. In Sumer, the ritual called "hashadu" was translated into reality by carrying statues of the cults together in a ceremonial bed. (Kramer, 1969) (17) The second idea of sacred marriage involves a ritualistic sexual act between a deified king and the goddess of love and fertility, the goddess Inana, usually personified by a priestess of the temple, which can be interpreted as "sacred prostitution". Beginning in the Neo-Sumerian era at the end of the third millennium, it symbolises the mythical sexual union between the fertility god Dumuzi and Inanna. The Sumerian poems and songs that were dedicated to the worship of Inanna and Dumuzi suggest that the fertility of plants, animals, and humans depended on the union of this divine pair. However, since there is no surviving step-by-step description of this ritual, it is difficult to know whether it was a sexual act or a pantomime (Fayssal, Abdallah, 2016).(18) Nonetheless, in the texts illustrating this ritual, we can see not only the role the sacred marriage played in the preservation of creation in Sumer but also, as we have seen with a gender-fluid Goddexx, a performance that was less binary than we might think.


The OT draws from Mesopotamia, Egypt, Babylon, Egypt, so whatever those Gods were saying about marriage they probably imported over to Yahweh.

 

[PearlSeeker]

I agree. My argument is that 2000 years ago, if the average person were told that Jesus came back to life and ascended to heaven, what scientific knowledge would they have to dispute it? I think the writers wrote the stories believing Jesus brought a couple people back to life, that people came out of their graves when Jesus was crucified, and that Jesus himself came back to life. Today, scientifically, there's no reason to believe those things could have happened or did happen. Yet, some Christians still believe they did. What's ironic to me, is that Baha'is believe in virgin birth as having really happened. And I don't see any reason why they'd have to. I don't understand why they don't add that in with the other supposed miracles and call it symbolic.

It seems to me the only reason Baha'is make most of these miracles symbolic is so they can say the NT and the Bible are "symbolically" true, just not "literally" true. To me, that's just another way of saying they didn't happen.

I know Baha'is don't believe resurrection is true because they have a different relevation/message. The problem is that God has two contradictory relevations so the whole concept of progressive relevations and the line of messengers falls apart.

Early Christianity itself had the same problem. They had to reinterpret the meaning of OT Bible to make it compatible with their beliefs about Jesus.

 

[Trailblazer]

I know Baha'is don't believe resurrection is true because they have a different relevation/message.

No, that is not exactly true. We have an message from another Messenger of God who corrected the false belief that Jesus rose from the dead.

The problem is that God has two contradictory relevations so the whole concept of progressive relevations and the line of messengers falls apart.

No, there are two contradictory beliefs about the revelation of Christ, so one has to decide which belief is true and which one is false.

What Christians believe bout Jesus rising from the dead is only a belief and there is no reason to believe it is true since there is no proof it ever happened.

Early Christianity itself had the same problem. They had to reinterpret the meaning of OT Bible to make it compatible with their beliefs about Jesus.

You are making the assumption that the Jews understand what the OT means but they do not, because if they did they would have recognized Jesus who fulfilled some (but not all) of the OT prophecies, but they did not recognize Jesus as even a prophet. Jews have been waiting for their Messiah and since Jesus did not fulfill all the prophecies for the Messiah they rejected Jesus. Jesus was a prophet and a Messenger of God and 'a Messiah'; He was just not 'the Messiah' of the new age, Baha'u'llah was that Messiah.

 

[PearlSeeker]

No, that is not exactly true. We have an message from another Messenger of God who corrected the false belief that Jesus rose from the dead.

No, there are two contradictory beliefs about the revelation of Christ, so one has to decide which belief is true and which one is false.

What Christians believe bout Jesus rising from the dead is only a belief and there is no reason to believe it is true since there is no proof it ever happened.

You are making the assumption that the Jews understand what the OT means but they do not, because if they did they would have recognized Jesus who fulfilled some (but not all) of the OT prophecies, but they did not recognize Jesus as even a prophet. Jews have been waiting for their Messiah and since Jesus did not fulfill all the prophecies for the Messiah they rejected Jesus. Jesus was a prophet and a Messenger of God and 'a Messiah'; He was just not 'the Messiah' of the new age, Baha'u'llah was that Messiah.

OK. What is false to you is real to Christians. Then why don't you just say that NT Bible contains false beliefs and you don't accept it as a holy scripture? Why do you change the meaning of the Christian scripture?

