Social Degradation and Religious Decay (Split from "Life on Europa")
Pages
| Author | Topic: Social Degradation and Religious Decay (Split from "Life on Europa") |
|---|---|
|
Lifecrafter
Member # 7723
|
written Saturday, July 14 2007 06:13
Profile
quote:No one should have to tolerate physical abuse. I don’t think that is the driving force behind the divorce rate though – maybe a few, but not most. I think it’s infidelity, money, maybe differences in childrearing, and most of all selfishness. Whatever the case, divorce is bad for families, regardless of what causes it or even if it is justified. All couples have problems, some don’t have the stick-to-itiveness and tools to overcome them. I do agree that some relationships can just be lost causes, but the vast majority can be healed, even in the case of adultery. Posts: 701 | Registered: Thursday, November 30 2006 08:00 |
|
...b10010b...
Member # 869
|
written Saturday, July 14 2007 06:51
Profile
Homepage
People are divorcing more often because they're living longer. Not too long ago, plenty of people died in their 60s or 70s so they didn't have as much time to get bored with their spouse. Now that more people are living into their 80s, it's no surprise that the prospect of a whole extra decade or two together pushes a lot of people to consider divorce instead of just waiting for their partner to die. If you want to keep the divorce rate down, you have to bring the death rate up. I'm not sure why you'd bother, though; relationships lasting more than two or three years tend to be unhealthy. -------------------- The Empire Always Loses: This Time For Sure! Posts: 9973 | Registered: Saturday, March 30 2002 08:00 |
|
Lifecrafter
Member # 7723
|
written Saturday, July 14 2007 07:12
Profile
That's a bizzare and pessimistic view, Thuryl. There's a study somewhere by the department of health that shows that something like 4-5 out of 10 marriages won't make it to 15 years. I have heard of seniors getting divorced nowadays, but I can't see your ideas having any substantial contribution to that phenomenon. Old people can be selfish and have a lack of regard for the sanctity of marriage just like young people. I doubt it's anything more than that. EDIT: As a side note I just want to add that people aren't really living any longer than in ancient Bible days. The numbers may go up and down depending on culture and era, but it's the same right now as in the days of Moses. [ Saturday, July 14, 2007 07:16: Message edited by: Stillness ] Posts: 701 | Registered: Thursday, November 30 2006 08:00 |
|
...b10010b...
Member # 869
|
written Saturday, July 14 2007 07:48
Profile
Homepage
quote:It's spelled "bizarre". -------------------- The Empire Always Loses: This Time For Sure! Posts: 9973 | Registered: Saturday, March 30 2002 08:00 |
|
Raven v. Writing Desk
Member # 261
|
written Saturday, July 14 2007 07:50
Profile
Homepage
quote:*facepalm* This seems straightforward enough, and I've never heard otherwise: Life expectancy. To return to the topic at hand -- longer life clearly is not the only thing behind our divorce rate, though it may be one piece of the puzzle. There are numerous factors, and I suspect the biggest one is quite simply the greater social fluidity of our society, much of which is inherent in having a large, interconnected society with large cities and easy transportation. It's both easier to get married and get divorced now than it once was. Not to mention that in much of history, divorces have either been tightly restricted by church or state, or not conducted in any official, recorded way. So the increase in divorces-per-opportunities is likely much more subdued than the increase in divorces. I dunno. Perhaps it's because of what I'm exposed to in my work, but I find it hard not to conclude that we as a society have been experiencing a decay in our ability to relate to others in healthy ways. -------------------- Slarty vs. Desk • Desk vs. Slarty • Timeline of Ermarian • G4 Strategy Central Posts: 3560 | Registered: Wednesday, November 7 2001 08:00 |
|
Shaper
Member # 6292
|
written Saturday, July 14 2007 08:29
Profile
quote:This is the either/or fallacy. Another possibility is that there was a Jesus, and he is not here actively involved in anyone's life as a deity...at least not any more so than any other departed spirit, if they have any kind of interaction with the living at all. Some would swear they do. I don't know. It could also be noted that Christ was not his name, just a Greek word used as a title that meant "anointed." I spent much of my life believing in and petitioning this deified Jesus fellow, but I have to say I never experienced anything that suggested there was any Jesus listening or responding or doing anything in response. Jesus himself pointed at the Father, God, rather than suggest he himself was to be prayed to or petitioned or deified. Christians did that subsequently. He also referred to himself almost exclusviely as the Son of Man, while it was others who kept calling him the son of God. He seemed interested in identifying himself with humankind, and later, his followers seemed keen on making a god out of him. I also disagree that the world is worse off than ever before. That's the