Here's the way it looks to me. Just me keep in mind. Finding someone else's faith insulting, and telling them they are offending you by saying it, well that's just the reverse of what you're complaining about. It's a double standard.

"I would like to share my opinion, but if you speak your opinion, that's not ok."

 Simply speaking your mind on this forum will invite others possibly of similar or possibly of differing opinion. That's part of a variety of people. Simply state that you don't agree with their faith. Saying their faith is offensive is not an appropriate response.

Well offensive is subjective, yes.  But I disagree that it's a "it's not okay for you to say that" thing.

Now, other people might think of this differently, but if I was to say "I find that offensive, and here's why", or even "I find that offensive to common sense, and here's why", is fine.

Because I'm completely aware that you don't find it offensive, or else you wouldn't have expressed it, and I'm not saying "I find this offensive, and you should find it offensive too".

Rather, I'd be saying "I find this offensive, and here is why. How do you address that?".

But most important of all, saying "I'm offended by that" is an expression of somebody's views.  To tell them they can't do that is telling them they can't express their views, while saying you're offended by something isn't.
------------------

Although, asking "are you a Fascist?", is pretty much unambiguous.  Much like asking "are you an Idiot?", it doesn't really beg an answer, it's just a roundabout way of calling names.

tl;dr version

You don't have the right to NOT be offended
                       - Penn Jillette
This message was last edited by the player at 04:40, Mon 27 July 2009.

<Moderator comments>
Please, let's all calm down a bit before this blows up into a shouting match.  So far, no one's broken any rules, but we're getting into meta-discussion, which tends to end badly, so lets just nip this in the bud, and get on with the topic.

For clarification:
-you are allowed to share your beliefs here, even if they're likely to offend someone.
-you're allowed to let someone know you find their beliefs offensive, but you should do so in a way that contributes to a discussion (Falkus, your comment didn't add much beyond "that's insulting."  An explanation of why you found it offensive would have been better), and try to remain diplomatic.
-as a general guideline, if you're about to make a blanket negative comment about some group, whether it be sinners, christians, women, asians, democrats, or people with brown eyes, there's a good chance that you're going to offend someone, and it's probably a good idea to ask yourself whether that is your intent (or least whether you're okay with it).  If you decide to make the comment after giving it that thought, then don't be put off when people tell you that you've offended them.
</Moderator comments>

Okay, onto the actual discussion.  One thing I think people are tacitly assuming here is that people who are "too lazy" to "make their marriage work" will suddenly stop being lazy if they're forced to stay married.  While that may happen in some cases, I'm unconvinced that it'd happen in most cases, and I'm nearly certain it wouldn't happen in all cases.  Does anyone have evidence to back this up?  Can it be shown that people who are forced to stay married against both of their desires are likely to "make it work" instead of just staying together in a non-functional marriage?  Is it possible that "staying together" and "making it work" are two different things, and one does not necessarily imply the other (I would assert yes)?

What I said is what my faith tested by my experience shows.  All actions have consequences.  Sin is action that is destructive by nature - it embraces death.  Therefore people who engage in sin as a preferrred way of life are self-destructive and toxic to others.  This is a statement that relates to behavior, not the person.  A person is not what they do, although what a person does changes who they are.  I nearly wrecked everything I held dear in my dead life because of my sinful action.  I still act pretty stupid on a regular basis.  The difference now is supernatural power from a loving God that only wants the best for me and a lifestyle of discipline guarding against action that embraces death.

If we carefully examine the consequences of the "alternatives" to marriage, disfunctional marriage, and divorce, we see a slew of problems that only compound themselves.  If I say that marriages fail because people are too lazy, it is because laziness is the norm for all people.  People don't write books on how to be depressed, have crappy relationships, develop a negative attitude, go nowhere in their carreer, waste all their money, etc. because these things require no effort.  They come naturally.  We only need to be our normal, lazy selves.  My main point on marriage is that it is a lifetime of WORK.  For it to last and be fullfilling requires commitment and constant vigilance and discipline, both in the form of teamwork and in the form of individual improvement of character.  It also reqires divine intervention, as it is simply too large a task for mere mortals to be capable of.

