I wonder if these are related.
You forgot that Jesus knew that beforehand as well.
Oh it was, just nobody got charged because “war”.
War has long been a cover for many atrocities. So has religion. Just ask catholic altar boys.
Christianity makes more sense when you remember that everyone is a sinner. That doesn’t make sinning okay, but it elevates the importance of understanding, forgiveness and striving to avoid sin in the future.
I used to share your general views on this, but I see more and more evidence for the wisdom of Christianity from a practical standpoint. After a couple decades of atheism, I’m now receptive to the possibility of supernatural forces influencing our world.
Even Richard Dawkins, the most influential atheist of my lifetime, has recently remarked about the social importance of Christianity in the modern west. He did this after becoming rather wealthy and famous convincing people like me that Christians are foolish to believe what they do.
Bringing this back on-topic, the stuffy old Christians have been right about the importance of the family for a very long time. We’ve studied the socioeconomic outcomes enough for this to be abundantly clear. A child without a father in their life is almost always at a massive disadvantage in most measurable life outcomes.
3 Likes
Well, good luck serving God with a warrant. Which begs the question, could God build a prison He couldn’t break out of?
I don’t think there was ever a question about this ands it’s not mutually exclusive of
Anyway - those single moms huh?
I’m not against the idea of a deity. I’m more against people using belief in the deity to ignore what is in front of them.
A lot of teachings in most religious are 1) very similar to each other 2) good, yet people blow up the small differences and use those to manipulate others or allow themselves to be manipulated
Stupid people do this for a variety of reasons, not just religious.
2 Likes
I hit post before I tied it back to the topic.
No worries, just didn’t want to continue the derail too much further
This I wholeheartedly agree with.
1 Like
I think the idea of “civilian” casualties being worse than “military” casualties (and that targets associated with one are more ethical than targets associated with the other) to be frankly barbaric. Somehow killing people is bad until we draft people and say they are “soldiers” and then it’s okay to kill them. If the war is just, then kill whomever to win. If the war is not just, don’t kill people over it.
1 Like
I think this is an irrelevant question. All single mothers were impregnated by men, excepting the small minority of condom thieves, at least where straightforward intentionality and management of risk is concerned.
None of these issues negate the fact that a man made the woman pregnant, minus the condom thieves, which we agree is a minority. I would say likely an extreme minority.
Positioning these issues, excepting condom thieves, as reasons why men shouldn’t be responsible for the offspring they created is simply dodging responsibility and gaslighting justifications. This is a very weak thing to do.
Another extreme case would be rape. The man probably just wanted to get off and did not intend to procreate, so following logic he is neither morally responsible nor should he be legally responsible for the baby?
Excepting rape and condom thieves, as they are outliers with complications, the creation of a baby is objectively a 50/50 endeavor and no amount of sidestepping, gaslighting or red pill podcasts will change this.
And, women are left with the baby. It pops out of their bodies, which in the event a man is not present leaves them with a predicament I wouldn’t want to be in, or give someone else control over. And I bet if you are objectively inwardly honest you wouldn’t either.
I’m not sure when Griff the Crime Dog was retired, but he had a slogan of “don’t do the crime if you can’t do the time” and it has oddly stuck with me since the late 80’s / early 90’s. While I haven’t always made Boy Scout choices I’ve always been willing to accept responsibility of action if my management of said choice went sideways. This concept seems to be a weakness in modern thought. As a general comment, not a personal attack.
Maybe, roping in other topics, if men were stronger they would be perceived as such and would get laid more - again.
I’m still curious to see the questions in my last post directly answered before shifting context to possible scenarios where women could be shady.
And ftr, I believe women have the propensity to be incredibly shady. Like low key psychopathic manipulative shady.
I literally said that there should be repsonsibility on both sides.
Your position is based on an ideal.
My position is based on reality.
Should men be 50% responsible for everything to do with their child? Yes. They should also have 50% authority over the process of raising the child, but they don’t.
Do you have a suggestion on how to improve the ~40% of children raised by single mothers? Because as much as i agree with your ideals, the laws as written do not allow that to be a reality… so nothing changes.
The act of having sex is objectively a 50/50 endeavor, but the creation of a baby isn’t. At least, not with the way the laws are written.
I believe in another thread, you argued vehemently that sex is nothing more than sex… so is it just sex, or is it intentional procreation?
Men have 50% responsibility in having sex, as both parties have the authority to accept or decline.
But a man cannot choose for the mother to skip/take her birth control, or to abort/keep the baby… so how does he have responsibility for the decisions that are not his to make?
In a more perfect world, with more reasonable laws, men and women would be equally responsible for everything from sex, conception, and everything else. This isn’t the world we live in.
The lets start talking about Greek gods. Win-win.
Not probably, but surely.
He realized late in life that cultural norms that he took for granted and assumed to be “universal” (human rights, for example) are actually a product of Christian tradition that the West imposed on the world through force. For example, secularism, and even the concept of “religion” is a purely Christian concept that arose from the fact that the early church in what was the Western Roman Empire had to find a way to coexist with rulers wielding actual physical power.
3 Likes
I think the ancient greeks/romans were very open about how their gods were flawed. From what I know, their deities were more or less more powerful humans in a sense, with human flaws
2 Likes
Zecarlo already tried this.
Although I suspect he has a buttseksless interpretation of it.
That’s not what I’ve seen in my own life. Generally speaking the couples I know who are religious, whether Jewish, Muslim or Christian, are more likely to be married when they have kids and much more likely to stay together. It’s anecdotal, but those I know who practice their faith ended up making families who practice their faith. Those who never wanted to get married, have baby mamas.
2 Likes
Yeah, that doesn’t invalidate my point though. Of course more religious couples who presumably live in upper middle class areas will be more likely to stay together. I’m getting at those circumstances of poorer, less educated people living in deep south, inner city, etc. who tend to be more religious statistically. They will be more likely to forego terminating the pregnancy.
So all other variables equal, yes, a religious couple is probably more likely to stay together.
But also all other variables equal, a religious woman faced with the choice of keep and be single parent vs. abort is also more likely to keep.
@The_Myth I think I spotted the vitriol you mentioned.
@asmonius You seem pretty mature for a 61 year-old. I would have guessed you are closer to 80.
1 Like