ignorant and pessimistic view I see many religious folk always bemoaning. On the contrary, for all our growing pains, I think it's a fantastic time to be alive with so much promise and possibility before us. A lot of the sexist and racist and cruel behaviors of the past have finally begun to shift and be challenged in the last century after many millennia of society. I would hate to have been born any earlier, when morals were stuffier and more judgemental and intolerant. Health and living conditions, political conditions, recent freedoms gained, etc. etc....no way in hell would I want to go back to some glorified, romanticized past in which life was actually much harsher and narrower. In fact, Christians in my experience are some of the most negative people I've known, seeing evil and wickedness everywhere and seeing the world and people as bad and worse off in general. What a sad way to go through life. As for wives, the Bible promoted the cultural polygamy of the time in the Old Testament. Yet Christianity is largely responsible for touting the one man one woman = sanctified marriage by God today. The Bible never declared any such shift or made any point of either arrangement. At the least, either should be accetable, because polygamy was never condemned, along with owning slaves. Why don't Christians practice polygamy, because it certainly is Biblical. Oh, could it be that Christians are following cultural moral norms like everyone else, not the example of the patriarchs of the Bible? Or you could be like Paul who personally felt it was best not to marry at all. It is likely Paul was at least at one time married and had a personal opinion on the matter. If the God of the Bible exists, Paul was able to find Him and learn from Him, and I can do the same. I don't need a dead man from 2000 years ago to tell me how to live my life in modern day America. ADDIT: You mentioned divorce rates being at their peak. Considering that the form of marriage we practice in America has long been a sacred Christian institution held by the Church, I would suggest it is a broken concept of marrige and sex roles held by Christianity we are seeing fail us as much as anything else. Women in particular no longer fit into the role Christianity has been handing them for a couple of millennia. The institution as it has been held is perhaps in need of some revision. Meanwhile, human beings continue to be remarkably human with the usual needs, desires, hopes, and dreams. People aren't getting worse. We're growing up, and old forms aren't fitting us comfortably any more. New wine in old wineskins only bursts the skins. quote:Millions of miserable women who had no voice and no power for millennia, trapped in marriages to men who regarded them as inferior creatues or property likely felt otherwise about how well it worked. What it works better for is men who wrote and promoted this stuff in the first place. The old model is broken now, and Christianity is unable to reconcile its archaic, patriarchal past with the newfound freedoms of today without rewriting the Bible. -S- [ Saturday, July 14, 2007 08:53: Message edited by: Synergy ] -------------------- A4 Items • A4 Singleton • G4 Items • G4 Forging • G4 Infiltrator • NR Items • The Lonely Celt Posts: 2009 | Registered: Monday, September 12 2005 07:00 |
|
Lifecrafter
Member # 7723
|
written Saturday, July 14 2007 08:33
Profile
Yama, the Wikipedia article leaves much to be desired and I think is misleading. People lived 70-80 years 35-36 centuries ago in Israel. Cities with indoor plumbing have been around for at least three and a half or four millenia, if not more in Mesopotamia. As I said things fluxuate as cultures advance and regress. When you start looking outside of western oriented history you get different perspectives. For example, the chart for expectancy by era lists Greece, Rome, Britain, then Europe as if Greece was the beginning of civilization or as if Western culture was the height of civilization for everytime between these world powers. Neither of these is true. (Psalms 90:10) In themselves the days of our years are seventy years; And if because of special mightiness they are eighty years, Yet their insistence is on trouble and hurtful things; For it must quickly pass by, and away we fly superscript: A prayer of Moses, the man of the true God. Posts: 701 | Registered: Thursday, November 30 2006 08:00 |
|
Raven v. Writing Desk
Member # 261
|
written Saturday, July 14 2007 09:28
Profile
Homepage
Yes, throughout human history, some people have always lived to be very old; but until modern times it was unusual. I assume you're not arguing that most people in Israel in 1500 BCE lived to be 70 years old, are you? Two questions: 1) What part of the article do you consider misleading? 2) What evidence do you have for your claim that life expectancy is "the same right now as in the days of Moses"? -------------------- Slarty vs. Desk • Desk vs. Slarty • Timeline of Ermarian • G4 Strategy Central Posts: 3560 | Registered: Wednesday, November 7 2001 08:00 |
|
Lifecrafter
Member # 7723
|
written Saturday, July 14 2007 10:44
Profile
