religion & marriage. does anyone see the connection??

[Headless Rat]

Hi ABers, I've been reading the recently posed questions on the "M" word and it has struck me that no reference has ever been made to the word "religion" when discussing the topic of marriage.

To me this is bizarre.

I just wonder if anybody else thesedays sees religion as wholly inter-twined with marriage, a commitment made to each other before God to stay together forever, a promise to bring one's children up ( if applicable) to follow the faith or is marriage just seen as a chance to further one's relationship, to take "the next step", and have a big party?

Should marriage not be valued as infinitely more sacred then just co-habiting with the next boy/girlfriend that comes along??

In my opinion it should be, but I'm interested to know what others think!

Good Irish Catholic girl here- if you haven't already guessed!

[MargeB]

Clanad, I have to tell you that I find your approach to the whole topic dishonest. You try to project yourself to the board, through scientific and other references, as a disinterested seeker of truth, who happens to have come up with a faith in a version of christianity. Reading your other posts more closely, however, reveals in fact a fundamental non-rational interest in a fideistic belief system whether it is demonstably true or not: you simply do not wish to face the possibility of having to stare into a void, or that life may be without the type of 'hope' or 'motivation' that christianity or suchlike brings. That is no place to start an enquiry. Because of the nature of human mind, "one tends to believe what one wants to believe" unless checks are put in place. I am ambivalent: believing in christianity has merits, not believing has merits: knowing the truth whatever way has more merits. The moment you approach the search for truth with the belief that one road will lead to darkness, the other light, is the moment that you have duped yourself into believing something that may be a complete pack of lies, with yourself none the wiser.

The reason so many ex christians, such as myself, often appear angry, is, therefore, pretty obvious: who would like to be brainwashed, only to find out they were fed a pack of obvious lies. And who would not thereupon feel a desire to explain the situation to those they see as being equally brainwashed.

Feel free to come back with one of your unattractive personal attacks, we can take it.

[delilahcat]

Actually, I have never had any a bad experience with religion - this is why I can talk about it dispassionately. You can even call me a hypocrite if you like, as I love church architecture, music, and a lot of the beauty of the services. I am a singer and quite often take part in services - I have sung in some of the most beautiful churches in Europe, including Seville Cathedral and Notre-Dame in Paris. This is how I can understand and appreciate the hypnotic power of the whole package. But I can honestly say that apart from a brief flirtation with faith in my teens, I have never felt compelled to believe in any of the hype.

I have to agree with Marge, Clanad, you take the bits that fit and ignore the bits that don't. I have to tell you that this is very very common amongst believers. You were the one that trotted out Mother Theresa to illustrate a point - when I give you 2 examples of my own back, you want to close the subject. The point is that, while there is good and bad amongst both believers and non-believers, the sheer hypocrisy of some of the former takes the breath away! Priests in positions of power who take advantage of that power in the worst ways possible, nuns who beat and abuse orphans, the Pope who continues the spread of death and disease in order to have a never-ending supply of Catholics - these are wicked people masquerading as good souls.

I would rather put my faith in people who help others because they believe in humanity, not because they think there's some great reward at the end of it. The doctors and nurses who volunteer for Medicins sans Frontieres, for example, do far more for the world than the Catholic church.

[Trillipse]

i have found religion to be extremely useful.

all my family and their social circles are devoted methodists, and i now have the best of both worlds:

a) they've got fed up with trying to convert the black sheep, so i don't get evangelised at anymore, and

b) they still treat me wonderfully even though i'm an irritating, ne'er do well, arrogant, over-schooled, recidivist sh1te.

ps. i'd love to believe, just to put a little perspective on the ****-ups i've made in this present (real) world.

pps. i'm profoundly devoted to my mother, who, though a believer along the lines of christ, gentle, tolerant, loving (as all good momma's oughta) doesn't in any way let my behaviour and attitude alter her take on me. that's the kind of religion i can tolerate: gentle, giving, selfless. (clearly very rare though, and odly usually only found by men, in their dear mothers... answers on a postcard please... harrummph)

ppps. i don't think religion ought to be discussed between believers and non. not a very good prospect for evangelists of either, i know, apologies. i'm all for monasteries/nunneries, and maybe i'd be happier in one myself. (particularly the nunneries. no references tro the "candles out, girls" joke. ahem)

anyway, that's my bile purged.

thankyou and goodnight.