 

[Trailblazer]

OK. What is false to you is real to Christians. Then why don't you just say that NT Bible contains false beliefs and you don't accept it as a holy scripture? Why do you change the meaning of the Christian scripture?

I do not believe that the NT contains false beliefs although I believe it contains fictional stories that were used to convey spiritual truths. However, some of the fictional stories, such as Jesus rising from the dead, might just be fiction, with no intended meaning.

When you say I change the meaning that implies that there is a meaning that everyone agrees upon that I changed, but such is not the case. Sure, most Christians believe that Jesus rose from the dead, but that is a special case. Even Christians do not agree as to what the other Bible verses mean, so why is not not okay for a Baha'i to assign their own meaning to those verses?

Who do you think knows the intended meaning of the scripture? I would assume only those who wrote it, but after it was written no interpreter was appointed by Jesus to interpret the scripture, so it was everyone for themselves. Certain Bible interpretations later became Church doctrines such as original sin and Jesus is God and thereafter Christians believed what they were taught.

 

[CG Didymus]

I know Baha'is don't believe resurrection is true because they have a different relevation/message. The problem is that God has two contradictory relevations so the whole concept of progressive relevations and the line of messengers falls apart.

Early Christianity itself had the same problem. They had to reinterpret the meaning of OT Bible to make it compatible with their beliefs about Jesus.

That's what it seems is happening. A new religion that wants to tie into an older one and build off it has to make some changes to what it says in the Scriptures of the older religion. Christianity only had to make adjustments to the Hebrew Scriptures. Baha'is have to do it with all the major religions.

First of all, I don't know if Baha'is even acknowledge any Hindu or Buddhist Scriptures as having come from God and having been revealed by a manifestation of God. Yet, they say that Krishna and the Buddha were manifestations of God. With the Bible, they possibly believe Adam, Noah, Abraham and Moses were all manifestations. But why would Judaism need four manifestations? Then there is Jesus and the NT. I'm fine with them not believing in the resurrection. It's just why they don't believe it. They say it was "symbolic" and the Christian leaders misinterpreted the resurrection story as having literally happened.

Sorry Baha'is but that to me is just plain dumb. I've said before call it a lie, a hoax, a myth, a legend, anything, but not symbolic. The gospels were written as if they were telling the truth about the things that Jesus said and did. But, for some reason, Baha'is don't want a risen, alive savior. They want Jesus dead and buried and his body having by now rotted away. His spirit, though, that's what they say rose again. But that's not what the gospel stories say. It's not some interpretation the Christian leaders came up with later. It is what the gospel stories say. But Baha'is can't call them wrong. So, they do the next best thing. They reinterpret the story and make it symbolic.

I'd have more respect for them if they just said the gospel writers just made it up. Or that they were just writing what they thought was true based on the legends and traditions they heard.

 

[PearlSeeker]

I do not believe that the NT contains false beliefs although I believe it contains fictional stories that were used to convey spiritual truths. However, some of the fictional stories, such as Jesus rising from the dead, might just be fiction, with no intended meaning.

When you say I change the meaning that implies that there is a meaning that everyone agrees upon that I changed, but such is not the case. Sure, most Christians believe that Jesus rose from the dead, but that is a special case. Even Christians do not agree as to what the other Bible verses mean, so why is not not okay for a Baha'i to assign their own meaning to those verses?

Who do you think knows the intended meaning of the scripture? I would assume only those who wrote it, but after it was written no interpreter was appointed by Jesus to interpret the scripture, so it was everyone for themselves. Certain Bible interpretations later became Church doctrines such as original sin and Jesus is God and thereafter Christians believed what they were taught.

Study of gospel literature genre shows that gospels ("good news") were written similarly to biography. The reported events were supposed to convince that Jesus is the Messiah.

 

[Trailblazer]

Study of gospel literature genre shows that gospels ("good news") were written similarly to biography. The reported events were supposed to convince that Jesus is the Messiah.

Do you think that the gospels were written for the purpose of convincing? That is an interesting perspective I never heard of before. Do you think the writers really believed that Jesus was and did everything they wrote about? How would they know? I do not understand how that is logically possible, since they never even knew Jesus.

I believe that Jesus was a Messiah, only not the Messiah of the end times, which is the end of an old age and the beginning of a new age. Christians want Jesus to be the only Messiah and the one that will return in the end times, but Jesus never promised to return to this earth. In fact, if the gospels are correct, Jesus said His work was finished here and he as 'no more' in this world. I have debated this with many Christians but they have no explanation for these verses.

