Marriage

[jonwon]

Going to make a post about what I think about marriage.

Granted it may not be to the liking of others on here, but I think it can create an interesting debate.

Marriage facts:

With this ring I give myself to you.
I place my strength in the service of your happiness.
Your dreams I will share.
Your burdens I will bear.
From now until forever I will be incomplete without you.

Marriage one of many sermons, revolving around handing over the ring:

Marriage man and women the divide:

In times past, through out history man was the sole provider in the social make up, women was the compliment of the male in the society.
Religions of past eras that are still very popular today, have virtually the same message in making the women the supplicant to the male in the society.
Not just religion but the social pressures and expectations attributed the male as the superior sex and thus women where the lower sex and at the beck and call of any rules deemed by man to control there women.

Examples:
Christianity:
The Rules Of Marriage
Let’s start our analysis at the “beginning.” Everyone has heard the story of God becoming angry with Adam and Eve for eating the forbidden fruit in the Garden of Eden. Although God punishes both for disobeying his directions, the author clearly places the majority of the blame on Eve for tempting her husband. God says to Eve, “thy desire is to be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee” (Genesis 3:16). Since the other suppressing punishments on the couple, such as Eve’s childbirth pains, are still in effect, we have no justifiable reason to think that the servitude punishment applies solely to Eve and not the gender as a whole. If the Bible is the true word of God, this passage demonstrates his desire for women to live life in subservience to men. In actuality, however, someone most likely invented this portion of the patently unreliable story as a justification for the ongoing inferior treatment of women.

We find several more cruelties perpetrated against women in these historical books. Such atrocities include a woman given away as a prize (Judges 1:12-13); a woman offered as a sacrifice (Judges 11:29-39); married daughters given to other people (Judges 15:2); rape, murder, and mutilation by a mob; (Judges 19:22-30); abduction of virgins (Judges 21:7-23); purchasing of wives (Ruth 4:10 and 1 Samuel 18:25-27); and God punishing David by allowing his son to sleep with his wives and concubines, an act for which the women were later imprisoned (2 Samuel 12:11-12, 16:22, 20:3).

Source http://www.biblicalnonsense.com/chapter10.html

The Koran:
1. It's OK to have sex with your wives on the night of the fast. 2:187
2. Menstruation is a sickness. Don't have sex with menstruating women. 2:222
3. Have sex with your women whenever and as often as you like. 2:223
4. Women have rights that are similar to men, but men are "a degree above them." 2:228
5. A woman is worth one-half a man. 2:282
6. Marry of the women two, or three, or four. 4:3
7. Males are to inherit twice that of females. 4:11
8. Lewd women are to be confined to their houses until death. 4:15
9. You may not forcibly inherit women, unless they flagrantly lewd. 4:19
10. Instructions for exchanging wives 4:20
11. "All married women (are forbidden unto you) save those (captives) whom your right hands possess."
You can't have sex with married women, unless they are slaves obtained in war (with whom you may rape or do whatever you like). 4:24
12. Men are in charge of women, because Allah made men to be better than women. Refuse to have sex with women from whom you fear rebellion, and scourge them. 4:34
13. Don't pray if you are drunk, dirty, or have touched a woman lately. 4:43
14. Women are feeble and are unable to devise a plan. 4:98
15. They invoke in his (Allah's) stead only females.

So we can see the two of the main religions that where around and are still very prominent in society have clear indication of putting women at a different lvl to men, a supplicating level. One could say there is an agenda at work here, or one can believe in GOD (if you believe in god I can make a post to make sure your beliefs in a man made religion will most probably be destroyed).

But what does the institute of marriage serve, who gains from marriage the most:

 

[jonwon]

The seed of love: MAN.
In past time, prior to contraception and state laws, men could move about freely from women to women, even married men where ‘encouraged’ to rape and have sex with many women and I know most men reading this have a smile on there face as the mere ‘thought’ of fuc*ing your own harem is very attractive to the average man as it is fundamentally ‘what we are’.

Then Laws came in to ensure men who have babies where ‘forced’ to make sure they took an active role in the babies up-bringing even though the need to bring up a child is not what all men want, but the need to have sex with multiple partners is, the giving birth to a child and the end result is not usually the motivating factor and if it happened ‘the women is there to take care of it’, I may give them a slab of meat from my hunt if I can be arse* was the lvl of responsibility put on the male in a socity that does not ‘force’.