On the question of whether I believe women should just hope and dream of being wives and mothers and forgo any other ambition, I find the notion ridiculous.  The womens equality movement started with Jesus Christ, in my opinion.  My faith teaches me to be a servant to my wife as she is a servant to me.  All people are to be treated with respect, dignity, and service.  My faith is about love.  All people are equal under love.  The notion that a woman who wants to be a wife and mother is somehow a traitor to her sex is abhorrent to me.  I also have no problem with a woman who wants to make her carreer the focus of her life.  I find it troublesome, however, that people so often want the best of everything.  This is true for men and women.  I strongly believe we are defined by our relationships.  It is up to us to prioritize our relationships in order of importance.  If a woman wants to both be an excellent wife and and excellent CEO, unless she possesses an extraordinary skillset and natural ability, it isn't going to happen.  One or the other must suffer.  We all know of men who are so busy with their jobs that they spend hardly any time with their children and are distant from, if not downright unfaithful to, their wives.  It is just a human condition.  There are only a few things we can excell at in life and it is a matter of priority and lots of hard work to do so.

If marriage and family are important to people they should engage in such and make it their top priorities in life.  If not, stay away and do something else.  Both are acceptable options.  Unfortunately, we live in a culture that encourages everyone to go and kick ass in everything they do while at the same time saying that they are not a complete person if they don't have relationships (or just "relations") with the opposite sex (or just with "somebody else" to cover all bases).  If we wish to be independant go-getters, why waste time being distracted by an emotional rollercoaster that, in all likelihood, leads to nothing productive or fulfilling?  This line of bull is being sold to young women in particular.  The "liberated woman" is supposed to go out and make her own way, but needs to have boyfriends, too.  How does this make any sense.  If you want to be a superstar in your chosen field, eat it, drink it, breathe it, dream about it to the exclusion of almost anything else until your goals are met.  If you want to be "someone's girl" focus on that and do it well - find the man to spend your life with who will honor and cherish you to the end and be a woman that a loving man will want to honor and cherish.  Having one foot in both worlds ends up in both being half-assed.  I don't think Jesus would have said it that way, but there ya go.
This message was last edited by the player at 03:45, Tue 28 July 2009.

I like sex.

In other news, my grandfather was a serial monogamist. He never managed to get along with his wives and divorced each one. He never had sex out of wedlock  (that we know of), and was generally considered ideal in his relations aside from the one flaw. The children of those couplings are well adjusted and contribute to their local communities in no small manner and positively.

My other grandfather beat his wife every Friday, whether she needed it or not. They stayed together until he died. The kids are messed up six ways to Sunday. With this setting in my background, I'm naturally inclined to believe that harmonious separation is better than violent couples.

I have several other grandfathers, as happens when families do the serial monogamy thing, but I'm focusing on the primary two.

Thank you for your carefully worked response, dgolden. It seems that you believe heavily in your faith. Naturally, however, as a person of some skepticism, I have a few question about what you have stated.



First of all, this may be just a matter of semantics, but seeing how you carry on with it, it seems strange to me that anything would stink of death, when death is a natural occurrence. It's part of the life cycle, and I've always understood it was not something to be feared, according to most Christians. But you refer to it in such a disdainful manner. Do you think we should fear death? Is it unnatural? Jesus died too, and he was sublime. Surely you don't equate death and sin, right?

I find it interesting how you refer to yourself as "acting stupid", but refer to all others as "acting sinful". Is there a difference? Why are the mistakes of others "sin" and your mistakes merely "stupid"? Or is sin just acting stupid? Are the stupid sinful?

You also call sin a "preferred way of life" in one context of your first statement here. Do you think people choose sin, knowing full and well what it is? Or do you think it's possible that they feel that what is sin is not what you define as sin? Is your understanding of sin supreme and unchallenged?

Finally, this is a bit of a personal matter, so I won't hold you to answer to it, but I'm curious what you mean by your statement that you "nearly wrecked everything you hold dear because of your sin"? Do you have an example that can demonstrate what you mean?



I don't know anyone who would qualify divorce and dysfunctional marriage as alternatives to marriage. That would almost imply that this was the sought intent, when it's often a result at an attempt at the latter. It is not the goal of said people, but rather, merely the failings of a marriage. And it does make no concession of those relationships outside of marriage. That is a true alternative.

