Social Degradation and Religious Decay (Split from "Life on Europa")
Pages
| Author | Topic: Social Degradation and Religious Decay (Split from "Life on Europa") |
|---|---|
|
Law Bringer
Member # 335
|
written Thursday, July 12 2007 19:31
Profile
Homepage
quote:Great! Now how do you reconcile this with only men being the leaders of families or congregations? —Alorael, who will cry foul if anything about a best suited role shows up. Even if you want to argue that men are on average better leaders, you've just apparently agreed that women can be better leaders. Posts: 14579 | Registered: Saturday, December 1 2001 08:00 |
|
...b10010b...
Member # 869
|
written Thursday, July 12 2007 20:21
Profile
Homepage
quote:But... that's exactly the question I asked in the first place. :confused: quote:It's times like this that I really have to wonder whether you actually read what we write or just skim it. -------------------- The Empire Always Loses: This Time For Sure! Posts: 9973 | Registered: Saturday, March 30 2002 08:00 |
|
Lifecrafter
Member # 7723
|
written Thursday, July 12 2007 20:59
Profile
A woman could be a better leader, but I do think nature strongly favors men in that department, much like physical strength and build. That’s personal opinion. I reconcile men leading because the family and the congregation is not a democracy or based on the culture and feelings of the members. It is theocratic. We have great freedom to express our individuality, but not to the extent of disobeying. When we do that we loose God’s protection and blessing. So let’s say we get a woman that meets all of the qualifications for an elder except for her sex. The moment we decide to make her an elder we cease functioning as Christians and have started to form a man-made religion. God’s spirit no longer works with us and our religion becomes vain. On the other hand this same woman can be a very effective preacher and teacher and a strong member of the congregation without overstepping boundaries. Her talents and energies are not wasted. God is happy. The congregation is happy. quote:Sorry man. I read it all. Here I was thinking I was pretty smart for coming up with a better question. It’s kinda funny. You have your answer though. All things considered, I think the world is in worse shape than ever. Posts: 701 | Registered: Thursday, November 30 2006 08:00 |
|
Off With Their Heads
Member # 4045
|
written Thursday, July 12 2007 21:34
Profile
Homepage
quote:As far as I can tell, you have yet to provide any evidence of this difficulty. At all. -------------------- Arancaytar: Every time you ask people to compare TM and Kel, you endanger the poor, fluffy kittens. Smoo: Get ready to face the walls! Ephesos: In conclusion, yarr. Kelandon's Pink and Pretty Page!!: the authorized location for all things by me The Archive of all released BoE scenarios ever Posts: 7968 | Registered: Saturday, February 28 2004 08:00 |
|
Law Bringer
Member # 2984
|
written Thursday, July 12 2007 22:11
Profile
Homepage
quote:And that belief is part of why no rational person will accept your interpretation of faith. If she is qualified, then she is qualified. There can be no other way. [ Thursday, July 12, 2007 22:16: Message edited by: jg.faust ] -------------------- Encyclopaedia • Archives • Members • RSS [Topic / Forum] • Blog • Polaris • NaNoWriMo Look on my works, ye mighty, and despair. | I have a love of woodwind instruments. "That damn meddling eskimo." --WKS about Alorael Posts: 8752 | Registered: Wednesday, May 14 2003 07:00 |
|
? Man, ? Amazing
Member # 5755
|
written Thursday, July 12 2007 22:31
Profile
I would be remiss if I failed to remind Stillness that this is not a religion of God. It is, and always has been, a religion of men. Men observed Jesus, or at least claimed to have. Men wrote down the inspirations provided to them by the apostles. Other men lost those writings, and then found them. Some men translated them, several times. And then some Nicea men decided which of the memories should be preserved in a nice handy packet for other men to intone at ceremonious occasions. This doesn't make it a wrong thing, or worse in any way, but it assuredly makes it something other than a religion of or by a God. It's nice that you have a good way to live your life, but it isn't something that you claim it to be. Fortunately that doesn't matter, until you tell other people that it is something that it isn't. I appreciate your concerns about society, but I don't share your conclusions. And that's just fine with me, as I hope it is with you. -------------------- WWtNSD? Synergy - "I don't get it." Posts: 4114 | Registered: Monday, April 25 2005 07:00 |
|
Electric Sheep One
