Government can encourage traditional family values by using waiting period and required counseling before a divorce can occur. In countries with requirements like these, they always have lower divorce rates too.
[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:
Government can encourage traditional family values by using waiting period and required counseling before a divorce can occur. In countries with requirements like these, they always have lower divorce rates too.[/quote]
Government needs to stay out of the family value business. They will fuck it up like they do everything else. Their only job is to ensure we have the freedom to make or break our own lives by our own choices, the rest is intrusion.
[quote]MikeTheBear wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]MikeTheBear wrote:
This is just a bunch of stereotypes. There is no reason that private, secular institutions could not provide these services.[/quote]
Talk about blind faith…
I see what’s going on…The destruction the social liberal has spread throughout this nation. I see the divorce and out of wedlock rates. I see the resulting social costs (crime, drugs, education). I see graying boomers with few if any children to care for them. The cult of pleasure has devoured it’s young, abandonded it’s elderly, and made the welfare state a permanent fixture. You’ll never have your libertopia. You’ll get a bi-polar nation, at best. Liberal individualists socially, with a collectivist welfare state to catch everyone’s fall. [/quote]
And religion will solve all of this? Yeah, right. Don’t get me started on Catholics getting divorced - I’ve known plenty. The fantasy is that some sort of theocracy will make things better - now that’s a dream.
Here’s the thing - I’m a cynic and a skeptic. I don’t believe one bit that things were better in the 1950s than they are today. Women still got pregnant outside of marriage, it was just hidden and not talked about. I’d bet there were still plenty of bad marriages, but women couldn’t get divorced because many didn’t work so they depended on their spouses for support. So women would put on lot’s of make-up to hide the bruises after they got their weekly beating from their husbands, put a smile on their face, and pretended like nothing was wrong. And it was never talked about.
I suppose you get all of your negative information from the news. Either that or you live in the 'hood where all of these bad things happen. Yes, bad news makes it on the air. People like myself and my friends are too boring to make the news. I invite you to follow me one day, and see how involved I am in my daughter’s life. I’m lucky in that I work from home, so I’m sort of a quasi-stay-at-home dad. I could be making way more money in some other job, but I chose to stay where I am because I see how it benefits my daughter, and I am very proud of the fact that I may such an impact in her life. That’s right - I traded money for the satisfaction of being a better parent. The parents I know are either stay at home parents, work from home parents, or they work part-time. This is the world I live in. And I didn’t need some pedophile priest telling me that I had to do this. Sorry if it conflicts with your view that our society is going to hell and only religion or some sort of nanny state can save it.
So much for being a hedonistic agnostic. [/quote]
Religion solving all these problems? No. If people were to practice what it truly meant to be one who believe in and loves God, yes they would behave better, much better, but still not perfect. Religion can’t make a bad person good or a good person bad. People got to act right on their own. You cannot force it.
In my personal experience, I want to do better because of God. Not because I am threatened, but because I like him.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:<<< I see what’s going on…The destruction the social liberal has spread throughout this nation. I see the divorce and out of wedlock rates. I see the resulting social costs (crime, drugs, education). I see graying boomers with few if any children to care for them. The cult of pleasure has devoured it’s young, abandonded it’s elderly, and made the welfare state a permanent fixture. You’ll never have your libertopia. You’ll get a bi-polar nation, at best. Liberal individualists socially, with a collectivist welfare state to catch everyone’s fall. [/quote](Holds head in hands.) God I wish you and I got along better theologically.
[/quote]
You can, but that ball is in your court. Sloth’s a decent guy, but it’s on you to make it right.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:<<< I see what’s going on…The destruction the social liberal has spread throughout this nation. I see the divorce and out of wedlock rates. I see the resulting social costs (crime, drugs, education). I see graying boomers with few if any children to care for them. The cult of pleasure has devoured it’s young, abandonded it’s elderly, and made the welfare state a permanent fixture. You’ll never have your libertopia. You’ll get a bi-polar nation, at best. Liberal individualists socially, with a collectivist welfare state to catch everyone’s fall. [/quote](Holds head in hands.) God I wish you and I got along better theologically. This is dead on BRILLIANT as usual. You have here stated in a few sentences THEE rock bottom explanation for every single last significant problem facing this nation. Everything else, EVERYTHING ELSE is a symptom.
[/quote]
Nah, we don’t have to get along theologically to team up and spank some social liberals!
[quote]pat wrote:
If people were to practice what it truly meant to be one who believe in and loves God, yes they would behave better, much better, but still not perfect. Religion can’t make a bad person good or a good person bad. People got to act right on their own. You cannot force it.