So society made ‘rules’ that men have to live by, they ‘force’ the man to comply to the up-bringing of the child, this is not normally a choice it is something that is expected and ‘forced’ these days onto the man, so the appeal of spreading the seed lost its edge and marriage became more attractive.
Disease and the onset of potential disease, this too pushed the male mind to settle for one partner, in the wake of mortality and the moral implications of complying to a religion. Lions don’t have these problem’s!
Then came around the break through of contraception and an inevitable boom of Free love as men and women could not spread it about without fear of being up the duff or disease.

Women and Sex:
In past times having sex with a man came with a lot of consequences not just from the fact she could fall pregnant, but religion and social norms made a ‘slut’ an outcast of society they in essence repressed any female urge to explore her sexual desire and made her resent or think ‘sex’ was bad and evil, which too goes on in this society, men are encouraged to have sex women are NOT.
Marriage on the other hand was glorified to women and it was clear if a women wanted a good life as possible in a man dominant social order she had to marry a man who had means and that way have access to sex.
Nature and contraception: Nature dictates if a women as sex she will or may get pregnant, this on-top of potential diseases, makes a women’s ideal about sex 10x more complex then any mans ideal (but not to a ‘*****’). So sex to a women equals a hell of a lot of problems, that a man without the ‘forced’ rule in there would never have to worry about, then contraception came and women now could have sex without consequence, so they could give in to there sexual desires and lust and women did and still do, but it is against the natural order, but sex is enjoyable so one cant really blame a human that’s wants to peruse something that gives them pleasure.


Relatinships:
Well if one would like to research past lives and social norms, the man who had more to offer financially and socially was in fact the best choice of marriage material, since women where second rate, in societies there family played a pivotal role in encouraging there daughters to marry certain men and this is attributed to wealth and how they can be looked after:

This still goes on to day, the mother of a daughter is fundamentally a PIMP, marry a rich man or a man who as means is the usual mantra sung from the wind pipes of the motherly flock, it is mainly the main factor of what they want for there daughters, even if there husband is some alcoholic drop out. The programming in there is hard to de-program, even if they where captivated by other none social ideals.

How marriage suits the man.
The average man is fundamentally weak and does not have to drive or desire to get out of life what he wants. Men are as much sheep as women are. Leaders of men are rare. So these men can’t or don’t normally get to have many relations or spread the seed of love about, so the AFC mindset of the average male mindset, focuses on finding the one women as they really deep down cant get much else.
So marriage plays a massive importance to these type of males, it helps them to ‘keep’ a women through a contracted agreement, it gives them support in knowing they can get a women and keep her, but secretly they are eyeing up the fit blond with the nice rack and as* and wondering if he could get her, or if he is not doing that he is defiantly jacking off to other women (hence why men are made to fuc* more then one women). NO MAN ALIVE married or otherwise as not JACKED off over another women period, so that in itself proves you where not made to be content with ONE female, its only social boundaries and ideals and your own beliefs that stop you from crossing the boundaries of jack of to sex or cheating. Or Love

Marriage how it suits the women:
Women have babies, this is pretty dam clear, but what they also get is pressure to make sure there offspring as the best start in life, which can mean:
Genetic pool, GL guy, guy with something about him, guy with style charisma, charm e.t.c
Wealth and status, the proof he can support her and her child through life and its hardships.

Now lets dig deeper:

A women giving birth to a child places a bigger strain on her financially, it makes life for her a lot harder, as she as to support another life and not just her own. It also places her at a huge disadvantage in the social scene as:
Less potential other male suitors or lovers:
Harder to find work and raise a child at the same time.
Harder to live her life, the need to care for her child.

So the importance on a women is to MAKE SURE HER MAN stays by her:

Where marriage as messed up:
The AFC guy and the Women who needs the support:

The women no longer needs the AFC guy any longer for support for a child in marriage, the courts of the land FORCE the AFC to cater to the child he brought into this world. To the AFC this is ok since he loves his child, but what he does not understand is the insitutuation made for HIM as fundamentally screwed him also, since to force a women into a contract as fundamentally made that contract a signing of depression.

This is where marriages fail;

Love:

Love is when two people meet and they have a great connection and there lives are improved and they just enjoy spending every waking moment together:
Love was designed to make a man and a women commit in the act of parent hood for one and the act of companionship:
Now marriage through love is different, but one does not need a social constructed contract to prove one loves another.