Member # 3431
|
written Friday, July 13 2007 00:02
Profile
The fact that humans developed Christianity is not incompatible with the theory that God did it, too. Was this message typed by me, or by my fingers? It's a false dichotomy. The fact that men, as opposed to women, developed Christianity, is not entirely a fact. Virtually all of the revered theoreticians of Christianity have been male, from the apostles on. On the other hand women get quite a number of important scenes in the gospels. What is unclear is whether the role of women in the New Testament represents an ideal norm, or a seed planted in stony soil, which would take millennia to grow. -------------------- We're not doing cool. We're doing pretty. Posts: 3335 | Registered: Thursday, September 4 2003 07:00 |
|
Lifecrafter
Member # 59
|
written Friday, July 13 2007 00:50
Profile
quote:Quoted for emphasis. I'm quite pedantic regarding the "morally interchangeable" part. If you say "it's immoral for women to lead our congregation", you should also be able to say "it's immoral for men to lead our congregation", although the combination of the two could leave you in quite a quandary. Also, substituting racism for sexism, or vice versa, works wonders sometimes: "There are biological differences between the groups of whites and blacks, although there are e.g. albino "black" individuals, if we want to avoid the N word. Also, there are behavioural differences, I mean, like, look at the crime statistics posted by Stillness! What have blacks contributed to civilisation in comparison to what people of Aryan descent (Germanic in particular) have achieved?! Surely, a black person isn't best suited to lead a religious community." :P Posts: 950 | Registered: Thursday, October 4 2001 07:00 |
|
Apprentice
Member # 8684
|
written Friday, July 13 2007 03:46
Profile
It seems to me that the biggest problem with the whole gender equality thing (here) is that some of us say that God says one thing, while you say that what God has to say doesn't matter. Stillness is looking at scripture and trying to give you a rational answer based on that, but it [probably] will never be good enough. I'd say that the reason for man to be chosen as the "head" of the house would perhaps be found way back in Genesis 3:16- "To the woman He said, I will greatly multiply your grief and your suffering in pregnancy and the pangs of childbearing; with spasms of distress you will bring forth children. Yet your desire and craving will be for your husband, and he will rule over you." (that was the Amplified version) the NLT translates it this way- Then he said to the woman, “I will sharpen the pain of your pregnancy, and in pain you will give birth. And you will desire to control your husband, but he will rule over you.” So, perhaps its part of the curse. Of course, if the Bible is just fictitious, it means nothing. You might ask, "If God knows everything, then why did He choose to allow this to happen, or curse woman in this way." Well, it seems we're back to the drawing board, and going in circles. So, we'll just stick with that XD I've heard it argued that man was created first, thus is given headship. I think thats silly. God knew what He was doing, and created woman so man would cherish her; there was a reason for it being done in that way (assuming it happened literally, I suppose). If I had to make a decision, I'd say that the headship comes down to being completely arbitrary (atleast, insofar as our understanding allows), and only matters in circumstances where compromise shouldn't be made, or can't be reached. I'd say, without sin and corruption, there would be no need for any specific headship; but, because mankind is not perfect, someone needs to submit (Although, I think for most circumstances, leadership can be handled a bit more deftly, atleast with love, and compromises SHOULD be made. So, most conclusions are reached jointly). Just because a man is the "head of the family" doesn't mean that everything he says is correct or right (Stillness' example of Abraham and Sarah). Relationships are ruled by love. As to the leading of congregations; I honestly don't have a good answer. I don't think I even agree with the basic setup of the 'church,' and believe that we should gather together for exhortation, sharing, and worship. Not to hear a sermon. Also, I generally agree with Stillness' point about defining Christianity. Just because I claim to be Christian does not mean that I am. I can do and say whatever I want, but that doesn't mean its true. I might look and say that I am Mexican (I say this because I have/had friends that have made jokes about me looking Mexican), but I am not. I'm sure it could be