Laziness once again seems to be cited as the end all reason for failed marriages, but that again seems to be trapping into the same making as before, that all divorce consists of people who are only married for about two to five years and after the initial wonderful feelings calm down, they have no interest. It makes no reference to those marriages that only stay together for the children, or otherwise last 20 years or more. That doesn't sound like laziness to me. That sounds like irreconcilable differences. It it not possible that people can simply try their best and still fail?

This also precludes that all atheist or otherwise secular marriages result in failure, because they lack the divine assistance of a God. I know a married pair of middle age adults who have been in a secular marriage for over 10 years and they seem to enjoy themselves. How do you explain this occurrence and situations like these? Are they lying to everyone and their marriage is really a horrible sham? Or can one have a failed marriage and neither party even be aware of it?



But this is exactly what the biblical fathers asked women to do, didn't they? For millenia, women have had a second-class status; it hasn't even been a hundred years since the western world, for centuries touted as the most civilized, even allowed them to have a voice in their democratic process, and even and an even shorter time since women were accepted in the work place. Yet, Jesus never said anything about giving women equal power to men, or denouncing the power structure that made them brides to men twice their age at puberty. He said they were equal in the eyes of God, but evidently, that's not even enough to convince many Christians, including that of the largest denomination on Earth, that they should have equal power in the Church.

Many believe that a woman's proper role is in the home, and that's not treating them unequally, as many several here will tell you, having a different purpose does not make one unequal. Relegating a woman to the home isn't disrespecting to them, it's simply their role. Marriage for the span of time has been founded on the idea that a woman was subservient to her husband, and that her purpose in life is to have children and raise a family. The notion of egalitarianism is rather new, and it seems to be causing a load of problems for marriage. So, though you may think it a ridiculous notion, it is still a rather relevant question to pose of anyone who is espousing a traditional, biblically loyal way of life.



I find it interesting how you state that you have no problem for women choosing work, but state that, for the most part, she can only really have one or the other, whereas you don't pose the same question to men. Yes, you say "we all know those men who get too into their jobs" (to paraphrase), but you don't state that men cannot be both a father and a hard worker, just that it can happen that he puts too much priority into work. Can you say that men can be both a good father and husband while being a good worker?

Also, a side note, but I personally don't identify with this notion you describe as wanting to be the best of everything, which you portray as essential to human nature. I'm not out there to be the best psychologist in history. Frankly, if I'm just not terrible at it and can help a few people, that's all I really want. I'm not out to be the best mother or wife either, nor do I think I can be. In fact, I'm rather scared at the prospect of motherhood at the moment, because there's a life that depends on me and from all books I've read about child development along my road in being a psychologist, I know there are tons of ways I can accidentally screw that child up for life. I would be happy with just being an adequate or good mother. I don't need to be the best.



Once again, I have to ask: can someone be a good father and a good worker? Because, if you can't, then I'd say we've had thousands of years full nothing but bad fathers, as all of them had jobs to put provide for the family, not the least of which would be founding our nation. I imagine General Washington didn't spend a lot of time with his kids or wife when he was fighting the British. And the prospect of two income families that are a necessity to stay afloat for many Americans really throws that concept for a loop. In fact, given that you need an income to survive, it would seem to imply that all marriage is infact failing because at least one person has to be the breadwinner.

It's interesting, as I stated, that you phrase this once again for women, but exclude men in this matter. Cannot the liberated woman you describe here also apply for men, who need to have a girlfriend in addition? The idea of being someone's girl seems somehow outdated as well, seeing as a modern relationship is supposed to be mutual, with neither being the other's item. It feels like you're posing to women a choice you don't force men to have to make, that you should either work, or be a parent, but not both. Are you? Do you think men can make great CEOs and still be a family man? Are men and women different in this regard?
This message was last edited by the player at 09:12, Tue 28 July 2009.