The marriage institution for a mass majority of people is used as a means to contractually bind another person to the others will.
If it’s the need to raise a child or listen to mamma PIMP.
Or if it’s the need to ‘keep the girl’ cos you cant get another one.

I believe in marriage built on love, but I also believe one does not need a state license to prove it.

And one should not be afraid to rip up that state foced control if that love does not last.

 

[jonwon]

The AFC mindset as now took a different view point.

Due to state control and law, the MAN now thinks he as to KEEP the women, when in FACT the natural order of things was the women HAD to keep the MAN.

Now those concepts are gone and now men are acting like women.

Barbarians, Vikings, Romans, e.t.c where true men that knew if a women was worth keeping around or not, they looked after there young through there in0built desire to raise a son or daughter to be the BEST.

Now to raise a daughter or son to be best, men in marriage have to try to KEEP the women which as totally turned what is natural around to unnatural.

MEN don’t give birth women do, so for a man to feel he as to keep a women is fundamentally not the natural order of things, imo.

Only social rules and boundaries as shifted the man made ideals, an engineered state of control spun around in favour of the women as simply the system as done the HARD WORK for her and now she can relax knowing she is fundamentally fine and then can have more choice.

nature did not really give her the choice, for her to keep that MAN she had to be special, now she can be what ever the fuc* she wants to be and this is another reason marriages break down as there is not need for a female investment on marriage to the degree it should be, due to state control and laws that have a double edged sword mentality.

yes it is worth while protecting the young of this world, but in doing that it also gives a women allot of power she normally would not have.

to the AFC this is fine as they 'want' to be at the discretion of a women as there main aim is the get a women but to an alpha, it can be a reason alot will remain single as to be a supplicating wimp to a women who clearly is at a disadvantage in the mating game due to nature, be something an alpha would be hard pressed to force himself into.

Only when the alpha meets a giver, can he truly relax and know he as picked the best choice available for him, but that is not to say that best choice would not be better if he was not forced to comply to social norms.

One as to believe in the power of love or you can see the cards falling and crumbling on the mans deck, without the infatuation of the right female most and all marriage are set for failure as the investment on the female front is rather relaxed as opposed to the natural order.

Marriage is not about children granted but the coming together of man and women is for the reproduction of the species, this even though may not be the conscious ideal of marriage was still the unconscious motivator.

In closing the man as to choose his mate and win her over, for sex, the women as to win the man over for companionship.

 

[Mind_Body_Soul]

When you started with

With this ring I give myself to you.
I place my strength in the service of your happiness.
Your dreams I will share.
Your burdens I will bear.
From now until forever I will be incomplete without you.

I knew it was gonna be good. Either good in a GOOD way or good in a BAD way. Excellent take on the whole subject jonwon. Are you muslim by the way? Are you married? Do you plan on getting married?

 

[jonwon]

When you started with



I knew it was gonna be good. Either good in a GOOD way or good in a BAD way. Excellent take on the whole subject jonwon. Are you muslim by the way? Are you married? Do you plan on getting married?

i was married and i had to do alot of de-programming to step away from it.

I grew up believing marriage was an institution to be respected, my mother is a Christian and my parents are still together, so I had and still hold strong vows on marriage.

so when i got married and saw it was not what i expected, i had to re-evaluate allot of things in my life at that time and justify reasons for me to not put marriage at the top of my agenda due to social beliefs, which in term led me to question the very foundation of it.

In this society it is expected to get married it is normality, but i wondered why that was so, what purpose did it serve and why was it here.

I never followed a religion as it to me seems like a state of control, so when marriage can be linked to a religious ideal then one wonders for what purpose.

Marriage is a nice concept but as stated above the concept of marriage as been watered down, with the onset of religions facing almost extinction in the modern western world, alot of the motivators for marriage are loosing there foundations, thus marriage needs to be, not built on false perceptions but built on strong foundations of companionship and love from each partner! But still love to me can’t be expected to last a life time.

I have loved all the women i have dated all of them, to say i have not would be a lie, but does that mean i have to marry them? No but it still does not mean i can not enjoy what i had with them, to expect to carry that love on when both new it had lasted as far as it could would be imo lunacy when it is far better to pursue other avenues, only when children come into the mix and financial constraints does it force one to re-asses when love fades the pro's and con's of moving on. the marriage contract also forces one to stay together even when love as long since dried up, die to beliefs and concepts that are fundamentally out of your sphere of ideals and where constructed by ideals of others.