[Trillipse]

i have found religion to be extremely useful.

all my family and their social circles are devoted methodists, and i now have the best of both worlds:

a) they've got fed up with trying to convert the black sheep, so i don't get evangelised at anymore, and

b) they still treat me wonderfully even though i'm an irritating, ne'er do well, arrogant, over-schooled, recidivist sh1te.

ps. i'd love to believe, just to put a little perspective on the ****-ups i've made in this present (real) world.

pps. i'm profoundly devoted to my mother, who, though a believer along the lines of christ, gentle, tolerant, loving (as all good momma's oughta) doesn't in any way let my behaviour and attitude alter her take on me. that's the kind of religion i can tolerate: gentle, giving, selfless. (clearly very rare though, and odly usually only found by men, in their dear mothers... answers on a postcard please... harrummph)

ppps. i don't think religion ought to be discussed between believers and non. not a very good prospect for evangelists of either, i know, apologies. i'm all for monasteries/nunneries, and maybe i'd be happier in one myself. (particularly a nunnery. no references to the "candles out, girls" joke. ahem. [or indeed the "nun of this, nun of that gag. peurile nonsense...])

anyway, that's my bile purged.

thankyou and goodnight.

[Clanad]

Okay... one last shot... MargeB... what is it you mean, exactly, by "a belief system... whether it is demonstrably true or not"?  Give the thread some examples of why you believe it to be not true... something you've never done. The fact is, I believe what I believe because, after careful examination of all petinent evidence, I have come to a rational decision.  I used the same examination techniques that I would use for any other question.  There was a humorous posting on another thread recently; "What is the color of electricity?".  But in reality, have you ever seen electricity? No one has, but you still believe in it, do you not?  You haven't tasted, smelled, heard, etc.... yet you believe.  You have seen its results, maybe even read enough about it to know its principals.  I think this is a fair analogy.  How do you know your ancestors lived?  Through written references, maybe even history books.  You believe them, do you not?  Why can't I come to the same conclusions about this subject? 

[Clanad]

Contd.

Delilahcat, your focus on the Catholic Church is an example of "tarring everyone with the same brush" is it not?  Is there not one dedicated, caring priest or nun?  I have disagreements with some of the tenents of the Romans, but there are many, thousands, I'm sure, of dedicated individuals that serve humanity in that organization.  And... I never asked the question about "non-Christian" organizations, like UNICEF... I did state that I'm unaware of any atheistic organizations serving mankind... Big difference, no? Additionally, the only reason I did not respond further to your reference to hypocrites in the Church is that, as I explained, it's a given.  But that is true in any organization, is it not?  We can give examples and counter-examples all day long, but that serves no useful purpose....

Lastly, MargeB... if I presented a personal attack, I apologize... if you interpreted my arguments as such,they were never given in that vein.  Your own comments come perilously close to personal though...

[LeedsRhinos]

Going back to a statement by Clanad on Saturday (sorry I've been away for the weekend) about plate tectonics being requirered to produce and sustain life, surely this statement undermines everything you have argued about. Why can't your god make life possible & sustainable without plate tectonics and the earthquakes they bring killing thousands of people during a religious holiday.

[MargeB]

LeedsRhinos, give the guy a chance. God has been unemployed for many many years and this is his first real attempt at 'Human Creation 1.1'. It's a trial and error thing. He can feed people, its just that a few billion starve to death before year 2. He can build life from non-living matter, its just that occasionally the process produces casualties.

We all have to start somewhere. No wait. Isn't he perfect?

Anyway, this isn't God we're talking about here. It's ME, my happiness and eternal salvation. Why bring God into the equation?

[Clanad]

So, LeedsRhino and MargeB... tell me what you would do differently?  Explain, please how you would build and sustain life, especially human life without plate tectonics, vulcanism and other destructive natural forces? Explain how, if one of these forces were suspended, at your whim, how life would continue to exist for the rest of the Earth.  It's one thing to set back and say, "Why doesn't God....", yet entirely another for you to be God.  Fact is, all of the invioable laws that control our entire universe, have, at one time or another, been cursed by man because they are, well... inconvenient.  Why doesn't God make it sunny today since I want to have a picnic, why does God allow it to snow in July because I would like to go skiing? Should God intervene because you have a hangnail? Or, does the free will given to man and used unwisely, often against the commands of God cause the anguish and pain against which, you rant?

Those who suggest that the existence of a benevolent God is impossible as a result of �natural evil� often call for a better world than this one. But they cannot describe the details necessary for its creation and maintenance. When�in an attempt to �improve� it�they begin to �tinker� with the actual world around them, they invariably find themselves worse off.