@Vexen
To be fair to dgolden, Vexen, I didn't take his post to mean what you seem to be taking to mean.  I think he was saying that women face the exact same choice as men, not that only women face that choice.  I also don't think he was saying you can't be a "good" worker and a "good" parent, but rather that one (whether a man or a woman) has to prioritize, and can't be a superstar at both, because being a superstar at either means putting less time/effort/etc. into the other.  So, if I understood him correctly, he was saying that men who are CEOs of huge companies tend not to make good parents (because they've prioritized their career), so women shouldn't expect to be able to be a CEO of a huge company and a good parent either.  I think he would say (and he should clarify this if I'm wrong), that you can be a good parent and an adequate worker, (ie, a man or a woman can have a job and be a parent), but that each task distracts from the other, so no one is likely to be great at both at the same time.  I'm not sure that's entirely true in all cases, but it sounds fairly reasonable in a statistical sense.

I do think you raise some valid questions on the difference between "stupid" and "sinful" behavior (though, to be fair, he did refer to his own "sinful action" so didn't imply that his acts were only 'stupid' rather than 'sinful'), and whether secular (I would add non-christians too) couples can have a successful marriage.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
@everyone

Taking the conversation a step back to the topic of divorce and whether it should be harder to get, I'll try to get some common ground for us to start on, and some questions we can use to explore the issue further.  First off, I think we all pretty much agree on the following:
1.  a successful marriage requires some effort/work.
2.  even with some effort/work, some marriages will not be "successful" (by whatever metric we use to determine success in a marriage)
3.  divorce can be harmful/detrimental to the children involved
4.  many children can/have/do survive divorces, and grow up as well-adjusted adults (by whatever metric we used to determine 'well adjustedness' in adults), but others do not.
5.  an "unsuccessful" marriage can be harmful/detrimental to the children involved
6.  many children can/have/do survive unsuccessful marriages, and grow up to be well-adjusted adults, but others do not
7.  there are some legitimate grounds for divorce (though we may disagree on what 'grounds' to include on that list)

If we agree on those, the question over when a divorce should take place seems to be when the parties involved (parents and any children), would be net better off with a divorce than with staying together, possibly with unequal weighting (eg, children's well-being counts for more than that of the couple).  Since we can't see the future, we have to make a guess at what the well-being of the parties involved will be.  When doing so, we have to make our best guess at what the parties involved are likely to do in each case.  If they stay together, are the couple likely to put in the necessary effort to "make it work," or are they likely to continue to bicker, fight, etc.?  The fact that they possibly could change their ways and put in the effort isn't enough, by itself, to warrant them staying together.  It has to be likely that they will do so.  We also have to weigh up the expected results of a divorce.  Will the couple be likely to stay single?  Find new partners and enter a happy marriage?  Find new partners and enter another unhappy marriage?  Some combination thereof (eg, one partner finds a new spouse and enters a successful marriage, while the other stays single)?  What will the arrangement with any children be, and how will that affect the various relationships between the parties involved?

It's a lot of speculation and guess-work, but that's sort of what we're left with.  It means the wrong decision will be made in some cases.  It also means that in many cases, it won't be clear if the decision was the right one or the wrong one (since we won't be able to see what would have occurred if the other decision were made).

Arguments that divorce should be harder to get seem to be based on one of two assumptions (or both):
1.  that if forced to stay together, couples are likely to 'change their ways' and put in the necessary effort to 'make things work.'
2.  that children are likely to better off raised by a couple in an 'unsuccessful' marriage than by a divorced couple (in all it's possible combinations, such as step-families, etc.).

Do we have evidence for or against either of those assumptions?  I think there are plenty of examples that can be used to argue for or against either of them, but since they're statements about likelihoods, not certainties, single examples aren't sufficient to settle things one way or the other.  Do we have any statistical data that can be brought to bear on these assumptions?

Also, taking a different approach to the question, one could ask: even if forcing people to stay married against their will were likely to lead to a beneficial result, would it be justified?  Is freedom to determine one's own life more important than doing the statistically best thing?  Should we have the freedom to try and 'beat the odds?'

What I said is what my faith tested by my experience shows.  All actions have consequences.  Sin is action that is destructive by nature - it embraces death.  Therefore people who engage in sin as a preferrred way of life are self-destructive and toxic to others.

In my experience, the most important thing is freedom and individual choice. Denying people that is a far more destructive activity to individuals than 'sin' ever could be.

That's one of things I dislike about Christianity and other organized religions, it mandates and prohibits harmless behavior for vague reasons.