In my personal experience, I want to do better because of God. Not because I am threatened, but because I like him.[/quote]
Pat, we agree on something. I’ve always said that I probably act more Christian than most Christians, at least the ones that I’ve met. I wish more people would act like this. This is precisely why I’m so cynical about religion. I don’t think it does a damn bit of good in making people better. I think most people (not all) who are good because of religion would have been good without religion. I’ve met far too many people who dressed nice and went to church every Sunday and on holy days, but were total pieces of shit the rest of the time. And they were very proud of the fact that they were “religious” and had the nerve to criticize me for not being a practicing Catholic. It’s almost as if their attending mass and eating fish on the days you were supposed to eat fish excused them from having to be a decent person.
[quote]MikeTheBear wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
If people were to practice what it truly meant to be one who believe in and loves God, yes they would behave better, much better, but still not perfect. Religion can’t make a bad person good or a good person bad. People got to act right on their own. You cannot force it.
In my personal experience, I want to do better because of God. Not because I am threatened, but because I like him.[/quote]
Pat, we agree on something. I’ve always said that I probably act more Christian than most Christians, at least the ones that I’ve met. I wish more people would act like this. This is precisely why I’m so cynical about religion. I don’t think it does a damn bit of good in making people better. I think most people (not all) who are good because of religion would have been good without religion. I’ve met far too many people who dressed nice and went to church every Sunday and on holy days, but were total pieces of shit the rest of the time. And they were very proud of the fact that they were “religious” and had the nerve to criticize me for not being a practicing Catholic. It’s almost as if their attending mass and eating fish on the days you were supposed to eat fish excused them from having to be a decent person.[/quote]
I would say I am more harshly critical on Christians than non-Christians. Nothing irritates me more than the “Sunday Christian.” I was guilty of this at a time in my life. They feel “spiritual” for an hour on Sunday morning unless they had a late Saturday night and couldn’t make it. Nobody would ever know from Monday through Saturday that they were believers in Christ.
I guess that’s probably also while I get so frustrated hearing some of the tripe that many popular tv preachers proclaim. Most would have you believe that it’s all about what God can do for you not the other way around. I guess that’s a topic for another debate though.
[quote]pat wrote:
Religion solving all these problems? No. If people were to practice what it truly meant to be one who believe in and loves God, yes they would behave better, much better, but still not perfect. Religion can’t make a bad person good or a good person bad. People got to act right on their own. You cannot force it.
In my personal experience, I want to do better because of God. Not because I am threatened, but because I like him.[/quote]I do not know what you want me to think about you when you utter manifestly anti Christian absurdities such as the above. Maybe your “religion”, but the living resurrected Christ far above making bad people good makes dead people alive. Sets captives free, reconciles enemies the to the judge of all creation and indwells their person with His very life communing with them Spirit to spirit. You have no concept of that do you?
I happen to like Mike, especially since he’s learning to play Geddy’s rather eyebrow raising bass lines from YYZ. If he succeeds I can have some musical respect for him as well. If he also learns La Villa Strangiato and The Analog Kid my hat will be fully off =] (oh yeah, since Mike brought up the song Freewill, he should take a shot at that “lead band” bridge after the second chorus when the tune slows down. WOWEEE!!!] However it doesn’t strike you as a bit alarming when a God denying unbeliever agrees with your assessment of “religion”. Little things like friendship with the world being enmity with God (James 4:4) and warnings to not be conformed to the world (Romans 12:2) or how on matters of spiritual consequence believers have nothing in common with unbelievers (2 Corinthians 6:14-18)? None of this rings a bell?
I know, how obnoxious of me to pick another fight with you like this. That’s all you’ll hear with this post.
On my wishing we could get along better theologically though Sloth was the specific subject you said:
[quote]<<< You can, but that ball is in your court. Sloth’s a decent guy, but it’s on you to make it right. >>>[/quote] I emphatically, but respectfully decline and you are making my case right here in this thread though I bet Sloth disagrees.
On a completely different note, you look pretty good (seriously. Except for the dead head. I hate that band =] which I also am being serious about)
Of all the “saved” people I have seen in my life, not one of them have been freed from the flaws of their character, the flaws have only been subdued to a degree that have prevented them from drowning and causing too much suffering to people around them. The flaws are all still there.
[quote]kaaleppi wrote:
Of all the “saved” people I have seen in my life, not one of them have been freed from the flaws of their character, the flaws have only been subdued to a degree that have prevented them from drowning and causing too much suffering to people around them. The flaws are all still there.[/quote]A point addressed by me numerous times in these threads in recent months. I don’t wanna get this too far afield here, but read the 7th, 8th and 9th chapters of Romans for a thorough discussion of that very thing.
[quote]orion wrote:
<<< He thinks that the welfare state came to be because traditional families and religious communities lost cohesion and authority.