proven that I am not [mexican, that is]. Likewise with Christians. If they do not act as a Christian should, then something is wrong. I suppose, rather than coming off as being a legalistic jerk, I'll just say to not jump to conclusions about what a person claims if everything points toward the opposite. I will allow for some amount of ignorance and imperfection, but if a person claims Christianity, but also claims that Christ was not of God, had no "supernatural" aspects, was not 'the son of God,' etc...well, I suppose we could probably conclude he is likely not a Christian. Perhaps a Gnostic, if you'd like; they can even be the same thing in your mind, but I don't care as long as you label him that (perhaps labeling isn't good, but if you are gonna label people, label to the best of your abilities, I suppose). Gah, this just appears to be getting worse and worse, with me jumping around more and more xD Excuse my terrible post, since its almost 9am for me, and I haven't slept. I don't really plan on sleeping at all today, though :-/ Posts: 13 | Registered: Thursday, May 10 2007 07:00 |
|
...b10010b...
Member # 869
|
written Friday, July 13 2007 03:58
Profile
Homepage
quote:Actually, this is a good analogy. Does a person have to be a citizen of Mexico to be a Mexican, or is it enough that he or she is descended from people who were? If the latter, what percentage of one's ancestors had to have been from Mexico? There's no non-arbitrary answer; the only way to answer the question is by the consensus of a language group. If everyone on Earth were to agree that you were Mexican despite being aware that neither you nor any of your ancestors were citizens of Mexico, then clearly the practical definition of the word "Mexican" is broad enough to include you. If this seems counterintuitive, consider the word "buccaneer". Literally, it means "one who eats smoked meat", because pirates had to preserve meat for long sea voyages. In the practical usage of the word today, though, it's not impossible to conceive of a vegetarian buccaneer. In short, etymology has little to do with usage, so what Christ taught has little bearing on the modern definition of "Christianity". [ Friday, July 13, 2007 04:02: Message edited by: Thuryl ] -------------------- The Empire Always Loses: This Time For Sure! Posts: 9973 | Registered: Saturday, March 30 2002 08:00 |
|
By Committee
Member # 4233
|
written Friday, July 13 2007 04:22
Profile
See, we've run into that Biblical infallibility wall. "The Bible says that this is so..." is not a rational approach, because the Bible cannot be proven. You may as well be saying that an invisible daimon told you that men are suited for leadership in families and congregations, for all the merit your assertion carries, which seems very naive to me. "But no, Drew, it's the Bible..." :rolleyes: Posts: 2242 | Registered: Saturday, April 10 2004 07:00 |
|
Shock Trooper
Member # 1829
|
written Friday, July 13 2007 05:46
Profile
I wouldn't say the Bible can't be proven, it's a book, it's kind of hard to say "This book doesn't exist". What can't be proven is how we should treat it as a book, should we view it as a history book, a law book, a guide book or a fictional book? It's one of the reasons why there's so many different splinters of Christianity, a lot of them are varied in how they view the Bible. One thing I'd also find worth considering when attempting to interpret the Bible is the process of metamorphism through re-telling, which especially with something as old as the Bible is likely to have caused at least some parts of it to have changed from their original meaning and intent when the stories within it were originally told. Posts: 206 | Registered: Tuesday, September 3 2002 07:00 |
|
By Committee
Member # 4233
|
written Friday, July 13 2007 06:00
Profile
quote:I'm pretty certain you and everyone else understand what I meant, but to clarify, I meant that the assertion that the Bible is the genuine, authoritative "Word of God" is not provable. [ Friday, July 13, 2007 06:02: Message edited by: Drew ] Posts: 2242 | Registered: Saturday, April 10 2004 07:00 |
|
Shaper
Member # 73
|
written Friday, July 13 2007 06:19
Profile
quote: quote:To make it more clear what we're asking you at the moment, Stillness, how do you reconcile these two statements? -------------------- My Myspace, with some of my audial and visual art The Lyceum - The Headquarters of the Blades designing community The Louvre - The Blades of Avernum graphics database Alexandria - The Blades of Exile Scenario database BoE Webring - Self explanatory Polaris - Free porn here Odd Todd - Fun for the unemployed (and everyone else too) They Might Be Giants - Four websites for one of the greatest bands in existance -------------------- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Posts: 2957 | Registered: Thursday, October 4 2001 07:00 |
