This makes it very difficult to know about what one is asking from the Diety..
Sorry, I know this is a typo. Such word doesn't exist; you meant "deity"
Posted by Rajan Varadarajan at October 6, 2005 11:06 AMNoah and Joan had the same last name.
Ya think they're brother and sister?
(Sorry, I'll go drag my knuckles back to the other thread)
Posted by j.west at October 6, 2005 11:07 AMGot to admit, the Christian Reich can get the vote out.
Posted by bbtb at October 6, 2005 11:21 AMThis is a actually a huge opportunity for progressives. Because a lot of what progressives teach is rooted in religion. Aggresively quoting Jesus in Democratic campaigns would be how to get to the devout.
And certainly throw the fundamentalists back.
Posted by Samuel Knight at October 6, 2005 11:35 AMA pity Kerry didn't ask Bush in the debates to list off the Ten Commandments.
Betcha Bush would have put in the right to keep and bear arms as the second.
Posted by sagesource at October 6, 2005 11:39 AMAs a devout agnostic, I cannot comment directly on religion or its implications for man. However, I can quote:
"Those who say religion has nothing to do with politics do not know what religion is."
"God has no religion."
- Mahatma Gandhi
“As long as people believe in absurdities they will continue to commit atrocities.”
“Nothing can be more contrary to religion and the clergy than reason and common sense.”
- Voltaire
I should point out that both Gandhi and Voltaire believed in God, but had grave reservations regarding organized religion, which is solely man’s imperfect creation.
I forgot to sign the last post. One last point, religion is responsible for more wars than all other reasons combined.
Posted by tempus at October 6, 2005 12:10 PMOh.My.God --- can 88% of 'murkans be so dumb, that they don't know that Joan of Arc was Noah’s wife? The end times must be at hand -- and if the dinosaurs had been smart enough to build their own Arcs (or marry Joan) they would be able to inherit the world. But Nooooo . . . the dinosaurs had to go extinct, and take over the Natural History Museum racket.
Posted by ck at October 6, 2005 12:16 PMThat study seems silly to me. What if you took out religion and compared the rates of those items listed (abortion, STDs, crime) to the race of those in the population? Would that indicate anything about the proclivity of certain races? No. What if you compared the rates of those things as religion advanced or declined in the same country? Would it yeild the same results? No.
Posted by at October 6, 2005 12:17 PMThat is SO TRUE. I keep saying how the more "Christian" people profess to be, the more they seem to follow the OLD Testament (Judaic beliefs) and almost completely ignore Christ's teachings. I figured this was purposeful. How can you go to a Bible-based church and Bible study and still not know what's in the Bible?
Of course, very few people really follow the tenets of their religion these days -- it's just too hard, or inconvenient, or "unreasonable", which makes it all the more bizarre that a large portion of Americans would think they WANTED to HAVE to be more "Christian."
Posted by caj at October 6, 2005 12:34 PMIf you haven't read it yet, go check this out. Great article from the NYTimes on the parallel Grand Canyon trips of a group of creationists and a group of scientists.
Too bad more people don't pay attention to the commandments Jesus wanted us to focus on: Love the Lord your God with all your heart, your soul, and your mind; and love thy neighbor as thyself (which isn't one of the usual 10, no matter who you ask). That, and in theory, Jesus came to replace "the law" entirely, which includes the 10(ish) Commandments with 613 other ones.
My grandfather always thought we would be better off if everyone just followed the Golden Rule, which is pretty similar in spirit to Jesus' two commandments.
