Radorth

Really? I thought you were of the opinion that "By their fruits you will know them."

But today, it's "By their faults you will define them."

Is that correct?

This thread is based on the nonsensical premise that everyone is a Christian who says so, fruits or no. In any case, the fact is that some Catholics and a plethora of non-Catholics have set the examples for the world to follow, from Quaker egalitarianism, to the Methodist abolitionists, to the works of the Christian Commission in the Civil War, to Schweitzer's altrusm, to the feeding, clothing and rebuilding of whole countries. And now we have the incredible example of Marines bowing the knee to calm an angry crowd in Iraq. How many think an atheist Chinese lieutenant would ever dream of ordering such a thing?

I'm sorry, but secular morality has already been field-tested and found to be so apathetic as to have effectively slaughtered more people in one 20th century year than Noah's flood. (Which I doubt ever happened).

Rad

Hubble head

Rad, you are so lucky to live in one of the few places under the red white and blue that is so diversified the fundies are afraid to show themselves. I worked with one who prayed for the end of the world every day while in San Diego so I know they are there, just hiding.

Try an all black church in your neck of the woods - they're almost always highly fundied.(something I never could quite figure out) Hispanic catholics are pretty fundified as a whole too. Poor whites in the south are notoriously fundy. Rich people can be fundy but you don't see as many and they don't beat others over the head with it.

In fact, go anywhere in the US you have below average education systems and you will find a larger population of fundification/superstition expressed by those who never learned critical thinking skills.

Hubble head

The bible as a tool of the Devil? Could be considering where its taking the world...

mike_decock

Or:

1) Christians have a higher divorce rate.
2) Christians live longer.
3) Therefore, Divorce increases your life expectancy



-Mike...

fatherphil

mike you might be on to something, i think i'll file as soon as possible.

to compare like statistics on the divorce issue, i think you should include shack up's that dissolve as a divorce. especially when there are children produced by the relationship.

Rhea

I'm not sure what you're talking about. I was about to make some guesses but decided I had better ask you to speak for yourself.

I'm pretty much in the fruits camp, I believe.
Human Actions from Human Values. Human values fro Human Experience.

That's the way the fruit looks to me. That's what the data appears to show.

Are you proposing I overlook their faults and agree to a definition that doesn't match their actions? I'm, confused. Please clarify.


How is this ridiculous?

Are you saying that all "good" atheists are therefore CHristian by definition? Because of their fruits? Anyone with fruit of a flavor that you like therefore believes in the same religion as you? Doesn't that seem ridiculous?


What? Have you, in this paragraph, claimed that every one of those marines was christian, the only reason for the action was Christianity, that the good actions of some Christians conveys goodness on all christians, and that an atheist (chinese, no less (?)) is incapable of recognizing the actions of the defenders of the mosque for what they are and having a desire to avoid bloodshed?

That's most amazing.

Ah the argument from numbers. The newer something is, the badder. Because more people are kilt.

"Secular Morality" is evident all around you. And it isn't involved in mass slaughter. It sounds like you are saying that because 3 bad people who claimed atheism existed (I assume you are saying Mao, Pot and Stalin) then all atheists act the same way. Since they didn't do it in the name of atheism, that's a dumb argument.

And where does that leave your characterization of agnostics? Or are they Christians because they don't use the same word as Stalin?


Sorry, your whole post was pretty much incoherent. I shouldn't have even answered it, I suppose.

Rhea

Why? Because you think convenient sex IS REQUIRED to be related to lifetime commitment?

I disagree.

With children, I'd be more inclined to agree. Would need discussion.

But two consenting adults living together? Why do you have to be in the category of committed for life just because your pillows touch? So getting it on in the backseat of a car every other night doesn't count but doing it once a week in a shared room does? That doesn't make sense at all. Why does sharing a bathroom equal a lifetime commitment - or dissolution of such equal divorce? How long a shack up? One night stand if it's at someone's house instead of the car?

I don't think that makes any sense.

My whole point was, since Christians think sharing a sheet is WORSE than divorce, and non-christians don't think they need to be related, the "sanctity of marriage" is preserved for the atheist. marriage more often means MARRIAGE. Commitment = commitment. Promise = promise.

Versus the christian outlook of sex=commitment.

No, they shouldn't be included at all. When they want a COMMITMENT, they make A COMMITMENT. Seems like a totally different thing, to me.

fatherphil

maybe not required but i think assumed to a certain extent.

brighid

I don’t think “shacking up” should be included in divorce statistics, for obvious reasons. Plenty of couples engage in extended relationships that do not end up in marriage, but never “shack up.” I don’t see why partners that cohabitate and later split has any more bearing on marriage and divorce statistics then couples who do all BUT “shack up.” Given that Christians make up such a large part of the US population one will find likely trends: one will still find that Christians who “shack up” and break up to follow similar lines as divorce amongst Christians.

I would be interested to see the effects and statistics of cohabitating couples who have children and stay together, or who later split. I would be especially interested in the religion of those people. I would say the trend would remain similar to the divorce, especially with the high teenage and out of wedlock pregnancies in the “Bible Belt.” There is evidence that the more education a woman has the less likely she is to become pregnant out of wedlock. Also girls who are involved in sports have a much lower incidence of teenage pregnancy. Education and sports are not things encouraged in major segments of Christian populations … for their girls that is.

I have read information that suggests couples that cohabitate before marriage are more likely to divorce. I am not sure if I see that trend within my own world of experience. In fact, I find the opposite. The couples that I know that have what I would define as the best families and strongest marriages all cohabitated prior to marriage AND are atheist. They also have the highest levels of education nothing lower then a Masters and two spouses with PhD’s. The youngest of these couples have been together for 12 years and then 27 and 36 years respectively. They are happiest as individuals, spouses, parents and they have extremely strong familial bonds. They are all extremely active parents (and in one case grandparents.) Long before I ever considered myself an atheist, or in fact knew any of them were they were all people I greatly admired because, among other things, the strength of their partnerships and families. All anecdotal I know, but I feel indicative of the trends we see.

Brighid

Rhea

By christians. And hence the "sham" marriages. IMO.

I think what you're talking about is the _cause_ of the divorce rate. Christians think sex=commitment=marriage. And then they wake up and realize that's no kind of thing to base a marriage on. And they get divorced.

Meanwhile, people who _don't_ assume (to any extent, or to a lesser extent) that sex=commitment have a greater respect for the commitment of marriage because it is not based on a connection to raging hormonal actions. Or alcohol-induced actions. Or a combination of the two.

Conclusion: Christians think extramarital sex is worse than divorce. Because getting married for the "wrong reasons" (that is reasons which aren't durable) is okay to them and absolutley senseless to the atheist.

Commitment = COMMITMENT. Not justification, retribution or restitution.

Do you see what I'm saying?

...

I remember attending a wedding, the weirdest thing I've ever experienced. The bride and groom were positively _sullen_. They were being forced to marry. Because the bride, whose previous fiance died a week before their wedding sought, in her grief, comfort in the arms of the current groom. Maybe he was taking advantage of her weakness, maybe he didn't know about it. Who knows. But she wound up pregnant. And then their families forced them to get married. It was just incredible. The most amazing wedding I've ever been to. Instead of streamers and paper bells they should have hung pictures of shotguns. You could practically see the imprint of a muzzle in their backs.

Does it not seem kind of lunatic to start a marriage thusly? Do we think the child is better off in this environment than raised alone?

Their religion told them YES.

Do we expect that this marriage lasted? Or was the divorce okay in the grand scheme of making sure that sex was connected to "marriage".