|
Lifecrafter
Member # 7723
|
written Friday, July 13 2007 07:43
Profile
quote: quote: quote:A rational person who believes that God has the right to dictate what he requires from his worshippers will accept it and benefit from it. quote:Yes, I am reminded that you keep making this claim with no evidence at all to back it up or refute the proof to the contrary. quote:I wouldn’t say it’s immoral for a woman to lead. I would say it’s immoral to disobey God regardless of your sex. quote:2 things I NEVER said that women haven’t contributed to civilization. They have contributed a great deal and are highly respected within Christian families and congregations for their contribution. So your substitution is weak. Second, the crime statistics are generated in a historically and presently racist society. I don’t know where you’re from (Germany?), but in the US where I live, the country was build in large part by the know-how and muscle of slaves of African descent. Black people have also contributed scientifically, technologically, and socially here even in the face of extreme prejudice. On a worldwide and historical level you probably feel that way because your history is presented by someone with an Aryan background. That’s understandable because every culture and race always thinks theirs is the best, unfortunately. You should really do some research though. There have been African empires. As a matter of fact, while Europe was in the dark ages you should find out what a people called the Moors (meaning black or very dark) were doing. quote:We don’t want to avoid it. It’s OK to use now. You have my permission. Start off by coming to Detroit and walking up to some people and calling them by the “N word.” They’ll like you for it. Seriously though, your difficulty in describing differences in people illustrates the truly arbitrary distinctions we make. I could just as easily divide people by height or shoe size (in fact I could do so with less difficulty). The distinction between the sexes is not arbitrary though. It is natural. quote:I think I actually agree. Here we call sweet potatoes “yams,” but they’re not. Sweet potatoes and yams are from completely different families. Our usage doesn’t change what is and is not even if it serves to communicate. If there was a need for us to speak accurately and get to actual, as opposed to commonly accepted, meaning we’d call these things what they are. There is a loose definition of “Christian” which can include anyone who was raised a Christian, has been baptized, goes to church on easter and Christmas, etc. These are nominal Christians. Then there is a definition which means “disciple of Christ.” These two are very different. quote:No one is being judged because of their sex, but the sexes are clearly not the same. I think you all are really missing the forest for the trees. You’re missing that men and women are different and both have unique abilities, restrictions, and requirements placed upon them not just by Christ, but by nature. You are only focusing on one aspect – that men are the heads of marriages and the congregation. If I say that women tend to have better verbal abilities, so can pick up languages quicker or that they have higher emotional intelligence on average or that they mature quicker am I being judgemental? My wife and I are learning Chinese. The Chinese tell me, “Your Chinese is good” (which they tell anybody that says anything in Chinese). When my wife speaks they say, “You sound like a native speaker.” Am I mad or jealous about that? Absolutely not. We work as a team, so her strengths cover my weaknesses and vice versa. I don’t know of a better way. Posts: 701 | Registered: Thursday, November 30 2006 08:00 |
|
By Committee
Member # 4233
|
written Friday, July 13 2007 08:47
Profile
We are focusing on that because it is the matter in dispute. What biological, natural factors of the species homo sapiens conclusively indicate that males should serve as heads of household or congregation? I contend that there are none, beyond perhaps a male's superior physical strength and consequential ability to impose his will through force, which doesn't seem to be in keeping with the spirit of the God of the New Testament to me. If there aren't any truly biological factors, then that means that such strictures are artificial, not natural. You leave the impression through your posts that you understand God's will perfectly. That's a pretty brazen assertion, given that there are millions of other fervently