Not so, first came the welfare state and then they became partly obsolete because of it and then they lost most of their meaning, which in turn leads to a bigger welfare state, which in turn saps even more strength from those institutions and so further and so on.[/quote]That’s only one side of it though there is truth here.
[quote]orion wrote:
He simply cannot force other people to be more religious or to live in traditional families, to end the welfare state might be far fetched but still more realistic than to promote faith and family values through, of all things, government. >>>[/quote]Uh, I doubt very much that he’s saying that. I sure do know I am not saying that at all. Even when MikeTheBear thought he might trick us into declaring our totalitarian religiously oppressive legislative designs in the misconceptions thread did we steadfastly hold to the necessarily voluntary nature of the principle. Morality cannot be legislated beyond big ticket external behavioral items. As soon as you have significant disagreement over what right and wrong mean and one group must force the other to comply the society is over. Or whatever liberty it had is anyway.
As for may part, I’m not holding any grudges against anyone. Theological disagreements–even heated–with protestants isn’t anything new to me. In the end I’d rather count them as neighbors, anyways. A faithful (socially conservative) protestant is going to live the same conservative lifestyle I’d rather see in my community. Whatever arguments are spilling over from the previous thread, I 'aint part of it.
[quote]kaaleppi wrote:
Of all the “saved” people I have seen in my life, not one of them have been freed from the flaws of their character, the flaws have only been subdued to a degree that have prevented them from drowning and causing too much suffering to people around them. The flaws are all still there.[/quote]
I’m sure you are right. Once you become a Christian, your sins don’t disappear. I still struggle with many of the same things that I did as a non believer. I don’t forsee the temptation going away anytime soon. I also never see myself as being strong enough to conquer them alone. If I could, I would have already done it. When I focus my life on God and studying his word, I don’t have the issues. When I push God to the background, the problems pop up again. If you’re looking to find the perfect Christian to convince you that there is a God then I’ll tell you to go ahead and give up now.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
As for may part, I’m not holding any grudges against anyone. >>>[/quote]That’s not what I meant, but fair enough and neither am I, never was. [quote]Sloth wrote:Theological disagreements–even heated–with protestants isn’t anything new to me. In the end I’d rather count them as neighbors, anyways. A faithful (socially conservative) protestant is going to live the same conservative lifestyle I’d rather see in my community. Whatever arguments are spilling over from the previous thread, I 'ain’t part of it. >>>[/quote]I didn’t mean that either. Forget it, it doesn’t matter what I meant.
bump
[quote]MikeTheBear wrote:
Chris, we obviously got nowhere with the semantics stuff. No matter, it’s not that important. But in the interest of completeness, yes, I know what Gnosticism with a capital “G” is. It is a type of religion. Different from gnosticism with a small “g.” The term gnostic with a small “g” can be paired with the term atheist and it will not be a contradiction. It’s all explained here: http://freethinker.co.uk/2009/09/25/8419/
As for whether religion will die out, it’s interesting that people today no longer believe in Zeus or Thor. Those religions died. Why?
I wonder what Augustine and Aquinas would say if they were alive today.
I have tried to prove the existence of God through reason. The best I could get was Deism. It is possible that there exists a deistic being that started the universe. But that’s it. This being in no way intervenes in our lives. There is no way that a benevolent being who supposedly loves us would allow little kids to suffer and die.[/quote]
We were talking about agnostics and atheists now you are talking about Gnostic, you need to keep your words straight. Agnostics, atheists, and gnostics are all different.
[quote]ephrem wrote:
hmm[/quote]
Lolz…take a picture before the wolf takes off his sheep costume and it looks like the sheep are wolf lovers. If you really think that Catholic priests were Nazi’s (after knowing fully what they were about) or that Nazi’s were Catholics you have some learning to do. Catholics were one of the people that were on the list of people to kill. Many Catholics were killed in concentration camps along the Jews, one of the latest Martyrs in the Catholic Church was a man that stepped in for someone else to be killed.
[quote]jsbrook wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]AlisaV wrote:
Yep, the world is hard on us.
What do you want? It’s a minority view. It’s historically unnatural. It’s mildly subversive. People are not as open-minded as they like to think they are. Resignation’s my first instinct, but it isn’t right, and I’m trying (in my weenie internet way) to fight that instinct.
Atheism is what happens when you think about the notion of a God, and take it seriously, and realize what it would imply, and worry at it like a terrier until it gives way. And then – the hard part – you actually have to stand by that sense of incredulity, and not imagine your doubt away. And you have to profess it publicly to a world that thinks you’re either monstrous or weak. I’m not ready to do that, but maybe someday I will be. I know someone who has done it in a situation where it’s VERY hard to be openly atheist. There’s courage in that.
