3 of 4
3
Christianity… Where’s the REAL proof?
Posted: 21 July 2009 03:39 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 31 ]  
Member
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  233
Joined  2008-10-05
Keep The Reason - 02 July 2009 07:01 PM
GAD - 01 July 2009 09:51 PM

Oh, puke, god was that nauseating to read.

No kidding.  When one begins by suggesting that sexuality is an “immorality”, one is already deeply broken psychologically.  Sex is a function of procreation.  It’s no different from eating, breathing, or even shitting.  It’s simply a function.  These theists heap sin all over it (they don’t heap sin on breathing though), and think that because they say it’s immoral, it must be.

It’s crazy, plain and simple.

And what happens when an individual eats too much?

Sex is a normal human function.  But it is also something with which people can become obsessed.  The notion that sex has a place in a monogamous relationship is not unreasonable.  For the Christian this has its roots in God’s ordination of marriage.  One could certainly have these same values without appealing to religion as the source.

Clay’s argument is at least internally consistent in that, in keeping with biblical authority, loyalty to God is an important part of marriage. 

That is a rock on which most others here will not stand.  I would say that the divorce rate among those living according to the faith (not just nominally) would be significantly lower than that for nonChristians.  But that would be difficult to prove statistically because sampling would be subjective. 

Please note that this does not intend to say that a couple cannot have a mutually devoted relationship without God.

[ Edited: 21 July 2009 03:46 PM by wahoo]
Profile
 
 
Posted: 21 July 2009 10:15 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 32 ]  
Member
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  172
Joined  2008-01-25
wahoo - 21 July 2009 07:39 PM

I would say that the divorce rate among those living according to the faith (not just nominally) would be significantly lower than that for nonChristians.  But that would be difficult to prove…

Spoken like a true Christian…  Making claims for which you simply cannot backup. 

There is a high concentration of Christians living in the U.S. - surely among this community of believers there should be a decent amount of those who are actually “living according to the faith”, correct?  So why is it that a predominantly Christian country like the U.S. has the highest divorce rates in the world?
Why are there atheist countries with lower divorce rates?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 22 July 2009 07:01 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 33 ]  
Member
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  497
Joined  2006-06-15
wahoo - 21 July 2009 07:39 PM

And what happens when an individual eats too much?

Are you suggesting that eating too much is a sin? If so, I completely agree. Two billion people in the world on the edge of starvation, and the rich West stuffing itself fit to burst, and using up third world land, water and primary rainforest in the process. Tell me again what percentage of Americans are Christians?

 Signature 

Affiliation creates division. Friendship is better than membership.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 22 July 2009 11:14 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 34 ]  
Member
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  777
Joined  2007-09-16

No kidding.  When one begins by suggesting that sexuality is an “immorality”, one is already deeply broken psychologically.  Sex is a function of procreation.  It’s no different from eating, breathing, or even shitting.  It’s simply a function.  These theists heap sin all over it (they don’t heap sin on breathing though), and think that because they say it’s immoral, it must be.

It’s crazy, plain and simple

.

This is a just a big diversion…no one made any claim that sex is immoral.  But if sex is no different from eating, breathing and shitting, why do “secular” school systems try to teach sex education?  I never ran into an eating, breathing and shitting ed class in school…even elementary school.  Should we really believe that sex ed should be taught simply to prevent unwanted pregnancies, disease and forced abortions?  Is there not an emotional element to sexual activity?  Lets interview mental health professionals and see how many people receive counseling for sex related issues.  I think you would find an abundance.

If you’re teaching your children that sex is no different than eating or defecating, I feel sorry for you and your children.  Of course, this has nothing to do with our discussion, but I thought i’d get my two cents in there.

There is a high concentration of Christians living in the U.S. - surely among this community of believers there should be a decent amount of those who are actually “living according to the faith”, correct?  So why is it that a predominantly Christian country like the U.S. has the highest divorce rates in the world?