If we carefully examine the consequences of the "alternatives" to marriage, disfunctional marriage, and divorce, we see a slew of problems that only compound themselves.  If I say that marriages fail because people are too lazy, it is because laziness is the norm for all people.  People don't write books on how to be depressed, have crappy relationships, develop a negative attitude, go nowhere in their carreer, waste all their money, etc. because these things require no effort.  They come naturally.  We only need to be our normal, lazy selves.

Humanity is energetic by nature. Over the last two million years, we have taken society from a simple tribes of hunters and gathers and formed a global spanning civilization. True, we have our share of problems, but we always have, and there are people trying to fix them. To me, this is symptomatic of a creature that embraces advancement and progression. There may be lazy people, but as a whole, humanity favors progression.

It also reqires divine intervention, as it is simply too large a task for mere mortals to be capable of.

My parents have been married for a very long time. They love each other and a very happy. They are also not religious people. I believe this disprove your claim.

I think this shows Falkus has a profound lack of understanding of Christianity.  It does not "mandate" or "prohibit" activities.  Rather, it invites one to use self discipline and rise above carnal, selfish behaviors to improve oneself and society.  They are to make people happy.  It is purely voluntary, and is based on love and a desire to help, not on force.

Surely there are those who claim to be Christian and try to force these things on others, but they are not true "Christians."

A broken home is not limited to abuse.  It also includes homes where children do not have the proper role models and support; it includes neglect; it includes a home where children are not taught or loved.  There are many types of broken homes.

The point from society's perspective is simply that marriage is the ideal societal glue for preventing broken homes.  Not perfect, not always the best -- but the ideal model.  It is the model where there is a mother figure, a father figure, two adults to help raise and care for the children, and a loving relationship and bond in a family, instead of one scattered; a condition where the child feels most secure, grounded, and settled.

I'm going to disagree with you, actually. The Catholic Church is pretty clear that there are things you should not do. In my bible, it has a section we call the Ten Commandments, in which most lines start with 'thou shalt not ...'. We tie that in with the concept of mortal sins - things that you should not do, and if you do do them and fail to get forgiven for them in time, you suffer in Hell as your punishment (which is the application of force).

I understand that the LDS faith may be a little more lenient, saying 'please don't do that, it'll hurt you, but it's your choice' (this makes more sense given that LDS doesn't seem to believe in a Hell per se). But there are certainly Christians who do believe in things that are, verboten, forbidden and, I dare guess, those Christians outnumber the remainder, and were operating like that before the other group (looking back at Jewish records, which have entire books which are nothing but 'do not do X').


You can argue that Hell is not the application of force and the commandments are like commandments of good living, not commandments necessary to living. But certainly, a very large number of Christians do not see it like that. We read in Revelations and elsewhere that God is the judge, he gives us justice, and for many of us, justice is Hell. In my opinion, the idea that humans voluntarily choose Hell, rather than being forced there, is a pretty modern twist. It may be correct, but it isn't the only philosophy on the subject.

I understand what you're saying, but I think we still agree.

In Catholicism, you shouldn't do those things if you want to avoid Hell, yet it is still your choice; in LDS believes, you shouldn't do certain things because you will face the natural consequence (spiritually, physically, etc.).

But we both believe we shouldn't "force" people to follow the "commandments," but rather try to get them to see why the commandments are important and choose to follow them.

And we don't try to persuade others for our own benefit, but out of a Christian concern for their mortal souls and a desire for them to be happy.  Otherwise, we'd just ignore them.

That is true, but the other side of that is this situation is created by God, and the commandments are the commandments of God. While the LDS/RCC Church isn't saying 'we will make these things illegal and force you to comply' (although the RCC at least has), God would seem to be doing so (otherwise, breaking his commandments wouldn't result in eternal pain and suffering).

Well, I guess we diverge there.  The LDS belief is that, essentially, the punishment fits the crime.  Commandments are eternal, natural consequences, not something "created" by God, just elucidated by him.

This goes back to the "natural law" theory I previously explained.  Some things ("murder, thieving, stealing, lying" for example) are just plain wrong naturally.

So God tells us the natural laws and natural consequence of violating them, and also helps us to make promises to do things that will elevate us to higher happiness...and provides a savior to act as mediator between the natural consequences (hell, guilt, what have you) and our wrongful actions.

