Decline of Christianity and Religion

[setarcos]

I did NOT say casual sex inside marriage is ok. You make a commitment by becoming married, you should stick to that commitment unless the marriage is breaking down.

I think you misunderstood me. I'm not sayin casual sex - sex for the sake of giving pleasure to each other - is wrong within marriage. It may vary well be essential. What I meant was that casual sex has consequences beyond simply performing the act of pleasuring one another. I think its easier for those consequences to be negative outside a committed relationship such as what one should have within marriage.

Most people have many sexual partners before they settle down, if you just see consensual sex as an 'urge' leading to 'humanities self-destruction' ok, but I disagree, and again it is another example of religion being out of step with the population.

Lol....yes, I don't have my head stuck in the sand. Does multiple sexual partners increase ones chance for long term happiness in a long term relationship? I don't think current data suggests that. Does settling down with your first relationship ensure a lasting and loving one. Not sure that's the case either. However, what having multiple sexual partners does do I think is increase the odds of perverting having a healthy lasting relationship by promoting unrealistic expectations from your partner. And I think religion is supposed to be "out" of step with the population if the general population displays destructive behaviors. As far as defining morality. Nothing wrong with that.

 

[DNB]

It depends on what you mean by devout. Those who actually follow Jesus' teachings would be more moral, but there are so few of those. The worshipers are not very moral, but the followers are. Religion based on beliefs do not cause morality. Religion based on action does.

Define them as you like, I believe that we are both talking about the same thing: sincere and mature Christians are more moral than atheists.

 

[DNB]

I dont think that's true.

Of course it's true, they have the divine precepts, and the beginning of all wisdom is believing that their is a God. Atheists are defined as '...the fool says in his heart, that there is no God...'
Fools do not have wisdom, and thus, the awareness of the insidious and subversive nature of sin. They approve of things that they deem benign and acceptable, whereas they have not the discernment to know the difference. Of course, I'm not talking about the obvious sins like murder, rape, kidnapping, adultery, or stealing (necessarily). But, about the ones that require enlightenment to recognize: fornication and promiscuity, recreational drugs, white lies, retaliation, jealousy, selfishness, etc...

 

[Sand Dancer]

Define them as you like, I believe that we are both talking about the same thing: sincere and mature Christians are more moral than atheists.

Well, again, there little indication of this, so those types must be very few and far between. That is one reason why people are not as interested in converting. If it doesn't make you a better person, what good is it?

 

[firedragon]

Of course it's true, they have the divine precepts, and the beginning of all wisdom is believing that their is a God. Atheists are defined as '...the fool says in his heart, that there is no God...'
Fools do not have wisdom, and thus, the awareness of the insidious and subversive nature of sin. They approve of things that they deem benign and acceptable, whereas they have not the discernment to know the difference. Of course, I'm not talking about the obvious sins like murder, rape, kidnapping, adultery, or stealing (necessarily). But, about the ones that require enlightenment to recognize: fornication and promiscuity, recreational drugs, white lies, retaliation, jealousy, selfishness, etc...

You are taking an axiomatic approach to atheists and their morality. That means you have a presupposition. Thats just a bias. All of us have our biases but we should try to be objective as much as we can.

 

[DNB]

Well, again, there little indication of this, so those types must be very few and far between. That is one reason why people are not as interested in converting. If it doesn't make you a better person, what good is it?

Well, the same can be said about atheists, as to how they claim that they don't need supernatural guidance in order to determine right from wrong - they are just as hypocritical. And, to the point, pick any lewd and immoral industry or organization (gang-bangers and related included), can I postulate that the majority of the demography involved in these activities are atheists (rhetorical).

We have charlatans, hypocrites, pretentious and misguided on both sides of the coin. If we take just those who understand the tenets of either position, and abide by them to at least a definitive degree, Christians are more moral than atheists.

 

[DNB]

You are taking an axiomatic approach to atheists and their morality. That means you have a presupposition. Thats just a bias. All of us have our biases but we should try to be objective as much as we can.

No, I offered a fundamental reason as to why they are deficient in their insights to sin and morality - they don't perceive or accept the most fundamental principle of the universe: God, a holy deity, created all things seen and unseen.
...are you going to trust their judgement on issues less obvious?

 

[firedragon]

No, I offered a fundamental reason as to why they are deficient in their insights to sin and morality - they don't perceive or accept the most fundamental principle of the universe: God, a holy deity, created all things seen and unseen.
...are you going to trust their judgement on issues less obvious?

See, DNB, telling me that Atheists dont believe in God is like telling me blue is of colour blue.

They do not use the word sin, but their moralities are in place DNB. You cannot generalise anything to anyone. Anyway, I dont want to engage with this any more. Thanks for your response.

 

[Altfish]

People are not always mature enough to handle those decisions. The hardships could be avoided if people were more responsible with their minds and bodies. Casual sex isn't without risks, so prior thought and discussion at least lessens them somewhat. Engage mind before body.

Crossing the road isn't without risks, driving a car isn't without risks, etc, etc

 

[Sand Dancer]

Well, the same can be said about atheists, as to how they claim that they don't need supernatural guidance in order to determine right from wrong - they are just as hypocritical. And, to the point, pick any lewd and immoral industry or organization (gang-bangers and related included), can I postulate that the majority of the demography involved in these activities are atheists (rhetorical).