Decent amounts?  As in majority?  That’s quite a leap.  Check the divorce rates in this country 200 years ago, when this country was decidedly “more Christian” than it is now.  What were the divorce rates then?  You’re barking up the wrong tree here…you’re talking to two faithful, married Christians.  But I’ve got a better project for you.  Why don’t you interview “Christian” divorcees and ask them why they got divorced, if you can get an honest answer.  I’d like to know how many cite their devotion to Christ and His Word as their basis for divorcing their spouse.  That way, instead of leaping to conclusions, we could actually know the source.  Then, just for good measure, interview ideologically secular divorced individuals and ask them why they divorced.  I’d be curious how similar or dissimilar the answers would be from Christians.

 Signature 

“If you desire to be good, begin by believing that you are wicked.” -Epictetus

Profile
 
 
Posted: 22 July 2009 11:39 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 35 ]  
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1891
Joined  2007-12-19
clayforHim648 - 22 July 2009 03:14 PM

Check the divorce rates in this country 200 years ago, when this country was decidedly “more Christian” than it is now.

You mean when the Christians were performing ethnic cleansing of the Native American Indians and stealing all their land?

 Signature 

“This is it. You are it.”


- Jos. Campbell

Profile
 
 
Posted: 22 July 2009 02:07 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 36 ]  
Member
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  497
Joined  2006-06-15
clayforHim648 - 22 July 2009 03:14 PM

Why don’t you interview “Christian” divorcees and ask them why they got divorced, if you can get an honest answer.

What? You don’t think they’d give an honest answer? Clay, I’m disappointed!

Here’s my theory on divorce. In my long and uneventful life I have observed two factors:

1) sex

2) er… that’s it.

Now: how does Christian belief affect: 1) the sexual energies of a man who is not getting enough sex 2) the sexual energies of a woman whose husband is unattractive because he is depressed from worrying about money?

Answer: not at all. Christian belief has NO EFFECT on these factors. That is why the Christian divorce rate is the same as everybody else’s.

 Signature 

Affiliation creates division. Friendship is better than membership.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 23 July 2009 01:03 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 37 ]  
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2136
Joined  2006-02-20
clayforHim648 - 22 July 2009 03:14 PM

  Check the divorce rates in this country 200 years ago, when this country was decidedly “more Christian” than it is now.

. . . When Christian gentlemen could have sex with their female slaves when they got home from church.

 Signature 

“The simple fables of the religious of the world have come to seem like tales told to children.”  - Nobel Prize recipient - Francis Crick

“It is time we recognized the boundless narcissism and self-deceit of the saved.” - Sam Harris

Profile
 
 
Posted: 23 July 2009 10:30 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 38 ]  
Member
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  172
Joined  2008-01-25

...if sex is no different from eating, breathing and shitting, why do “secular” school systems try to teach sex education?  I never ran into an eating, breathing and shitting ed class in school…even elementary school.

Really?
You never took home-ec?  Never had any classes on proper nutrition?  None at all?  Do you even know the basic food groups?  If so, where did you learn those from?  Church?

[ Edited: 23 July 2009 10:34 PM by seeking_truth]
Profile
 
 
Posted: 23 July 2009 11:12 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 39 ]  
Member
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  172
Joined  2008-01-25
clayforHim648 - 22 July 2009 03:14 PM

Lets interview mental health professionals and see how many people receive counseling for sex related issues.  I think you would find an abundance.

Hey, while we’re at it… Let’s interview mental health professionals and see how many people receive counseling for food related issues as well.

I think we will find an abundance of overweight bible thumpers… Too mentally weak to stick to a proper diet and get regular exercise.  They’ll avoid the gym like the plague, but you can damn sure guarantee they’ll waddle their fat asses into church on Sunday…  Especially if there’s a potluck after service!  Silently they’ll pray for God to take the pounds off while they happily fill their plates to overflowing.  Mmmm…  Time for seconds!