Love and marriage can work, but marriage is a nice tool in the romantic sense and some can make it work, but even the most factuated Romeo and Juliet will have a hard time keeping love alive, this to me wonders why marriage was there in the first place, when it is clear the true nature is to enjoy and experience a wide range of 'experiences' from others and not to be chained to a system that as long since lost its shine to the person in it.

I was a victim of my own pre-conceptions of marriage, I followed and believed man and women where made to be married, when in fact marriage was simply designed, not natural.

the problem is people see marriage as the end result of the mating game, when in fact the end result was never marriage and never will be, marriage seems just a means to make people comply with something that they really dont need to comply to anyway. Two people can work more then ok without the state or religion stating if you are in love or should be together.

Now the problem with marriage is most women (sorry if it seems sexist) still want secretly the institution of marriage as it ensures the man is going to stick around, it is also romantic to the women in the sense the man as committed to be her 'only' partner. Also there is a wierd notion that a man only 'loves' his women truley if he is willing to sign some state contract, which imo is not that smart at all.

Signing into a marriage can have a lot of benifitis, but it can put pressure on both parties that never existed in the first place.
for example:
If one or the other partner does something bad in the relationship, one jsut cant get up and walk away, due to the many aspects of sorting out a marriage.

When marriages end it usally involves a lengthy process of meeting requirements that invloves both parties, so a normal relationship two could just 'move on' the marriage contract adds the pressure of having to be 'civil' and further ties you to another person till things are fully resolved.

Marriage can work, but if was going to work one would make it work without marriage anyway. there is simply no need for marriage in this day and age, its a shame alot of men are expected to tie the knot, when in realty the knot was only an invention and should not exist in the first place.

 

[azanon]

I disagree with a good deal of this article. I have generally found that divorced people tend to have a bitter outlook towards the institution of marriage; be it concidence or correlation. Your experience may vary.

To those that don't have personal experience with it like Jonwon and I, the other side of the card is marriage can be a great asset to you. It has been for me for 14 years now.

 

[blueguy]

Have you always had the upper hand in your marriage, azanon?

The issue or concern for me with a long term relationship such as marriage is that:

A. When you have the upper hand, you lean toward getting bored.
B. When you have the handicap, you learn toward getting frustrated.

 

[azanon]

Have you always had the upper hand in your marriage, azanon?

The issue or concern for me with a long term relationship such as marriage is that:

That's a great question. The first 2-3 years I would characterize as having an active power struggle where one was trying to change the other and where i was trying to assert myself as the primary decision maker in key areas; such as finances.

In many ways, my wife is now "trained" (for both of our betterment) in a variety of ways. For instance, my wife works out at least 5 times a week and keeps very fit (she's 5'8", 130). Before i married her, she never exercised, but i trained her to do so. And she likes it now! That's just one example of many.

A. When you have the upper hand, you lean toward getting bored.

There is maybe a little truth to that, because you don't have to be on your heels, but the contentment that comes from knowing you have things as you want them far overshadows that. Certainly, one's wife needs to not be AFC either, and do the various little things that will keep you wanting her. A smart woman knows this, and will make those little efforts to keep your desire for her up high.

B. When you have the handicap, you learn toward getting frustrated.

Oh i agree, and any self-admitted AFC has no business marrying. Marriage will eventually destroy an AFC and he will just end up being taken advantage of both during the marriage and after she takes half later.

Marriage can be an asset to a DJ. That's my opinion, and i dont think our distinguished RT would disagree either.

 

[STR8UP]

See, thats the problem.

I can count on a few fingers the number of people I have ever met that seem to "belong" in the marriage they are in. The rest either end up divorced or floating along doing their best not to rock the boat.

I'm not opposed to marriage per se, but I think that in order for it to work the man has to be a man, the woman has to be a woman, and the planets all have to be in line to form the proper environment conducive to fostering a healthy and happy relationship.

 

[Bible_Belt]

So we can see the two of the main religions that where around and are still very prominent in society have clear indication of putting women at a different lvl to men, a supplicating level.

Your source is "biblicalnonsense.com" Do you think they might be just a little biased?

Also, you define the views of Christianity with quotes from the Old Testament? If you want to know what Christianity says about marriage, read the New Testament.

http://www.biblegateway.com/

Matthew 19:5
"...a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh"

1 Corinthians 7:3
The husband should fulfill his marital duty to his wife, and likewise the wife to her husband.
The wife's body does not belong to her alone but also to her husband. In the same way, the husband's body does not belong to him alone but also to his wife.