John 14:19 Yet a little while, and the world seeth me no more; but ye see me: because I live, ye shall live also.

John 17:11 And now I am no more in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we are.

John 17:4 I have glorified thee on the earth: I have finished the work which thou gavest me to do.

Christians believe that Jesus is going to return and build the kingdom of God on earth, but Jesus never claimed to be a king, and He never said He was coming to rule. What Christians believe about the return of Christ is based upon a misinterpretation of the NT.

John 18:36 Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence.

John 18:37 Pilate therefore said unto him, Art thou a king then? Jesus answered, Thou sayest that I am a king. To this end was I born, and for this cause came I into the world, that I should bear witness unto the truth. Every one that is of the truth heareth my voice.
Christians simply want Jesus to return so they disregard the plain meaning their own Bible.

Moreover, if these verses are incorrect, that calls into question the rest of the NT that they are always citing. Moreover, not ONLY did Jesus say He was no more in the world, Jesus never promised to return to earth, not even once in the NT. In fact, when Jesus was asked this question, He carefully evaded the question. He said that many would come claiming to be Christ and they will deceive many people, which is exactly what has happened. However, Baha'u'llah never claimed to be Christ, so He was not one of the deceivers.

Matthew 24:3-5 And as he sat upon the mount of Olives, the disciples came unto him privately, saying, Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world? And Jesus answered and said unto them, Take heed that no man deceive you. For many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and shall deceive many.

Whenever Jesus said we would see the Son of man in the clouds, Christians assumed that Jesus was referring to Himself, but if one reads the verses it becomes obvious that Jesus was referring to someone else.

Who is the Son of man who will come in the clouds of heaven?

 

[PearlSeeker]

Do you think that the gospels were written for the purpose of convincing? That is an interesting perspective I never heard of before. Do you think the writers really believed that Jesus was and did everything they wrote about? How would they know? I do not understand how that is logically possible, since they never even knew Jesus.

I believe that Jesus was a Messiah, only not the Messiah of the end times, which is the end of an old age and the beginning of a new age. Christians want Jesus to be the only Messiah and the one that will return in the end times, but Jesus never promised to return to this earth. In fact, if the gospels are correct, Jesus said His work was finished here and he as 'no more' in this world. I have debated this with many Christians but they have no explanation for these verses.

John 14:19 Yet a little while, and the world seeth me no more; but ye see me: because I live, ye shall live also.

John 17:11 And now I am no more in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we are.

John 17:4 I have glorified thee on the earth: I have finished the work which thou gavest me to do.

Christians believe that Jesus is going to return and build the kingdom of God on earth, but Jesus never claimed to be a king, and He never said He was coming to rule. What Christians believe about the return of Christ is based upon a misinterpretation of the NT.

John 18:36 Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence.

John 18:37 Pilate therefore said unto him, Art thou a king then? Jesus answered, Thou sayest that I am a king. To this end was I born, and for this cause came I into the world, that I should bear witness unto the truth. Every one that is of the truth heareth my voice.
Christians simply want Jesus to return so they disregard the plain meaning their own Bible.

Moreover, if these verses are incorrect, that calls into question the rest of the NT that they are always citing. Moreover, not ONLY did Jesus say He was no more in the world, Jesus never promised to return to earth, not even once in the NT. In fact, when Jesus was asked this question, He carefully evaded the question. He said that many would come claiming to be Christ and they will deceive many people, which is exactly what has happened. However, Baha'u'llah never claimed to be Christ, so He was not one of the deceivers.

Matthew 24:3-5 And as he sat upon the mount of Olives, the disciples came unto him privately, saying, Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world? And Jesus answered and said unto them, Take heed that no man deceive you. For many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and shall deceive many.

Whenever Jesus said we would see the Son of man in the clouds, Christians assumed that Jesus was referring to Himself, but if one reads the verses it becomes obvious that Jesus was referring to someone else.

Who is the Son of man who will come in the clouds of heaven?

I suggest we continue this interesting debate in a new thread (I'll create one).

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

Did Bahaullah ever raise someone from the dead, heal the blind or was he himself raised from the dead by Gods own hand?

If no, then he is not someone we need to be devoting ourselves to.

So, bad news about Jesus…

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

They describe the origin of marriage in plausible terms? I know much of American Indian myths described implausible concepts (like shape shifting); but what of marriage? Could you please share one or two?