I Wonder Why This Number Is Rising So...
Politics4 mins ago
religion & marriage. does anyone see the connection??
129 Answers
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!
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Headless Rat. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Blaming the devastation caused by natural disasters on human inaction is all very well, Clanad, but, if you'll allow the parallel:
A car manufacturer (let's call it Deus) launches its latest model (for the purpose of this example, the Geo). Deus is a well-respected company and a lot of drivers (I'll call them Humans) have great faith in its products. Sadly, while the Geo initially seems to be a great car, over time it proves to have design flaws that result in a number of fatal accidents through mechanical failure. The mechanical failure is not a result of misuse or poor maintainance by Humans, but owes entirely to Deus's design. Who should the families of those killed in Geo accident blame: Deus or Humans?
A car manufacturer (let's call it Deus) launches its latest model (for the purpose of this example, the Geo). Deus is a well-respected company and a lot of drivers (I'll call them Humans) have great faith in its products. Sadly, while the Geo initially seems to be a great car, over time it proves to have design flaws that result in a number of fatal accidents through mechanical failure. The mechanical failure is not a result of misuse or poor maintainance by Humans, but owes entirely to Deus's design. Who should the families of those killed in Geo accident blame: Deus or Humans?
mynaisir... circular reasoning at it's best. God isn't capable of designing a good world so, since bad things happen it has to be God's fault because He isn't capable of designing a perfect world. My goodness! Look, to get to the heart of the matter requires delving into theological matters... what actually happened when God created the universe. That would require pages and pages of this thread and would generate more heat than light. Suffice it to say, that God didn't design nor create the world we see today. But, I am willing to admit the only evidence for the design and creation, at least that narrow focus on quality of both, is Scripture. But I believe that is extremely good evidence when clearly understood. A fair reading of Scripture, especially in the original languages, shows a remarkable agreement with what science indicates... written thousands of years before modern science began to expound. More importantly, science, in many aspects is coming around to what the Bible has already taught. Examples available upon request...
Clanad, we both know full well I am not arguing that god is not capable of designing a perfect world and therefore seeking to blame him for this one's obvious failings. I do not believe god exists. I am using the existence of this flawed world as an argument against the existence of god, or at least against the existence of a creator-god in the classic Christian understanding.
Clanad, that's utter nonsense.
The Bible to have any meaning needs one to assume that God exists. This having been done, you then suggest that the Bible can be used to demonstrate the existence of God. You are assuming that which you are seeking to prove.
What examples from Scripture are you suggesting predated scientific findings?
Some observations:
The arguments which attempt to claim Christians are more caring, and asking why aren't there atheist charities, are patently ridiculous.
1) In countries which are historically Islamic, Muslim charities are the norm, in those historically bhuddist, it's buddist etc etc etc That there are a large number of Christian-centred charities in the west where Christianity has historically been the major cultural force, it's not only obvious, but it would be extremely strange if it were otherwise.
2) Christian Charities are not exclusive supported by Christians. I've donated to many organistations carrying out charity work that are run by Christians. If all non-Christian doners retracted their donations, a significant number would be very much less able to carry out their work.
3) There are plenty of explicitly atheist charities. A good one is the Atheist Centre of India, founded in 1940 by the Gora family, who were associated with Ghandi and the nationalist movement for freedom. They provide counseling, are fighting against the caste system and for the abolition of child marriages, helping ex-prostitutes, and protecting widows from inhumane customs. They also dispell superstitions by scientific demonstrations, and are asked to calm witchcraft hysterias. They provide sex education and family planning, are carrying on a rural development program, and have a center for free cornea grafting operations which is giving sight to the blind.
Some others include: Athiest Charity, Earthward Inc, Humanitas, Humanist Institute for Cooperation with Developing Countries.
Moreover, since atheism is not a religion why would atheists feel any need to band together to effect useful change?
The arguments which attempt to claim Christians are more caring, and asking why aren't there atheist charities, are patently ridiculous.
1) In countries which are historically Islamic, Muslim charities are the norm, in those historically bhuddist, it's buddist etc etc etc That there are a large number of Christian-centred charities in the west where Christianity has historically been the major cultural force, it's not only obvious, but it would be extremely strange if it were otherwise.
2) Christian Charities are not exclusive supported by Christians. I've donated to many organistations carrying out charity work that are run by Christians. If all non-Christian doners retracted their donations, a significant number would be very much less able to carry out their work.
3) There are plenty of explicitly atheist charities. A good one is the Atheist Centre of India, founded in 1940 by the Gora family, who were associated with Ghandi and the nationalist movement for freedom. They provide counseling, are fighting against the caste system and for the abolition of child marriages, helping ex-prostitutes, and protecting widows from inhumane customs. They also dispell superstitions by scientific demonstrations, and are asked to calm witchcraft hysterias. They provide sex education and family planning, are carrying on a rural development program, and have a center for free cornea grafting operations which is giving sight to the blind.