The whole Stalin thing is ludicrous, as I hope everyone realizes. (You do know the Czars were Russian Orthodox, don’t you? And Hitler was a Christian.) Atheists are not as a class inclined to become or sympathize with mass murderers. And even if they were – would that have any bearing on whether there is or is not a God? Suppose, for the sake of argument, that we’re all thoroughly horrible people. Would that put a God in heaven? I may be as lousy as can be, but, you know, e puor si muove.[/quote]
Yeah…and Castro is Catholic…I’m sorry but Neither Stalin or Russian Czars or Hitler even hold a resemblance of what is supposed to be a Christian. Just because someone uses something to persuade people (propaganda) doesn’t mean they believe it. [/quote]
Does this also apply to priests, Popes, and the Catholic church throughout history?[/quote]
There are some priests and Popes (commonly known as Anti-popes) that lacked the fruits of someone that believed in the doctrines of the Church. And, on the Catholic Church, no the Catholic Church always holds the truth. The Catholic Church in the meaning when I use it refers to ecclesia, I am not sure which you are using.
[quote]Schwarzfahrer wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
Oh thanks, I guess I’ll disregard the 1500-1700 years of record keeping and historians, along with the philosophers, theologians, priests, laity, and I’ll just believe your belief that you probably picked up in some atheist “historian” book on the Bible that it was written in fragments, sometimes hundreds of years apart, based on hearsay of illiterate people. Yeah I’m sure Jesus would say the words fucked up too. What crassness. Maybe you should actually pick up a history book, instead of reading fiction on shit that you don’t know about.[/quote]
there was no jesus and the anecdotes of him are all far older then him. How do you explain that?
The wonders and various gods (which even the bible mentions), which were abundant back then and aren’t now, the stolen myths and the convergent myths around the world. the “absence” of god in hundreds of thousands of years in mankind’s history, the oral tradition, which is, again, pretty similar across the world, and which doesn’t give a shit about details and words. etc etc
[/quote]
There is no Jesus, interesting because as of now there is three historical documents that record the man named Jesus. All these claims no proof. Interesting, I wonder if this came out of a book written by a historian with an atheist agenda. I’m not sure what most of this says, you lost me.
perhaps you’ll tell us straight why you won’t follow some EXPLICIT words and follow others , which are rather vague, then? Why don’t you just drop the old testament completely if it’s just “history”. Why do you refuse to look at the rest of the bible from a historic point of view? This is the archetype of today’s mildly religious, semi-educated, cherrypicking, cafeteria religiousness,
[/quote]
I do follow the Bible literally, I’m not sure what you are referring to. Maybe you can give me an example so I understand what you are getting at. The Old Covenant is very important to me, it is more than just history. Where did I say it is just history? I’m extremely religious, so much so I would call myself a radical. I may be semi-educated (I am finite after all), but at least I have a 2000 year institute to give me answers. Please bring proof if you are going to name call.
[quote]MikeTheBear wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
Oh thanks, I guess I’ll disregard the 1500-1700 years of record keeping and historians, along with the philosophers, theologians, priests, laity, and I’ll just believe your belief that you probably picked up in some atheist “historian” book on the Bible that it was written in fragments, sometimes hundreds of years apart, based on hearsay of illiterate people. Yeah I’m sure Jesus would say the words fucked up too. What crassness. Maybe you should actually pick up a history book, instead of reading fiction on shit that you don’t know about.
[/quote]
From what I understand, most educated theologians agree with the idea that most parts of the Bible, especially the stories of Jesus, were based on hearsay evidence and written at least 40 years after the fact. Most importantly, it’s no secret that the Gospels are inconsistent. And in the case of the Gospel of Matthew, the identity of the true author is not known.
[/quoter]
Most of the apostles were uneducated Jewish fisherman, they spoke through “oral tradition.” The reason why the four gospels (there were several more) were chosen was because out of all the communities of Christians the Bishops thought those four Gospels aligned with what they were taught from the start.
[quote]
For critical thinkers, this is a very big deal. We’re talking about the biography of the central figure in Christianity. You would think that every effort would have been made to get the story of his life as accurate as possible even in an age of illiteracy. But that’s not the case.[/quote]
Catholics have more than the four Gospels to give a biography and explain the central figure in Christianity. That is what Doctrine is. Actually it wasn’t a big deal to do it, because during the time period orally spreading messages was about as good as it got. No one could really read anyway so books were useless to most of the people. Think of oral tradition as hard copies and written tradition as soft copies as the computer age came around. It wasn’t really something that was on people’s minds. These people knew Jesus and they had a mission and that was to save souls, not write books. Now, yes it would have been awesome if they had someone walk along with Jesus writing down events as he went along, and paint a few pictures of him, but they didn’t. A few historians wrote some quick comments about the hell raiser over in the Roman empire, forty years later some smart people that became bishops and assistants to the bishops wrote down the stories as the apostles started to die.