The statement indicates that as an average age at the time. That is part of the evidence. What I find lacking is the narrow glimpse the article gives. Obviously it mislead you because you facepalmed when I made the statement that life expectancy has had ups and downs but is not really higher now than at other times in history. You would probably facepalm also at the idea that Abraham was 175, his son 180, and his son 147. You probably would not facepalm if I told you his son was 110. Maybe you would facepalm at the idea that their grandson, Moses, was 120 and in good health, maybe not. If you did at any of these, it’d probably be because you think like Alo and Synergy that humanity is at its “peak” and because this would indicate that they were better off than us in some ways. In some ways I actually would agree about now being a peak. Overall, I do not. I certainly don’t think we’re as healthy as the people in that area at that time. I doubt our diet and exercise as a society equals what they had. I’d bet they didn’t have a problem with obesity. I find the typical American attitude is that we are the smartest, best, most civilized people in history. Even if they don’t come out and say it straightforwardly, that is the way they feel. I also think this is a great country (so don’t tell me to go somewhere else). But, when you speak to people from other cultures (especially more ancient ones) and take a well-rounded look at history and current affairs from different perspectives you start to see that this view is wrong and some of our highly-prized freedoms come with a price. Posts: 701 | Registered: Thursday, November 30 2006 08:00 |
|
Raven v. Writing Desk
Member # 261
|
written Saturday, July 14 2007 11:47
Profile
Homepage
Stillness, please answer my questions instead of making rather incorrect guesses about how I see things. As far as the second question goes, it's reasonable to list the Psalms line as a piece of supporting evidence, but surely there must be other evidence remaining if people lived to 70 on average? I'm not going to argue any more until you answer my questions. I will say however that your second paragraph above leaves me thoroughly confused. -------------------- Slarty vs. Desk • Desk vs. Slarty • Timeline of Ermarian • G4 Strategy Central Posts: 3560 | Registered: Wednesday, November 7 2001 08:00 |
|
? Man, ? Amazing
Member # 5755
|
written Saturday, July 14 2007 12:16
Profile
Divorce may be catastrophic to the family, as it is the word we use to describe the dissolution of that relationship, but it is mostly good for the human beings involved. To be clearer, it is a selfish act because the individuals in the family have no further desire to be completely miserable, and seek to change that state of being. Ergo, divorce generally causes human beings to be calmer and healthier, and thus more likely to have the free mental and emotional time to become more spiritual beings. -------------------- WWtNSD? Synergy - "I don't get it." Posts: 4114 | Registered: Monday, April 25 2005 07:00 |
|
Law Bringer
Member # 335
|
written Saturday, July 14 2007 12:41
Profile
Homepage
Citing the Bible on life expectancy to a crowd that largely rejects Biblical literalism is not going to make any points. Except for legendary figures, there's no indication that humans used to live much longer. —Alorael, who has had trouble finding life expectancies exluding infant mortality. In this case that's probably more useful data. Posts: 14579 | Registered: Saturday, December 1 2001 08:00 |
|
Agent
Member # 2759
|
written Saturday, July 14 2007 12:46
Profile
Homepage
Let me see if I've got this straight: y'all are arguing about historical trends in average life expectancy with someone whose beliefs include that Jonah survived inside the belly of a big fish, that Noah lived to the age of 950, and that Jesus came back from the dead after crucifixion? Edit: Essentially, Alo beat me to it. [ Saturday, July 14, 2007 12:47: Message edited by: Micawber ] -------------------- "Blink and you're dead... Don't turn your back, don't look away and don't blink." Geneforge 4 stuff. Also, everything I know about Avernum | Avernum 2 | Avernum 3 | Avernum 4 Posts: 1104 | Registered: Monday, March 10 2003 08:00 |
|
Shaper
Member # 73
|
written Saturday, July 14 2007 13:21
Profile
Stillness, the Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster says the best way to get to Heaven is to be a pirate with appropriate boat and outfit, and that being a jerk (like insisting your way is the best way and saying men can have positions that women can't while not prohibiting men from having positions that women can have) is a pretty good way to keep you out of Heaven. Parrots are good too. Also make sure you eat plenty of pasta (whole grain is just dandy, of course, if you're concerned about nutrition). It's sad that you're so hell-bent on pushing your religion that you'll derail every thread that is even tangentially related to religion just to push yours. I'm not saying you have to be a pirate to go to Heaven, because you don't, although it gets you more on the FSM's good side. You just need to stop being a jerk. -------------------- 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 |
|
Law Bringer
Member # 2984
|
written Saturday, July 14 2007 13:24
Profile
Homepage
