Decline of Christianity and Religion

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

From a PURE Christian perspective (as opposed to Christian religion today) then the issue is
that consensual sex is only between married partners. I can find reasons why casual sex causes
personal and societal harm, as most Christian churches do, but that's not the point of pure
Christianty. And finding these personal and societal reasons is actually 'self righteousness' to
the bible, despite the good intentions.
Until recent adultery attracted the death penalty in Western societies, as it still does in Islamic
and many pagan socities, so we can be clear about where the bible stood.

In the Gospels there was a specific moral law - don't be an adulterer, don't hate your brother,
don't steal, don't cheat, hate your enemy etc.. And this was a prerequisite for personal savation.

So morals were tied to salvation.
Today's secular morality is classic self righteousness, and as my stats below show, over time
it mutates. All the wars of history had 'moral' overtones to them.

Funny how men got lots of access to prostitution but women just got stoned to death. When Tamar is accused of prostitution, notice how no one says Judah should be killed for knocking her up.

 

[PruePhillip]

Funny how men got lots of access to prostitution but women just got stoned to death. When Tamar is accused of prostitution, notice how no one says Judah should be killed for knocking her up.

Sure, that happens. And there's subtle reasons why most societies consider a woman to be
the worse offender - but to the Gospels it makes no difference: adultery is adultery.

 

[Muffled]

Evolution is the best we have, it is shown to be valid. Should it ever be falsified then the theory may need modifying in some little way. Its happened before but the principal has remained the same.

I am not sure you actually mean sense... Perhaps opinion would be more accurate

I believe people can look at the same facts and come to very different conclusions. The basic problem is that nobody was there with the ability to observe what was happening except God of course and He reports a creation not an evolution.

 

[ChristineM]

I believe people can look at the same facts and come to very different conclusions. The basic problem is that nobody was there with the ability to observe what was happening except God of course and He reports a creation not an evolution.

Evolution is currently being observed. Check out the langway bent toed gecko for one, there are many other ongoing observations. Also genetics shows that evolution has and is taking place, it is a historical record, no need to be there. And DNA cannot lie.
Why do you think the Omicron strain of the covid virus got here?

Abiogenesis and evolution are not the same thing by the way

But of course you are welcome to believe the biblical account.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Of course they are

If you want to stick your head in the sand, there is really nothing I can say to you.

 

[Sand Dancer]

Sure, that happens. And there's subtle reasons why most societies consider a woman to be
the worse offender - but to the Gospels it makes no difference: adultery is adultery.

Except that a married or single man can sleep with a single woman, but it's adultery if the man sleeps with a married woman. Women are a man's property.

 

[ChristineM]

Sure, that happens. And there's subtle reasons why most societies consider a woman to be
the worse offender - but to the Gospels it makes no difference: adultery is adultery.

And what subtle reasons would they be?

 

[muhammad_isa]

Except that a married or single man can sleep with a single woman, but it's adultery if the man sleeps with a married woman. Women are a man's property.

I don't agree with that at all.
Women aren't property. They are not owned by their husbands.
Both man and wife have a duty to each other.
Any married person who sleeps with other than their spouse commits adultery.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Women are a man's property.

I'm assuming that you are referring to the way things have been, not the way you think they should be.

 

[PruePhillip]

And what subtle reasons would they be?

You'll have to ask them. Every culture is different but their men AND women
hold to common notions when it comes to sexuality.

 

[PruePhillip]

Except that a married or single man can sleep with a single woman, but it's adultery if the man sleeps with a married woman. Women are a man's property.

Yes, and in most cultures, going way way back, man and women thought that way.
We see this playing out now in Afghanistan. Westerners think the Afghan mentality
is revolting and Afghans think WE are revolting. And tomorrow the world will be full of
such religious, conservative and fundamentalist people because they are having the
children - the 'refugees', immigrants and priveleged citizens in your country who will
push dirty Westerners out of their suburbs, buy up churches, vote in large blocks as
their Immans tell them and go after gays.

 

[ChristineM]

You'll have to ask them. Every culture is different but their men AND women
hold to common notions when it comes to sexuality.

It seems to me that that those subtle reasons are nothing more than it's the men who wrote the rules.

 

[PruePhillip]

It seems to me that that those subtle reasons are nothing more than it's the men who wrote the rules.

We don't know - not sure how you would find a way to tell if a 10,000 year old society's
rules were written by men or women. Can't be all one way - most likely it's a combination
of men or women for the survival of that culture. For instance in hunter gatherer societies
the boy who is prized to a girl is the one who is the brave warrior - makes sense when you
are raising kids and the world is full of tribal violence. So condemning boys for having the
genetic traits they do is a bit off-putting - pacifist boys never got to marry (yes, marry) and
raise kids as easily as warrior boys could.

 

[Sand Dancer]

Yes, and in most cultures, going way way back, man and women thought that way.
We see this playing out now in Afghanistan. Westerners think the Afghan mentality
is revolting and Afghans think WE are revolting. And tomorrow the world will be full of
such religious, conservative and fundamentalist people because they are having the
children - the 'refugees', immigrants and priveleged citizens in your country who will
push dirty Westerners out of their suburbs, buy up churches, vote in large blocks as
their Immans tell them and go after gays.

That's so sad.

 

[Sand Dancer]

I'm assuming that you are referring to the way things have been, not the way you think they should be.

You assume correctly.

 

[Sand Dancer]

I don't agree with that at all.
Women aren't property. They are not owned by their husbands.
Both man and wife have a duty to each other.
Any married person who sleeps with other than their spouse commits adultery.

That's how it was in Bible days.

 

[PruePhillip]

That's so sad.

Have kids, lots of kids. Good for the economy, critical for your culture.

 

[DNB]

If you want to stick your head in the sand, there is really nothing I can say to you.

So, I've achieved my objective then?

 

[ChristineM]

We don't know - not sure how you would find a way to tell if a 10,000 year old society's
rules were written by men or women. Can't be all one way - most likely it's a combination
of men or women for the survival of that culture. For instance in hunter gatherer societies
the boy who is prized to a girl is the one who is the brave warrior - makes sense when you
are raising kids and the world is full of tribal violence. So condemning boys for having the
genetic traits they do is a bit off-putting - pacifist boys never got to marry (yes, marry) and
raise kids as easily as warrior boys could.

Easy, the rules favour the men while the women are treated as property. This has been universal for thousands of years

Nope, not marry, marriage/ownership is a fairly modern phenomenon born of civilisation, not hunter gatherers. Who's women did the gathering and men the hunting (mostly).

 

[PruePhillip]

Easy, the rules favour the men while the women are treated as property. This has been universal for thousands of years

Nope, not marry, marriage/ownership is a fairly modern phenomenon born of civilisation, not hunter gatherers. Who's women did the gathering and men the hunting (mostly).

So there's this society where the boys are raised like Spartan kids, learning violence, initiation,
mock battles etc..These boys become warriors and go off to battle, and like about 30% of all
young hunter gatherer men back then (yes, 25-30% carrying battle trauma in their skeletons)
are killed as the tribe is defended or extended - while the young women remain at home and
raise kids.
Question - who is sexist, the men or the women in this situation?