The modern feminists hate Christianity as being degrading to women, but they are only seeing half the picture. Christianity calls for wives to submit to husbands, but it's a two-way street. Husbands are also supposed to love their wives as themselves (Ephesians 5).


"if you believe in god I can make a post to make sure your beliefs in a man made religion will most probably be destroyed"

uh-huh, God is a lie because you read it on the Internet, right? btw, 9/11 was a government conspiracy; there are aliens living underneath Dulce, New Mexico; and the moon landing was faked. I know it's all true, because I read it on the Internet!

 

[azanon]

..... you define the views of Christianity with quotes from the Old Testament? If you want to know what Christianity says about marriage, read the New Testament.

You say that, yet every single prodestant (christain) accepts the entirity of the Old Testament as "God-breathed" scripture, you teach from it in your sunday schools, and it is within your bibles. In a nutshell, you accept Old Testament scripture when it's convenient to do so, but for the parts you don't like, you deal with that by stating the New Testament "overrides or supercedes" the Old Testament.

If i were head of the prodestant movement, I would see just how fast I could make the Old Testament disappear. It makes God appear as a jealous, temper tantrum, angry, and violent deity. When people say they love this God, it really confuses me to no end. And love based on fear is not love either.

"if you believe in god I can make a post to make sure your beliefs in a man made religion will most probably be destroyed"

I dont know who said this either, but its pretty dam* naive. A lot of people just dont know how influential cults can be so they are definitely underestimating their grip and appeal. For instance, the promise of eternal life if you follow, or burning in he** if you dont repent are pretty compelling statements, however unsubstantiated they may be.

uh-huh, God is a lie because you read it on the Internet, right? btw, 9/11 was a government conspiracy; there are aliens living underneath Dulce, New Mexico; and the moon landing was faked. I know it's all true, because I read it on the Internet!

This would make sense and be humorous if you substituted "a lie" in the first sentence with "alive".

 

[Bible_Belt]

It's actually a good point that the Old Testament seems to contradict much of the Old. The Bible is a series of God's covenants, or contracts, with humanity, from 'don't eat the fruit' to 'love your neighbor as yourself.' Sometimes a new covenant will override the old in areas where it directly disagrees, for example Christians don't sacrifice animals, even though it was required by the laws of the OT - the idea is that under the newest covenant, one great sacrifice has already been made for everyone. However, Jesus also instructed his followers to obey the 10 commandments, which are the ancient laws of Moses. The Christ covenant does not make murder and theft ok, it merely replaces some of the old laws. So yes, Christianity is a mix of the NT and OT. If Christians accepted the entirety of the OT, then we would be Orthodox Jews. Christians accept the parts of the OT that have not been amended by the NT.

love based on fear is not love either

That's another interesting point. I would argue that the love at issue here is more like a parent-child love than a love between a couple. When you were a child, you feared your parents' punishments if you misbehaved, yet you also loved them at the same time.

pretty compelling statements, however unsubstantiated they may be.

This relates to the very difficult 'proving God' problem. Of course there is no scientific "proof," thus the value of faith. But if you make your decisions in life based upon the teachings of the Bible, you will find that your life comes out better. This is proof enough for me. For example, I go to law school, and everything is graded on a curve where your grade is defined by how well you rank against your peers. The worst grades flunk out, simply by being the worst grades, unrelated to any other merits. There is no incentive to help anyone, ever. It's the exact opposite of 'do unto others,' but I have spent the past three years giving everything I have to everyone else all the time - notes, books, study aids, outlines - and the result is amazing. People fvcking love me. I have helped almost everyone in some way, so when I need something I just turn to the person next to me and ask; I have power over everyone. When I get called on in class, people whisper me the answer. I lost my wallet with $100 in it; it was turned in immediately with all the money in it, by a guy who I had just given notes to a few weeks earlier. And social status makes women fall at my feet! As soon as I start talking to a girl at school, all of her female friends will tell her that they like me, too, and the power of this social proof is incredible. Also, after I graduate, I'll have a couple hundred lawyers who will likely all be willing to help me someday if I need it. All of this comes from 'doing unto others,' advice that is attributed to Jesus, but was actually first spoken by Moses in Leviticus 19:18 "...love your neighbor as yourself." When you live that way, more good fortune falls into your lap than if you had set out only to look after yourself. Of the over two billion Christians in the world, maybe some are only following silly superstition, but the rest have learned that Christian teachings really are 'the way, the truth, and the light' to get the most out of life.