I didn't think I'd say this for a long time yet, but "Go ADoS!" -------------------- 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 |
|
Law Bringer
Member # 6785
|
written Saturday, July 14 2007 13:30
Profile
Arguing divorce rates are higher because of living longer fails to consider the extremely short marraiges. Look at all the failed marraiges among celebrities that fail to last 90 days (less than your average warranty). What you have is more people suddenly getting married after knowing each other for a relatively short time. All the things that drive people apart aren't noticed in these brief courtships so the marraiges fail quickly. Also it's now easier to get married and divorced. The legal reasons for divorce have increased to the point that all you need to do is file for a divorce without even having to give a reason. The less work involved means that there is no incentive to try and sustain a marriage that might be salvagable. Posts: 4643 | Registered: Friday, February 10 2006 08:00 |
|
Law Bringer
Member # 6785
|
written Saturday, July 14 2007 13:39
Profile
I post about biblical life expectancies separately. I met a professor while I was at the University of Arizona that studied life cycles and theorized that the extremely high biblical ages were due to a mistranslation of units. The ranges of ages for marraige, childbirth, and death were consistent within the ancient pre-flood period and for the patriarchical to post Exodus periods The period from Abraham through Joshua made sense if you divided all the ages in half (hypothesizing that year meant only 6 months since the calander seemed to use 2 new years dates for Rosh Hashanah in the Fall and Adar for the Spring). This makes Moses dying at 120 a more reasonable 60 and the other ages comparable to modern man. So Sarah having a child at 90 was then 45 which would be considered late until recently. For the oldest period from Adam until after the Flood, you need to divide by 12 I think. This makes Adam an old man at 80 and the other ages while old. much more in step with modern man. [ Saturday, July 14, 2007 13:41: Message edited by: Randomizer ] Posts: 4643 | Registered: Friday, February 10 2006 08:00 |
|
? Man, ? Amazing
Member # 5755
|
written Saturday, July 14 2007 14:25
Profile
quote:Another theory, equally compelling to me, is that oral story telling got things a little mixed up. If the eldest child in a family is consistently named John, and it is a family living in a time when last names weren't important, then to say John lived for 865 years isn't out of the question. All that means is that John, and his first born son descendants, existed as an unbroken lineage for 865 years. That is a huge success in a time when childbirth was iffy, childhood dangerous, and other such obstacles. Nothing should diminish the importance to have such a strong family, as it also suggests financial (or whatever measure of prosperity is chosen) success. But it is a grave mistake to assume literally that people lived for hundreds of years on an individual basis. In fact, it suggests a failure in reasoning which could by systemic. That, more so than any other interpretation, is what causes me to consider Biblical literalists as no more than raving lunatics. -------------------- WWtNSD? Synergy - "I don't get it." Posts: 4114 | Registered: Monday, April 25 2005 07:00 |
|
Raven v. Writing Desk
Member # 261
|
written Saturday, July 14 2007 14:53
Profile
Homepage
Speaking of numbers approaching 1000, how does that theory deal with Methuselah (969), Randomizer? -------------------- Slarty vs. Desk • Desk vs. Slarty • Timeline of Ermarian • G4 Strategy Central Posts: 3560 | Registered: Wednesday, November 7 2001 08:00 |
|
Shaper
Member # 73
|
written Saturday, July 14 2007 15:12
Profile
969 / 12 = 80.75 Like that, presumably. -------------------- 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 |
|
...b10010b...
Member # 869
|
written Saturday, July 14 2007 18:36
Profile
Homepage
quote:It baffles me that people still can't tell when I'm trolling. -------------------- The Empire Always Loses: This Time For Sure! Posts: 9973 | Registered: Saturday, March 30 2002 08:00 |
|
? Man, ? Amazing
Member # 5755
|
written Saturday, July 14 2007 19:07
Profile
quote:This should've been a clue. -------------------- WWtNSD? Synergy - "I don't get it." Posts: 4114 | Registered: Monday, April 25 2005 07:00 |
|
Law Bringer
Member # 6785
|
written Saturday, July 14 2007 19:21
Profile
quote:Maybe you should change your PDN to Troll God? I was tired when I read it and it made some sense as a silly statistical extrapolation of data. Posts: 4643 | Registered: Friday, February 10 2006 08:00 |
|
Raven v. Writing Desk
Member # 261
|
written Saturday, July 14 2007 19:30
Profile
Homepage
It's a little-known fact that "troll" actually derives from "Thuryl". -------------------- Slarty vs. Desk • Desk vs. Slarty • Timeline of Ermarian • G4 Strategy Central Posts: 3560 | Registered: Wednesday, November 7 2001 08:00 |
|
? Man, ? Amazing
Member # 5755
|
written Saturday, July 14 2007 20:25
Profile
I always pictured it as more of a linear projection. -------------------- WWtNSD? Synergy - "I don't get it." Posts: 4114 | Registered: Monday, April 25 2005 07:00 |