So his goal is to get us to be as happy as we can by living up to the greatest potential we can and helping others do the same.

"God is that man might be; and man is that he might have joy."
"For this is my work and my glory, to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of Man."

Heh, I hope you'll let TitL know that! ;)

Sorry, haven't had time to read what TitL wrote.

But God created murder, thieving, stealing, etc. (and then said 'don't do it').

I don't disagree that God wishes us the best, and has created a situation for us to struggle and grow. But it is pretty clear God has commanded us not to do things, starting with Genesis ("you may eat from any tree except the tree in the center of the garden...") ending with revelations ("and He separated the just from the evil...") I'm not aware of any situation where God is quoted as saying 'please don't do X, but if you really want to...' or 'please try your best'.

(That said, we're also going a little off topic. Suffice to say, I don't think the statement that 'churches who believe God laid down commandments aren't Christian' is valid.)

I disagree with this.  He was just informing us of basic, fundamental laws already in existence.  Don't you think "thou shalt not kill" existed even before the Law of Moses?

Of course I do. But I don't believe murder existed before God created life.

Since the LDS faith believes God is a child from some other universe, so presumably God at one point (or perhaps even now) operates under laws above Him, it may be different on your side. But on my side, it's "God was first, predated everything, and created everything to his particular desires." He predated life, predated murder, predated truth, predated lies, predated property, predated theft. He created life in such a way that it could be killed, and specifically created the potential for murder when, before, there was none.

"Murder" as a concept exists irrelevant of the existence of life that can be murdered.  It is a philosophical/moral concept, not a corporeal one.  Therefore, the idea of "murder" existed before life and murder itself.  That's the nature of a "natural law."  It exists no matter what.

It even exists if there is no God.
This message was last edited by the GM at 18:50, Fri 07 Aug 2009.

Conceptually murdering someone is also not wrong. It is the physical act of murdering that is wrong. And murder was not possible until God made it so. Just like it may be wrong to quargle a zarflax, but because God has not made zarflaxes that we can quargle, the moral implications are irrelevant to our salvation. God could have made murder as irrelevant to our salvation as quargling zarflaxes, but didn't.

God has the opportunity to make life that could not be murdered, or could not murder, but chose not to. We can only speculate about the motivations, but those are the facts. God permitted there to be murder, intentionally, when He had the opportunity not to, and then passed on the responsibility to humans (by commanding us, in Exodus and also prior, to not murder, with the threat of power following being fire/death/no resurrection/God being really angry with you/whatever).

Ergo, God commands, "thou shalt not murder", with force of punishment behind it.

"Conceptually murdering" someone, eh?  Are you treading onto Jesus' statement that if you have done it in your heart, it is the same as if you have done it?  Or perhaps you are referring to fiction-like "conception."

Perhaps we don't disagree totally.  I'm saying that "murder" exists irregardless of God.  However, when God says, "Thou Shalt Not Kill," he is codifying that universal moral code into something that also turns into a sin against God, and thus possibly creates even more danger of damnation/spiritual death than if He had not stated that.

I am looking to it as being universally wrong; you appear to be looking to it as adding God's punishment to a universal truth.  With that, I'd agree.

I don't think we disagree totally. The difference seems to be...

You believe something existed before God. That 'something' includes a universe, life, procreation, etc. Ergo, there was sin before there was God (because there were sentient creatures capable of making moral decisions).

I don't share that belief. The theology I was raised with is that God was first and predated everything. God created life and sentient creatures capable of making moral decisions. God created that life and those sentient creatures to HIS specifications - they were not random chance, and they were completely under his control. The situation He created allowed for sin. Sin did not exist, and could not exist, before God created the situation that would allow for it.

To make it a little more physical, God created the tree, then said "don't eat of it". God, not man, created both the situation, and the rules governing it. He created temptation.

That's not an entirely accurate depiction.  I'm not saying it existed before God because other things existed before God.  I'm saying universal truths exist with or without God.

1+1=2 exists with or without Him, for example.
The wrongness of murder exists with or without Him.

So whether a universal truth exists doesn't rely on the existence of people who can actually violate it.

You seem to be arguing that a tree that falls in the forest doesn't make a sound if no one's around to hear it.  I'm saying it makes a sound regardless.