Decent amounts?  As in majority?  That’s quite a leap.  Check the divorce rates in this country 200 years ago, when this country was decidedly “more Christian” than it is now.  What were the divorce rates then?  You’re barking up the wrong tree here…

Funny how divorce rates rose once women were able to get out of crappy marriages and away from abusive husbands.  Today, a woman can support herself - she doesn’t have to depend on a man for survival.  I have met several abusive Christian men - men who believe the wife must submit to them - cuz the bibble says so!
I have a mother who had her nose and her jaw broken by a fundamentalist Christian prick of a father who felt violence was the way to keep his little Christian woman in her place.  You know what she did Clay?  She divorced him! Two hundred years ago she would have been stuck with the jag-off.

But I’ve got a better project for you.  Why don’t you interview “Christian” divorcees and ask them why they got divorced, if you can get an honest answer.

I have Christian friends and family who’ve been divorced and the reasons vary… Physical abuse, mental abuse (power and control issues), infidelity and money issues are quite common.

I’d like to know how many cite their devotion to Christ and His Word as their basis for divorcing their spouse.

Devotion to Christ goes right out the window when real life rears its ugly head.  I’ve tried Christian counseling (Family Life Counseling)...  Didn’t work. Secular counseling didn’t work either. When there is physical abuse in a marriage, it’s time to part ways (it will only get worse over time - once a person hits, it becomes more difficult for them to restrain themselves the next time.  Staying in a physically abusive marriage would be the equivalent of a dog going back to its own vomit. 

Then, just for good measure, interview ideologically secular divorced individuals and ask them why they divorced.

My guess would be the same reasons as Christians: infidelity, money issues, abuse, etc…

Profile
 
 
Posted: 23 July 2009 11:45 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 40 ]  
Member
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  172
Joined  2008-01-25

If Christian couples divorce, it has been implied that it is because they aren’t “true Christians”. 

Okay.  Well, what then is the explanation for successful lifelong marriages experienced by atheist couples and couples from other religions?
These people are the furthest thing from being “true Christians” - in fact most of them could care less about Jesus Christ, yet somehow they are still able to form lifelong bonds with their partners.

How is it that men and women who could give two shits about God’s plan for marriage are able to stay together for a lifetime?

Shouldn’t this be exclusive only to those who follow “God’s plan”?  Why would any marriages between non-believers succeed?

Christians on this forum consistently fail to see that the religion simply does not bear fruit.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 24 July 2009 11:24 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 41 ]  
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1891
Joined  2007-12-19
clayforHim648 - 22 July 2009 03:14 PM

Is there not an emotional element to sexual activity?

Sex is like life ... it’s the meaning you give to it. Of course, no one is discounting the emotional element to “sexual activity” along with the physical, but it’s not a one size fits all prescription, and it varies from individual to individual, indeed within the same individual on different occassions or under different circumstances. Kind of gives meaning to between consenting adults (note: no mention of gender), now doesn’t it? Why don’t you know this already?

 Signature 

“This is it. You are it.”


- Jos. Campbell

Profile
 
 
Posted: 24 July 2009 12:49 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 42 ]  
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1183
Joined  2007-08-07
wahoo - 21 July 2009 07:39 PM

And what happens when an individual eats too much?

It depends.  They gain weight.  Or they get sick.  Or they puke.  In extreme cases, they die.  There’s a number of different answers.  That’s because “eating too much” is a relative standard and it has different meanings under different circumstances.

Sex is a normal human function.  But it is also something with which people can become obsessed.  The notion that sex has a place in a monogamous relationship is not unreasonable.  For the Christian this has its roots in God’s ordination of marriage.  One could certainly have these same values without appealing to religion as the source.

Since one can have these same values without appealing to religion—then why appeal to religion at all?

Clay’s argument is at least internally consistent in that, in keeping with biblical authority, loyalty to God is an important part of marriage.