 

[jonwon]

if people did not 'fear there own mortality', there would be no need for religion in any way shape or form!

Religion is founded on fear, bred on fear and spun around fear, it is essentially its 'core'.

but thats not what this was about so we or i can tackle that issue in another thread but those things can be found anywhere.

Also the fact that there is two or three or a multitude of different bibles, proves the word of 'god' changes to suit the social order!

Not trying to quash anyones values around the holy book, the bible can be a great piece to structure ones moral values around, but imo it should not be used for anything other and thats to focus your life on ideals that fundimentally dont suit the 'You', thats what i think. (but this will most probably hit on the bad people of the world and 'what we think' should be 'right or wrong' which the bible sets 'good' moral values around already, even though death and murder from the bible i find as rather a jaded ideal but not 'just' that holy scripture).

Now hell does not exist except in the mind of the fearful of death!

Religions are derived from fear and selfish needs to 'want' more as well as social struture and life guidence! If you was immortal you would not even need a bible, but i bet after so many years you would most probably see death as the ultimate goal of that life, think about it

Also it was not an article, it was all written by me! notice the typos there is some stuff pulled from skepticsbible but thats about it.

And the post was 'not' just about the bible, if it effects your religious ideals it was not the intention, it was to illustrate the connection with marriage thats all.

 

[azanon]

It's actually a good point that the Old Testament seems to contradict much of the Old. The Bible is a series of God's covenants, or contracts, with humanity, from 'don't eat the fruit' to 'love your neighbor as yourself.' Sometimes a new covenant will override the old in areas where it directly disagrees, for example Christians don't sacrifice animals, even though it was required by the laws of the OT - the idea is that under the newest covenant, one great sacrifice has already been made for everyone. However, Jesus also instructed his followers to obey the 10 commandments, which are the ancient laws of Moses. The Christ covenant does not make murder and theft ok, it merely replaces some of the old laws. So yes, Christianity is a mix of the NT and OT. If Christians accepted the entirety of the OT, then we would be Orthodox Jews. Christians accept the parts of the OT that have not been amended by the NT.

That is about as well put as you can make that side of the argument. If i was in a debate class and was assigned your side of the argument, i probably couldnt do better. That being said, if you take a few steps back, it still appears as if the overtly violent and judgemental stuff found in the OT is convinently dismissed away whereas the more sane areas of the OT is considered still acceptable and useful for teaching. My point is, I've noticed that the more socially unacceptable things found in the OT just so happens to be the same guidance that is no longer considered applicable to the prodestant. The NT is pretty comprehensive, so it wouldn't be that hard to find a verse or series of versus in the NT that could be considered to replace any number of eronious guidances found in the OT.

So, try to give it a hard, critical analysis Bible Belt. Is the explanation really valid, or does it appear to be almost too convenient? My best guess is the latter. Unfortunately, faith isn't logical so i find is usefulness in coming to a conclusion on this very limited.

That's another interesting point. I would argue that the love at issue here is more like a parent-child love than a love between a couple. When you were a child, you feared your parents' punishments if you misbehaved, yet you also loved them at the same time.

I'm not God, but if i wanted someone to genuinely love me, i probably would have taken a different approach than saying "love me or else!". (sarcasm) Unfortunately, i believe a lot of love is not a choice, so God has really created a serious perdicament by acting in such a way that doesn't warrant him to be loved, yet he expects it anyway.

This relates to the very difficult 'proving God' problem. Of course there is no scientific "proof," thus the value of faith. But if you make your decisions in life based upon the teachings of the Bible, you will find that your life comes out better. This is proof enough for me.

For me, i've found the opposite to be true. I've spend significant time on both sides of the fence, and the fully empowered side has allowed me to be a more effective, and successful person. The christain that may be hoping to see me finally fail will probably only get that satisfaction when my biology and mortality one day gets the better of me.

It's the exact opposite of 'do unto others,' but I have spent the past three years giving everything I have to everyone else all the time - notes, books, study aids, outlines - and the result is amazing.

Christainity doesn't have the market cornered on being nice and considerate of other people. It is possible to learn effective social principles without the bible. There are a lot of effective social guidances by famous philosophers that predate the new testament.