Some others include: Athiest Charity, Earthward Inc, Humanitas, Humanist Institute for Cooperation with Developing Countries.
Moreover, since atheism is not a religion why would atheists feel any need to band together to effect useful change?
There seems to be some failure to understand the nature of science. Several times people have tried to imply that changes in science undermine its authority.
Science is by its very nature mutable. If something is found not to be as thought, it is a validation of science not a failure. Science is built on the notion that it is the best currently available attempt to describe phenomena using observation and experimentation. It inherantly allows for the possibility of any individual scientific notion to be disproved.
When it was discovered that the world was not the centre of the universe, it was a triumph for science, not a failure even though is displaced previously held beliefs. Belief in a deity has no such flexibility - one must believe or be out of the club.
The person claiming electricity was a good metaphor for God apparently doesn't understand scientific process.
Electricity can be observed using instruments and its behaviours under different conditions determined. Experimentation has proved these observations to be so constant that there is no doubt that electricity exists. It can be generated and transmitted at whim and science can tell you exactly how long it will take to get there and be right every time.
God, as far as I am aware, is not available to scientific observation under such conditions and therefore the analogy is demonstrably poor.
Science is by its very nature mutable. If something is found not to be as thought, it is a validation of science not a failure. Science is built on the notion that it is the best currently available attempt to describe phenomena using observation and experimentation. It inherantly allows for the possibility of any individual scientific notion to be disproved.
When it was discovered that the world was not the centre of the universe, it was a triumph for science, not a failure even though is displaced previously held beliefs. Belief in a deity has no such flexibility - one must believe or be out of the club.
The person claiming electricity was a good metaphor for God apparently doesn't understand scientific process.
Electricity can be observed using instruments and its behaviours under different conditions determined. Experimentation has proved these observations to be so constant that there is no doubt that electricity exists. It can be generated and transmitted at whim and science can tell you exactly how long it will take to get there and be right every time.
God, as far as I am aware, is not available to scientific observation under such conditions and therefore the analogy is demonstrably poor.
Evolution - the observation that the spider with the air bubble. This is the 'Irriducably Complex' argument; namely that "things could not have evolved by small steps, and evolutionists have not even tried to show that they have."
Unfortunately, this argument doesn't really stand up to strong scrutiny. Moreover, creationist Michael Behe who came up with the theory claimed "irreducibly complexity" for systems which manifestly were not *and* Behe has yet to submit his work for peer review - the standard practice if one hopes to have a gnat's chance in hell of being considered legitimate.
An irreducibly complex system can be built gradually by adding parts that, while initially just advantageous, become - because of later changes - essential. The logic is very simple. Some part (x) initially does some job (not very well, perhaps). Another part (y) later gets added because it helps x. This new part isn't essential, it merely improves things. But later on, x (or something else) may change in such a way that y now becomes indispensable.
In the case of the spider - and I can conceed that the creationists love to roll this particular one out (it's almost as though there are so few examples which seem to bear out their notions they keep repeating the same ones) - there are actually quite a few examples of water-loving spiders: Dolomedes fimbriatus, Pirata piraticus, Desis and Tarantulas Olympics. The parasitic wasp, Agriotypus, the African aquatic beetle, Potamodytes and Spittle bugs also use some form of bubble mechanisms to allow them to exist in water, so it's hardly unique.
Unfortunately, this argument doesn't really stand up to strong scrutiny. Moreover, creationist Michael Behe who came up with the theory claimed "irreducibly complexity" for systems which manifestly were not *and* Behe has yet to submit his work for peer review - the standard practice if one hopes to have a gnat's chance in hell of being considered legitimate.
An irreducibly complex system can be built gradually by adding parts that, while initially just advantageous, become - because of later changes - essential. The logic is very simple. Some part (x) initially does some job (not very well, perhaps). Another part (y) later gets added because it helps x. This new part isn't essential, it merely improves things. But later on, x (or something else) may change in such a way that y now becomes indispensable.
In the case of the spider - and I can conceed that the creationists love to roll this particular one out (it's almost as though there are so few examples which seem to bear out their notions they keep repeating the same ones) - there are actually quite a few examples of water-loving spiders: Dolomedes fimbriatus, Pirata piraticus, Desis and Tarantulas Olympics. The parasitic wasp, Agriotypus, the African aquatic beetle, Potamodytes and Spittle bugs also use some form of bubble mechanisms to allow them to exist in water, so it's hardly unique.
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.