Natural laws are both inviolate and non-selective. Everyone must obey them or suffer the consequences. In Luke 13:2-5, Jesus told the story of eighteen men who perished when the tower of Siloam collapsed.  They died because a natural law was in force. Fortunately, natural laws work continually so that we can understand and benefit from them. We are not left to sort out some kind of haphazard system that works one day, but not the next...

 

[mynaisir]

I think you've rather missed the point, Clanad: neither MargeB nor LeedsRhino will be able to offer viable alternatives to plate tectonics or any other geological or environmental systems, but then they are not claiming to be god � merely pointing out potential flaws in the argument for his existence.

If, as is generally believed, the Christian god is omnipotent, omniscient and all-loving, then necessarily he must be aware of human suffering, opposed to human suffering and able to prevent human suffering. That unnecessary human suffering continues to exist on Earth rather undermines the classic description of god, as he must be inadequate on one of the three counts: unaware of "natural" evil; uninterested in alleviating human suffering; uninterested in doing so.

To try to argue that natural laws must be perfect because a human cannot come up with a better model is classic "god of the gaps" thinking � if, tomorrow, an enviro-geological modeller were to develop a schematic for a world that did not produce "natural" disasters and could sustain human life, where would you stand?

And turning the question back on MargeB and LeedsRhino is not the same as answering it. How do you reconcile natural disasters that equate to massive human suffering with a god aware, able and willing to prevent them? It is the believer's burden to answer this question, not the atheist's�

[Headless Rat]

i think the point that a lot of people are missing is that this place where we live in called earth and the AFTER-LIFEis called HEAVEN.not the other way round.God never said that earth would be without suffering he made his only son suffer afterall.If God intervened in every situation on earth, there would be a hell of a lot more giving out done than the way things are now i.e. leaving everything, the decisions we make, up to ourselves.what do yee expect him to do?come down, give a stern givibg out to Saddam Hussein for causing so much suffering to thousands of people, put him to trial and setence him?and all right before our very eyes??!

He has decided to not intervene in what we do. he aint going to then decide that he will for natural disasters but not for manmade disasters.

[mynaisir]

I will rephrase the question: what is so good about human suffering that a god aware of this suffering, able to prevent it and supposedly all-loving would want to inflict it on his own son as well as the rest of humanity?

[delilahcat]

But Headless Rat, I can understand perfectly your argument for God not intervening in man-made disasters. But when you say he won't intervene in 'natural' disasters, by your reasoning these are events which he himself has instigated!

I'll ask again, why do you think he sent the tsunami to kill thousands of people just at a time when Christians everywhere were celebrating his birth? Because the tsunami sure as hell was not a man-made disaster! If you believe that God created everything, including 'nature', then it stands to reason he created the tsunami!

[Clanad]

It's obvious God runs this world with as little supernatural interference as possible. Earthquakes, hurricanes, volcanic eruptions and, yes, tsunamis happen. It is called nature, which is not benign. Fortunately, God also gave us intelligence and commanded us to make ourselves less vulnerable to nature. He also implanted in us a culture in which each and every life is really important. That is why Deuteronomy, chapter 30 states, "I call heaven and earth to record this day against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing; therefore choose life, that both you and your seed may live."

God may have allowed the earthquake to happen, just as he has allowed germs to exist and just as he has allowed cold weather each winter. However, under the influence of biblical culture, people have defended themselves against germs and they have learned how to produce energy to defeat winter's frigid conditions.

The horrifying consequences of these calamities can certainly be blamed on human inactions. The simple truth is that American seismological specialists in Pasadena, Calif., and elsewhere were horrified that no warning systems are in place in these Asian countries by means of which residents can be alerted. Remember that there were several hours of warning available. "A warning center such as those used around the Pacific could have saved most of the thousands of people who died in Asia's earthquake and tsunamis,� said the U.S. Geological Survey.

Many lives could surely have been saved. Some countries have pleaded poverty, but that is not an adequate explanation. We are not talking rocket science here. We are talking about sirens on poles. Remember them from the cold war era? This is World War I technology and very inexpensive.

Contd.

[Clanad]

Contd.

Since those who ask, �Where was your God in this?� do not themselves, believe in God, the question is not what it seems to be. The real point of the question is to get me to cringe inwardly by agreeing that the one who thinks he is my superior is correct, after all. The real point is to get me to deny the reality of God.