When you live that way, more good fortune falls into your lap than if you had set out only to look after yourself.

I see ungodly people succeeding frequently. I'm not saying your approach is necessarily a bad one, but I'd pause before you get too convinced that looking out for #1 first is not an effective technique too. For starters, you'd have to explain why am I successful.

Of the over two billion Christians in the world, maybe some are only following silly superstition, but the rest have learned that Christian teachings really are 'the way, the truth, and the light' to get the most out of life.

Maybe 2 billion people dont have the humility to accept that despite how intelligent they are, they're only going to get 60-90 years of life. Maybe 2 billion people are scared out of their mind at even the possibliy that they could either miss a potential heaven or possibly have to be tormented forever. 95% of the world doesn't even have the education level to understand something as abstract as "pascal's wager" so they reason what's the harm in believing something that might pay off big, and if it doesn't, no big deal right? Also, there are a lot of people that just cant handle the idea that maybe they really are alone and that there's no one there that they cant see to help them. Probably 2 billion of them! The psychology of the crutch and its associated placebo effect is very powerful indeed.

 

[azanon]

but thats not what this was about so we or i can tackle that issue in another thread but those things can be found anywhere

True, but we also had a rather recent "a misconception about marriage" thread where you could have added your thoughts to as well. So maybe those comments should be moved there?

 

[speed dawg]

I make it a point not to argue with people like you, but:

but thats not what this was about so we or i can tackle that issue in another thread but those things can be found anywhere.

Also the fact that there is two or three or a multitude of different bibles, proves the word of 'god' changes to suit the social order!!

Nice subtley, pal. I thought you were tackling the issue in another thread?

Not trying to quash anyones values around the holy book, the bible can be a great piece to structure ones moral values around, but imo it should not be used for anything other and thats to focus your life on ideals that fundimentally dont suit the 'You', thats what i think. (but this will most probably hit on the bad people of the world and 'what we think' should be 'right or wrong' which the bible sets 'good' moral values around already, even though death and murder from the bible i find as rather a jaded ideal but not 'just' that holy scripture).

You're talking crazy. Fact of the matter, Christianity makes the world make sense to me. We're not animals. Our souls, our freedom to choose, make us different. You should try it and feel the peace from inside that I do.

Now hell does not exist except in the mind of the fearful of death!

I hope you will change your mind soon, friend.

 

[Bonhomme]

The Christian concepts of "heaven" and "hell" correspond very closely to the sort of near-death experiences people have: most of which are pleasant, and a small percentage of which are quite literally hellish, with fire, demonic beings, and the works. These are pretty consistent among all cultures, and do not appear to correlate with one's religious practices or beliefs (or lack thereof).

I think these states of consciousness are akin to very intense dream states, and are caused by the biochemical effects of neurotransmitter signals in an oxygen-deprived brain. Depending upon the individual's biochemical state, the experience could go one way or the other.

Many people become more religious after such experiences, but that could also be attributed to the effect of such trauma on the brain -- as well as cultural programming through which that altered brain expresses itself.

I personally think a lot of one's religious tendencies are biochemical in origin. In fact, the witch hunts of the middle ages may well have been due to widespread ergot poisoning that resulted from improper storage of grains.

 

[azanon]

I make it a point not to argue with people like you, but

I try to avoid the temptation myself because i always lose by being outnumbered.

We know from great works such as The Prince by Machivelli that life controlling dogmas will generally be adopted by the masses and only the few, powerful, and intellectual will know what's really going on. That explains what we continue to see today; the great majority of people unable to accept their mortality so they buy into dogmas which promises great riches and streets of gold so modern day rulers (and many church leaders) can control them and keep them pacified with very little because suffering today promises riches tomorrow.

I just hate to see a really intellectual person be fooled too. It just shows you how powerful fear and promises of eternal life can really be.

 

[azanon]

I personally think a lot of one's religious tendencies are biochemical in origin. In fact, the witch hunts of the middle ages may well have been due to widespread ergot poisoning that resulted from improper storage of grains.

I think there's a psychologal and/or genetic connection as well. Its almost the equilivant of a substance abuse problem. To be on one's own is just a downright terrifying idea for a great many people.

 

[Bonhomme]

Right on the money, azanon, especially your very last point.

To be free is difficult, but oh, so rewarding!

The biochemical and social/psychological factors are like two halves of a puzzle that fits right together, IMNSHO.