Posted by at October 6, 2005 12:39 PMoop, my bad...anon=kalee
Posted by kaleefornian at October 6, 2005 12:40 PMAs Matthew (of the Mark, Luke and John Book Club) said (at 5:13), "Don't hide your light under a bushel." I paraphrase here, but as far as I can tell organized religion is just the kind of bushel Jesus was warning about in his Sermon on the Mount. And when he said "the meek shall inherit the earth" it was an *admonition* not a *proposition*. "Seek ye first the Kingdom of Heaven" cause it's right there in front of your face, without the need to hide in a dark church and have some intermediary (like a priest) dole it out to you on Sunday. Or worse, deny it to you because you've been "bad." That's my two cents of it, anyway. (:>
Posted by Donald Cormac at October 6, 2005 12:46 PMToo bad more people don't pay attention to the commandments Jesus wanted us to focus on: Love the Lord your God with all your heart, your soul, and your mind; and love thy neighbor as thyself (which isn't one of the usual 10, no matter who you ask).
The Ten Commandments are difficult for an evangelical Christian to follow strictly, for the following reasons:
1. I am the Lord thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. Thou shalt have no other gods before me.
Except G.W. Bush.
2. Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain.
There goes Fox’s prime-time schedule, and Jon Stewart is going straight to hell.
4. Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy.
There goes NFL football, except the Monday night edition. However, watching any NFL football leads to violating commandment #2.
6. Thou shalt not kill.
Well, that rules out the military, the NRA, and 98% of evangelical Republicans.
7. Thou shalt not commit adultery.
That rules out ALL politicians.
8. Thou shalt not steal.
Someone might remind DeLay about this one.
9. Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour.
I don’t want to even go there. There is not enough server storage for that topic.
10. Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor anything that is thy neighbor's.
Ditto. Especially oxen and asses.
Posted by tempus at October 6, 2005 01:41 PMBeing an Army brat, I had the chance to expose myself to all sorts of religions growing up. I was raised Christian, but remember stumping the Sunday School teacher about what Christ would think of what we were doing in Vietnam. I dropped out of any form of organized religion as a pre-teen and could generally be characterized as a secular humanist. My problem with Christianity? Hypocrisy!!! I think American's practice class-based Christianty. By that I mean they demonstrate fellowship to those in their general socioeconmic class, but not above or below. This point was driven home recently when my mother (a lifeline Christian) consoled the wife of a recently deceased fellow-congregation member, but when asked to take a Katrina evacuee proclaimed, "I could never have one of those people in my house! They steal!"...QED
Posted by Roy Batty at October 6, 2005 02:09 PMToo bad more people don't pay attention to the commandments Jesus wanted us to focus on: Love the Lord your God with all your heart, your soul, and your mind; and love thy neighbor as thyself (which isn't one of the usual 10, no matter who you ask). That, and in theory, Jesus came to replace "the law" entirely, which includes the 10(ish) Commandments with 613 other ones.
Those aren't just the ones "Jesus wanted us to focus on". He said that that was a summary of all the law. If you love God with all your heart mind and strength and love your neighbor, you won't break the law. Those two commandments were a part of the law (See Lev. 19:18 and Duet. 6:5), just not part of the 10 commandments. Also, Jesus came to fufill the law, not abloish it. See quotes below
Matt 20:37-40
37Jesus replied: " 'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.' 38This is the first and greatest commandment. 39And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' 40All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments."
Matt 5:17-20
17"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. 19Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven.
Roy,
I don't think you should let other people affect your relationship with God. Men are evil. You shouldn't put your hope in a preacher or a church member but in Christ.
Also, I take issue with your comment about your mother. Christian churches have done a lot for the Katrina victums, including setting up members for taking them into their homes including my church which has a lot of your "high class" members. Not all of us are like your mom.
Posted by Tex at October 6, 2005 02:26 PMTouche' Tex. However, I'm too reality-based to make the leap of faith. I don't discount your faith; some of my best friends are born-again.
However, my point was not that Church's as institutions are incapable of fulfilling Christ's teachings...but that at the individual level, too many American's simply go through the motions for an hour a week.
Posted by Roy Batty at October 6, 2005 02:55 PMRoy,
I agree with you whole heartedly. A lot of people are going through the motions or using the church to "network". Some people can't take the same leap of faith but still show up every week. But it is up to God to judge men's hearts I guess. Church attendance definitely doesn't do much to get you into heaven.