The point is even a little more complex. My antagonist does not want me to deny the reality of God on the ground that the assertion of that reality is absurd. Actually, he/she holds that everything, at bottom, is absurd. That person really wants to show me that I am like him; and that I too am driven to join him in recognizing the absurd at the bottom of all things. He wants to prove that he has been smarter all along, and to watch me have to surrender as he has surrendered. He has given up his faith in reason all the way down, and he wants me to do the same. Sorry, won�t happen.. ..(With thanks to Jewish Voice of Reason).

[MargeB]

mynaisir, excellent question. No answer as yet.

If one asks the question 'Does God exist?', for the question and enquiry to have any purpose or meaning, one has to accept the possibility that he may not exist. If we assume that he exists, then ask the question 'Does he exist?', we should not be surprised if our answer is repeatedly 'yes'.

So, let's do it properly. 'Does God exist?' Answer will be 'YES' or 'NO'. Through the logical law of non-contradiction, it cannot be both. It also cannot be neither.

Beginning the enquiry, I adopt the correct and only acceptable position: "I DO NOT KNOW". "I WILL ENQUIRE FURTHER".

First question: What do I mean by God? Unless I define it, there is no point in asking any question. If I have a vague idea only, I may configure my findings and readjust my definition to suit me.

Definition: The creator of the world. A being without beginning or end. A being without cause, but the cause of all other being. A being who must be good (otherwise there would be outside of him the principle of evil, and thus he could not be God, with an principal outside of him. Specifically with relation to man:God is a person like man, with intelligence and self awareness, similar to man's. The creator of man, who created the world for man, as a place to inhabit and thrive.
God is all powerful and nothing is impossible to him.He cannot be constrained by anything. There are no natural laws of any kind which he must obey, since he created all of them. God created all of the reality which we see around us. It could not have been made better or more fit for purpose, since God is perfect and all powerful and loving.

Question: Does this being, so defined, exist?

[MargeB]

Evidence: Certain features of the world around us appear to be purpose driven. Most purposes which explain design features in most of what we see around us can be explained with reference TO PHENOMENA WITHIN THE WORLD ITSELF. There is no known design feature in the universe which can only be explained with reference to an external, intelligent designer. Such features may exist, we are yet to find any. Those design features which we once thought only explicable with external reference, now turn out not to need one (eg Man's intelligence, Orderliness in Living Things).

At the same time, evidence (e.g. natural disasters, famine, disease, birth defects etc) lead one to seriously question whether it is possible that the God as defined above created them. A world created by an all wise, all powerful, all loving creator, designed for man, would be a place in which all men could thrive, and at least carry out to some extent the course of their life. The world we do in fact find is hostile to man, and most individual people in the world, for all of humankind's existence, have found resources severely lacking.

Given the definition, and the evidence outlined, we would have to conclude at this juncture that 'God' as defined, does not in fact exist.

[Clanad]

Broad, grandly sweeping statements having no basis in fact aren't much of an argument, MargeB. "Most purposes which explain design features in most of what we see around us can be explained with reference to the phenomena within the world itself"... sounds so... well... reasonable and authentic.  Explain, please, what is oil and where did it come from?  Much less, questions concerning the origins of the universe.  We now know that the universe had a beginning... a beginning from nothing... if this can be explained with reference to the phenomena of the world itself, I'm sure the scientific world would be anxious to speak with you.   Actually, the more we do know of the characteristics of the universe that are required to produce and sustain life, the more a design is deduced.  This isn't my argument... one only has to follow the raging debates occurring within science today in almost all branches to grasp the implications.  I've suggested before and will do so again, Google irreducible complexity to understand that biologists are only now realizing the simplest life forms are extremely complex and more importantly, the life form cannot exist as life if reduced beyond a certain point.  If one observes design features over an over, one has to come to the conclusion there must have been a designer... So once again, we are at loggerheads and far afield of the original question, I'm afraid.  Pity all the e-mails Headless Rat is enduring from our fruitless exchange...

[Headless Rat]

clanad, its great having such a debate going on!-especially with such intelligent answers (mainly from our side of the coin!)going on back and forth!keeps me entertained during the boring day at work!

MargeB, if God is to blame for all the disasters that have happened, then, conversely, yet equally, should he not be applauded for all the positive things that have happened too?

You cant say that God is to blame for the all the  negative things in the world and that man has no part in it and then  on the other hand say that God should not be congratulated for all the good things that happen.

 Can you?

[MargeB]

Clanad, I'll get back to you, glad to see the debate is getting somewhere. I don't think Headless rat will mind, at least 50 answers to the question, no big deal if it makes a departure.

Headless..."Maria Sharapova". "Nutella" "Breeze hurling over blue waters on a warm clear summer's day". Possible evidence for a benign creator, granted.