believing Christians who believe differently about different aspects of their faith than you do. Given that we are all sinners and fallible mere mortals, how can you possibly know with certitude what probably only the Son of God returned to Earth could possibly know? Furthermore, even if Jesus is the Son of God and rose from the dead, how the heck can you, an intelligent individual, extend from such an assertion that the documents you rely on for your morals and strictures governing the roles of women and men aren't in themselves imperfect? Heck, there are only probably about a hundred different translations (at least ten major ones) that have passed through the hands of hundreds of keepers over the course of two thousand years. Why should the Gospel of Thomas be excluded from "the canon," and who were the folks who decided on that to begin with, and what were their motivations? It really boggles my mind that you can take all that on faith. Pardon my skepticism. [ Friday, July 13, 2007 08:49: Message edited by: Drew ] Posts: 2242 | Registered: Saturday, April 10 2004 07:00 |
|
? Man, ? Amazing
Member # 5755
|
written Friday, July 13 2007 09:02
Profile
quote:And with that I recede. You are steadfast in your belief that God is responsible for the Bible, despite absence of proof. And quoting the document in question is not proof. If it were, anyone could make any claim and automatically have it deemed proven. Flying Tomatoes anyone? My claim, in total, is that human beings did those things. You can't deny that. You can claim to believe that those things wouldn't have happened without divine inspiration, and that's fine. But you can't claim that as fact, especially using the Bible as proof. I mean, sure you can claim it, but you won't find much belief in that claim. Occam's razor need not apply in this case, since belief can always trump reality. -------------------- WWtNSD? Synergy - "I don't get it." Posts: 4114 | Registered: Monday, April 25 2005 07:00 |
|
Lifecrafter
Member # 7723
|
written Friday, July 13 2007 10:49
Profile
quote:I don’t have an answer to that because I don’t know or understand how it all works biologically. I just know it works better. Actually, it’s not a real big deal if you do it right. My wife and I were study partners in college and she was one of my best friends. We are still best friends and very much in love. It feels right and natural and we’re happy. I look at family and friends who don’t do things God’s way and they simply don’t do as well. My experience tells me that and the statistics I gave you all support it, so I know it’s not my view. quote:What your basis? Your feelings? Society’s views? quote:I’m sorry you read me that way. I don’t know it perfectly. quote:If Jesus is God’s son then there is a God. The Bible’s logic, prophecy, honesty of its penmen, harmony, and practical value have convinced me that it is God’s word. If the is a God that created the universe and everything in it, then writing a little book and preserving it is not a major feat for him. The evidence I’ve seen is overwhelming that that is exactly what happened. Here’s an interesting tidbit: The holy scriptures were actually preserved by those who were doing the very things it condemns throughout it’s history. That’s another line of evidence. For example: (1 Timothy 4:1-3) However, the inspired utterance says definitely that in later periods of time some will fall away from the faith, paying attention to misleading inspired utterances and teachings of demons, by the hypocrisy of men who speak lies, marked in their conscience as with a branding iron; forbidding to marry… The very people who maintained this book forbade marriage for their clergy when the Bible says that’s a demonic lie. To me that’s amazing. Why not change it or take it out? You’d think that if someone was claiming to represent God and a document existed that proved that they weren’t they would do something about it. But no, they protect it. The history of this book is filled with this same oddity. (Odd if you look at it from a non-spiritual perspective). quote:The gospel of Thomas may be of historical interest and value, but it’s spurious. It does not harmonize with the rest of the scriptures or carry the theme of the Bible well. The goal of the Jews and the Christians after them was to preserve God’s inspired word. This book was not included in the earliest catalogues of the Christian scriptures because it has no place with them. Posts: 701 | Registered: Thursday, November 30 2006 08:00 |
|
By Committee
Member # 4233
|
written Friday, July 13 2007 11:34
Profile