We have charlatans, hypocrites, pretentious and misguided on both sides of the coin. If we take just those who understand the tenets of either position, and abide by them to at least a definitive degree, Christians are more moral than atheists.

Most folks in prison are Christian. Atheists are only about 2% of the population. It's not like anyone needs deities to be moral.

 

[Sand Dancer]

Crossing the road isn't without risks, driving a car isn't without risks, etc, etc

And that is why we should make smart choices, think ahead about the possible consequences of our actions, and be ready to know what to do in case they happen.

 

[Altfish]

And that is why we should make smart choices, think ahead about the possible consequences of our actions, and be ready to know what to do in case they happen.

Hence the phrase "safe sex"

 

[Fallen Prophet]

your might want to revise your literacy ranking.

The sources I provided were updated in January of 2020.

It is possible that the World Population Review and the Barbara Bush Foundation for Family Literacy use different metrics to determine "literacy".

When was your source last updated?

Looks like Kentucky is 37 out of 50; which has only recently changed and probably due in part to the influx of immigration to california and/or texas.

Even if this were true - it would be irrelevant.

It was you - not I - you used literacy rates as an indicator of intelligence.

You believe that all "immigrants" are "dumb"?

kentucky's majority percentage is white; where californians have a much higher percentage of latinos, hispanics, and asians than kentucky.

So - according to you - Latinos, Hispanics and Asians are "dumb" - right?

kentucky also probably has a higher rate of evangelicals; which are associated with the GOP

I think it's sad that people now divide religion on party lines too.

 

[DNB]

Most folks in prison are Christian. Atheists are only about 2% of the population. It's not like anyone needs deities to be moral.

Yes, we do need the Deity to be moral. Man is desensitized, impressionable, and easily enticed, with the uncanny ability to justify his actions after the fact. He has no idea of the principle of self-discipline, self-sacrifice, and holiness. If we were left to be guided by only the conventions and constructs of this world, all hell would break loose.

 

[firedragon]

It seems like the reason for this topic to turn into a discussion on sex, is because the religions are apparently on the decline because of sex.

Maybe freud might be a good candidate to have been still living.

 

[Sand Dancer]

Yes, we do need the Deity to be moral. Man is desensitized, impressionable, and easily enticed, with the uncanny ability to justify his actions after the fact. He has no idea of the principle of self-discipline, self-sacrifice, and holiness. If we were left to be guided by only the conventions and constructs of this world, all hell would break loose.

Your opinion. Those with no religions do moral things and people with religions do immoral things. Your god should not have made such horrible creatures. And just speaking of your god, he has a pretty crappy morality in the Old Testament. That's messed up.

 

[DNB]

Your opinion. Those with no religions do moral things and people with religions do immoral things. Your god should not have made such horrible creatures. And just speaking of your god, he has a pretty crappy morality in the Old Testament. That's messed up.

The God of Abraham, Jacob, Moses, David, Jesus, Peter and Paul, is an impeccable and holy Deity, where absolutely no darkness resides.
Man, on the other hand, is something entirely different and antithetical to what God is, and he deserved everything that he received in the Old Testament, and will receive in the end times. Every single one of us has spat in God's face, and the only reason that we're all still alive is because of His mercy.
...man should be more reverent and grateful.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Define them as you like, I believe that we are both talking about the same thing: sincere and mature Christians are more moral than atheists.

That may depend on what you see as moral.
But if your point is that Christians following Christian moral precepts are more moral judged by Christian standards than non-Christians, then that's basically a truism. Still, whatever helps you sleep.

 

[danieldemol]

People are more into custom designing their spirituality than being part of a given religious tradition. I do not think this is for the best -- being involved in a religious community is associated with being healthier, happier, longer lived, and having a buffer against anxiety and depression. We will not be as well off with this "spiritual not religious" deal.

I've thought about this before and considered joining either a Unitarian Universalist or Secular Humanist community because of it, however both present their problems, UU seems to only be in Darlinghurst which is a long way from me and it is impractical for me to move due to various reasons, whilst secular humanism is not a neat fit because I believe in God even though I do not believe there is any proof or evidence for God.

But to help you understand the spiritual but non-religious mindset here are a couple of thoughts.

1. It is only statistically true that people in a religious community will live longer etc, that means that some of us non-religious folk will lead happy long fulfilled lives and this nullifies the utility for us to be part of a religious community at the individual level.

2. Suppose just purely hypothetically you knew that Judaism is false. You may be able to fake it outwardly to remain part of your religious community for the benefits you described, but inwardly you would be one of us (ie non-religious), so do you think that if you knew Judaism was false and/or harmful you could inwardly just choose to be Jewish regardless of what you outwardly professed?

I think you would at least begin by inwardly modifying the bits of your belief you see as either harmful and/or untrue - and then you would be one of us.

In my opinion.

 

[danieldemol]

Man, on the other hand, is something entirely different and antithetical to what God is, and he deserved everything that he received in the Old Testament, and will receive in the end times. Every single one of us has spat in God's face, and the only reason that we're all still alive is because of His mercy.

If that is the attitude your God has to us humans he is deserving of being blasphemed.

I certainly haven't spat in any god's face and if your God is going to slander me as a pretext to gratuitously torment me your God can go jump in a lake.

In my opinion.