We go one level deeper.  “Internally consistent” is meaningless if the model itself is unintelligible at its conclusion.  Consider a story about Superman.  No matter how internally consistent the script is, no matter how “grounded in logic” the events in the story may appear, no matter that the locales may be real, in the end, a Man from Kryptoin with Super Powers is not an acceptable or ligocal conclusion to come to when one is done reading the book or wathcing the movie.  Appealing to consistency is irrelevant to mythology, except if you’re going to critique its literary merits or lack thereof.

That is a rock on which most others here will not stand.  I would say that the divorce rate among those living according to the faith (not just nominally) would be significantly lower than that for nonChristians.  But that would be difficult to prove statistically because sampling would be subjective.

Divorce issues are cultural standards and have changed with times.  There’s nothing inherently “correct” about two people remaining wedded for life, other than it’s the majority way, so it has become the guideline for “normal”.  But there’s nothing inherently positive or negative about mating for life.  It’s completely arbitrary.

Please note that this does not intend to say that a couple cannot have a mutually devoted relationship without God.

Again—if gods are not necessary, then why burden oneself with an extra layer of authority over which you have no say and wherein nothing has even been demonstrated as extant?  Why bother?  You lose far more than you gain:  You lose a coherent logical worldview, you lose a degree of critical thinking, you lose standards of knowledge in favor of vague and poorly defined standards of “faith”... what do you gain?  Comfort that when you die you’ll live on? Maybe so, but you don’t actually gain immortality.  You just gain the “comfort” of the belief, which is more likely to be false than it is to be true.

It seems a dreary waste of time and effort that could be spent on better and more productive things that serve humanity better and don’t come with this daunting, insufferable pricetag.

 Signature 

Faith-free since 1985

Profile
 
 
Posted: 24 July 2009 01:07 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 43 ]  
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1183
Joined  2007-08-07
clayforHim648 - 22 July 2009 03:14 PM

This is a just a big diversion…no one made any claim that sex is immoral.  But if sex is no different from eating, breathing and shitting, why do “secular” school systems try to teach sex education?  I never ran into an eating, breathing and shitting ed class in school…even elementary school.  Should we really believe that sex ed should be taught simply to prevent unwanted pregnancies, disease and forced abortions?  Is there not an emotional element to sexual activity?  Lets interview mental health professionals and see how many people receive counseling for sex related issues.  I think you would find an abundance.

I’m going to put you back on ignore soon, since there’s really no percentage in having these discussions with you (and I don’t mean that as an insult, it’s just I really don’t believe in arguing the same points with people over and over when no amount of arguing will effect any change.  It’s just a waste of time.)

As I said to wahoo, these issues don’t come to us in a vacuum.  Certianly, religious morality has played an important part in our civilization.  So it’s not surprising that certain elements have been selected as having preeminence over other elements.

For instance, there is nothing inherently bad about polygamy.  However, Christian monogamist morality has held sway, and it’s now the traditional standard, so breaking that standard can create emotional and mental repsonses that are not in the bes tinterest of the person to hwich it occurs.  But if Mormon theology held sawy, and polygamist relationships were the norm, then it might be the other way around—monogamist relationships might just as easily be considered “abnormal” and “unhealthy”.

That’s becuase there’s nothing inherently right or wrong about either.  Both are totally functional methods of mating and tribe building. 

Sex education is a purely practical matter in today’s environment of STDs.  This is wholly in tune with all our other health-related knowledge being shared in our schools.  And yes, in Health classes, you do learn about good nutrition, and standards for boewl movements, and even how to breath properly.  So eating, breathing and even shitting generally is covered.  Breathing skills are simple—it may be a much shorter class than proper nutrition, but how to breather, how not to hyperventilate, how to overcome nausea—I was taught all theHealth classes and in Phys Ed.

Sex is more complex because more things can affect your well being and your ability to be successful, not becuase sexuality is bad, but because procreation comes with a variety of burdens and responsibilities that one should be aware of, and diseases transmitted sexually can have life long—and life threatening—implications.

Oh, and Christians (and theists in general) definitely make moral judgements regarding sex all the time—particularly homosexual sex.