Bear in mind that you are the one who has asserted that men are naturally (and thus intended by God) to be in leadership roles in the family and in congregations. My assertion has merely been that the Christian religion is patriarchal in nature. You seem to agree with this, and your faith seems to confirm this. I've merely asserted that I think that's a bad thing. You were the one, however, who took it a step further and brought nature into the fray; as such, it is in fact you who has the burden of proof in this matter, because you are the one using it in your justification for the patriarchal nature of your faith tradition. My assertion is that there are no EVIDENT characteristics intrinsic to either gender that make one superior to the other for purposes of leadership, outside of the tendency for males to be larger and stronger than females and as such, males are more readily able to dominate females and assume power. This, however, is leadership by force; it does not qualify men to lead by intellect or provide any spiritual explanation. If you don't have an answer to the question, then you stand on very faulty ground, your own personal experiences and anecdotal evidence aside. Lots of things "just work." I cannot accept your assertion as valid. You are obviously operating on a way different wavelength than me. I'll likely withdraw from this thread for the reasons Salmon outlined above. By the way - I have some swampland in Florida I'd like to sell you. [ Friday, July 13, 2007 11:39: Message edited by: Drew ] Posts: 2242 | Registered: Saturday, April 10 2004 07:00 |
|
Lifecrafter
Member # 7723
|
written Friday, July 13 2007 11:55
Profile
quote:Misunderstood again. :( quote: quote:Well I guess we’ll just have to guess that’s based on your feelings, not any real evidence. I actually do have statistics to back my position. quote:Hmmm. Does your swampland have any real value or do you just feel like it’s a good buy but in actuality keeping what I have would be more practical? Posts: 701 | Registered: Thursday, November 30 2006 08:00 |
|
By Committee
Member # 4233
|
written Friday, July 13 2007 12:20
Profile
Your opinion obviously doesn't count in making that assertion. Also, just because an institution, be it a family or a congregation, isn't democratic doesn't necessarily mean that men should de facto fill the leadership positions. Where are your statistics that men are better leaders? You have yet to produce them. I'm willing to admit I'm incorrect if you have actual credible evidence. [ Friday, July 13, 2007 12:31: Message edited by: Drew ] Posts: 2242 | Registered: Saturday, April 10 2004 07:00 |
|
? Man, ? Amazing
Member # 5755
|
written Friday, July 13 2007 13:01
Profile
quote:In the good old days, and by good I mean bad, people believed that litters of rats spontaneously arose from piles of old rags. Post hoc, propter hoc is considered a logic fallacy, not a logical dreadnought. -------------------- WWtNSD? Synergy - "I don't get it." Posts: 4114 | Registered: Monday, April 25 2005 07:00 |
|
Law Bringer
Member # 335
|
written Friday, July 13 2007 13:15
Profile
Homepage
What statistics? I've seen a brief mention of a study in Moscow that showed that Jehovah's Witnesses have more stable marriages. There's no real information on the study, nor is there information on how many of the non-JWs were Christian (in Russia, probably most). Nor is there any information about whether those stable marriages are particularly good. But all the same, I'm satisfied that I understand your views and that our positions are utterly impossible to reconcile. I say that men are better at some things and worse at some things in general. You agree. I say that in specific cases women may very well be better. You seem to agree. I say that some women may be supremely fit to lead. You agree that this is possible. Then you say that this is counter to God's will because that is what is written in the Bible. So talent, aspirations, and all desires need to be set aside in the face of theology. You believe it, we don't. Fine. There's no point in discussing further. —Alorael, who will only add that out of the five unhappiest marriages among people he's known, three were devoutly religious. One of those couples and the two less Biblish pairs got divorced and apparently experienced happier lives. Experience tells him that marriages are happier, though not more stable, without the influence of the church. But anecdotes are funny like that. Posts: 14579 | Registered: Saturday, December 1 2001 08:00 |
|
Lifecrafter
Member # 7723
|
written Friday, July 13 2007 23:55
Profile
quote:That was never my argument, not now nor from the beginning, nor anywhere in between. I gave it as an opinion, not as a reason. I initially said that to the extent that cultures apply the Bible in their activity they’ll benefit. Someone (maybe you) brought the charge that the Bible is patriarchal which equates to “bad” (which was never really proven). I argued that the Bible may be patriarchal (if that is taken to mean men take the lead in family and worship), but that this is actually good! I mentioned two studies along with my personal experience, one in Russia and one Germany that showed a divorce/separation rate of under 5 percent. One sociological study entitled The Family and the Bible, conducted by A.I. Antonov, head of the Department of Family Sociology at the Lomonsov Moscow State University, established that the religion of Jehovah's Witnesses "plays an important role in strengthening the institute of the family." In particular it shows a divorce rate among Jehovah's Witnesses of less than 5 percent compared with 40 percent among the general population of Moscow. (emphasis mine) http://www.stetson.edu/~psteeves/relnews/0102b.html I found out that the Russian sample was only 1000 people according to the above site. I couldn’t really find out much more about the German study. So I understand if you question the results. But if it’s representative here is the logic (SoT, Kelandon, and Alo taght me this): 1) Divorce is bad for families. 2) Those that apply western family values have a higher divorce rate than those that strictly follow biblical guidelines. 3) Western values are not as good for families as strictly following biblical guidelines. And 1) A ‘strong institute of the family’ is good for society. 2) People that strictly follow biblical guidelines for family have a ‘strong institute of the family.’ 3) Strictly following biblical guidelines is good for society. That’s what I was really saying. The rest was basically sidetracking. I might add “regardless of their religion” at the end of both “2’s” because there is a lot of confusion with “religious” and “Christian.” quote:I addressed this above. Religion and the church are not what makes a family thrive. Applying bible teachings is. SoT (please don’t be offended) for example is very religious and seems to be into his church. He does not believe what the Bible says about headship applies to him though. That is a common belief of many of the faithful in our society. So your anecdotes are not really fitting. If your “biblish” couples had said, “we’re doing exactly what the Bible says, but it’s just not working” then you’d be on to something. I’ve never heard that. All I hear is the opposite. In fact, if both mates go with the bible they’re pretty much guaranteed success. That’s why those rates are so low. quote:There you go putting words in my mouth. If you want to be a Christian and your desires are anti-Christian, then what does that mean? It’s not complex at all to me. We all make sacrifices based on what we value most. If you think God is more important you act accordingly. If you think your desires are you go that way. If you really believe in God though, you know that he promises a life more fulfilling than anything this world has to offer – now and in the future. And you can use your talents no matter what your gender. Our women are very active in leading people to God. If you have leadership ability as a Christian woman then you and everyone who will listen to you are all the better for it. I know women like this and I learn from them. They’re happy and fulfilled. To each his own though. God is most tolerant. I try my best to be as well. Posts: 701 | Registered: Thursday, November 30 2006 08:00 |
|
Raven v. Writing Desk
Member # 261
|
written Saturday, July 14 2007 04:50
Profile
Homepage
quote:Thanks for delineating your logic, Stillness. I actually agree completely with your second chain, particularly with your disclaimer about different religions, though I would add that like other ways of strengthening family, it does not guarantee strength. But that's a minor quibble. Your first statement, I think, is completely incorrect. Divorce isn't bad for families. Rather, divorce is a symptom of families that are in bad shape. I'll agree that it's not always a good solution, and in general I would much rather see family dysfunction healed than given up on. I think the divorce rate in the U.S. is deplorable. But the problem isn't divorce; the problem is that people are not building healthy relationships in the first place. And some relationships grow so unhealthy that they can't reasonably be healed. Would you say that terminating a physically abusive relationship is "bad for the family"? -------------------- Slarty vs. Desk • Desk vs. Slarty • Timeline of Ermarian • G4 Strategy Central Posts: 3560 | Registered: Wednesday, November 7 2001 08:00 |