[ Edited: 24 July 2009 01:11 PM by Keep The Reason]
 Signature 

Faith-free since 1985

Profile
 
 
Posted: 24 July 2009 03:14 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 44 ]  
Member
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  233
Joined  2008-10-05
Keep The Reason - 24 July 2009 04:49 PM

Again—if gods are not necessary, then why burden oneself with an extra layer of authority over which you have no say and wherein nothing has even been demonstrated as extant?  Why bother?  You lose far more than you gain:  You lose a coherent logical worldview, you lose a degree of critical thinking, you lose standards of knowledge in favor of vague and poorly defined standards of “faith”... what do you gain?  Comfort that when you die you’ll live on? Maybe so, but you don’t actually gain immortality.  You just gain the “comfort” of the belief, which is more likely to be false than it is to be true.

It seems a dreary waste of time and effort that could be spent on better and more productive things that serve humanity better and don’t come with this daunting, insufferable pricetag.

Now this is, in my mind, a reasonable critique of religion and a fair question to ask.

I do not see it as having a pricetage!  I The life I live now, having a belief in God and a reason for the things I see and feel, is much more fulfilling than the life I lived as an agnostic years ago. 

I cannot prove the truth of my beliefs.  But I do find the accounts of Jesus life and resurrection believable.  I think that most skeptics dismiss the resurrection out of hand because dead people don’t rise again and because lots of other similar “religious” claims abound and have never been verified.  I understand this.  But then again the whole point of the NT gospels (in keeping with the prophetic predictions of the OT) is that Jesus’ coming is the climax of human history, something which has never happened before and which, by definition, breaks all the rules.

We have discussed Mithra and the like already.  I find your conclusions here unfounded and contrary to the observable writings and the opinions of even most skeptical scholars.  On this we must disagree. 

I don’t think my world view suffers from any incoherence because of it.  I can think logically and appreciate the benefits of science as well as you can.  It just happens that I am comfortable admitting that some things will likely remain opaque to human eyes. 

I’m not putting this forth as a worldview superior to yours, but rather suggesting that to me it is a worldview more conducive to happiness.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 24 July 2009 06:09 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 45 ]  
Member
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  777
Joined  2007-09-16

I’m going to put you back on ignore soon, since there’s really no percentage in having these discussions with you (and I don’t mean that as an insult, it’s just I really don’t believe in arguing the same points with people over and over when no amount of arguing will effect any change.  It’s just a waste of time.

That’s fine…I’m not expecting to effect any change.  I just think its a worthwhile discussion.  But you’re right, I don’t want to say the same things over and over again.

That’s becuase there’s nothing inherently right or wrong about either.  Both are totally functional methods of mating and tribe building.

Which has to make you wonder why bronze age tribesmen would come up with monogamy doesn’t it?  It’s amazing how flippantly you can brush away all moral sertitude.  What exactly is inherently right or wrong?  And if nothing is, how and why should anyone be punished for any behavior?

Suppose you have a daughter and another man rapes her while she’s coming home from school.  Has he done anything wrong?  I mean, he’s simply broken the social contract right?  He hasn’t done anything inherently wrong, according to your model.  There is no such thing.  Should he really go to jail?  Should he be killed?  Should he get a slap on the wrist?  Why stop him from doing it again? As a human being, he’s simply doing what’s natural right?  He’s ensuring the survival of the species? 

How has sexuality changed so that we should invent new rules for it now as opposed to when the bronze age tribesmen were procreating?  Isn’t survival of the species still the same ultimate goal, according to your view?  You’ve argued yourself into a corner where its impossible to have moral standards or judgments. 

Oh, and Christians (and theists in general) definitely make moral judgements regarding sex all the time—particularly homosexual sex.

Yes, because we have a foundation for moral judgment.

 Signature 

“If you desire to be good, begin by believing that you are wicked.” -Epictetus

Profile
 
 
   
3 of 4
3
 
RSS 2.0     Atom Feed