I think that the church can be very dangerous in that it gives men an authority to speak on God's behalf and it is kind of the representation of Christ to the world. Kind of makes me think of the verse below.
Romans 2:23-24
You who make your boast in the law, do you dishonor God through breaking the law? For “the name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles because of you,” as it is written.
Have you sent that passage to King George and the BFEE/PNAC Petroleum Pirate Posse Minions yet, Tex?
Posted by pessimist at October 6, 2005 03:47 PMThere is no such thing as "acting" Christian. Man is incapable of it after The Fall in Genesis.
Posted by muckdog at October 6, 2005 04:22 PMI didn't know that Adam and Eve were Christians!
Posted by pessimist at October 6, 2005 04:56 PMWhat the heck does turn the other cheek mean anyway? I've never understood that. Does this mean that if your husband beats you, you should just stay with him because you deserve it and you should let him do it some more? Can someone who is Christian, or who was raised Christian explain this to me?
Other than a few exceptions, like the one above, and the whole savior thing, Jesus just taught his religion--Judaism. As far as I can tell, he just put Jewish teachings in layman's terms. The problem with fundamentalists (someone said the concentrate on the old testament instead of Jesus' teachings) is that they don't read Talmud. That's where the good stuff is, not in the bible. For example, the Old Testament has death as a punishment for almost anything. Talmud added some new rules, making it virtually impossible to carry out capital punishment. The fundi right-wingers don't know about that. What did Jesus say about capital punishment?
Posted by CG at October 6, 2005 05:42 PMlwys fnd t ntrstng tht Chrst rjctrs fncy thmslvs t hv sm spcl nsght nt th ndrlyng sgnfcnc f Jss' tchng.
Hs mst prtnnt, tht ll hv snnd nd r n dr nd f th Svr t scp trnl dmntn, s nvrbly dscrdd n fvr f spplmntl cnsdrtns t st n's wn prtlty.
Crtnly mny wh clm t b Chrstn lv s pr xmpls, vn t th xtnt f vrtlly dnyng Chrst thrgh thr ctns, bt xtntng n's wn crcmstnc ccrdng t th bd xmpl f stll nthr snnr wll n n wy prp p sl t stnd n th jdgmnt. nly th bld f Chrst shd t Clvry cn clns ny f s frm th glt f sn. nd nly by hs grc thrgh fth n Jss Chrst cn w rcv hs gft f trnl lf. ll ls s bt flthy rgs.
Whl sm my rg tht ths trth s t xclsv, t nly xclds ths wh rjct th ffr whl ncldng ny nd ll tht wll bt cm t Chrst.
best bumper sticker philosophy, English version:
"Dear Lord, please protect me from your followers!"
best bumper sticker philosophy, Spanish version:
"Viva tu vida, no la mia" (live your own life, not mine)
I think I speak for a large percentage of people in the world who have no problem with people following their faith, but *do* have a problem when they try to force their beliefs on others...
CG, "turn the other cheek" simply means do not return hate with hate.
Fundamentalists believe very strongly in the New Testament, not the old, as it is the new Covenent God made with His people.
Posted by Judith at October 6, 2005 07:41 PMIf anyone wants to sue you and take away your tunic, let him have your cloak also. (Matt. 5:40)
Kind of compliments "turn the other cheek".
If someone demands your shirt give him your coat also and God will judge him accordingly. God will judge. Not man.
And nowhere in the Bible does it command that a wife must stay with an abusive husband. She can leave but she can not remarry.
Posted by muckcat at October 6, 2005 07:51 PMThose of us who believe have a very personal, private and spiritual walk with God. Organized religion has nothing to do with that quiet place, where we go to find peace and forgivness.
Bush has succeeded in driving a wedge between those who believe and those who do not. Bush is not a Christian, because we are told that you will know them by their fruits, and his fruits are lying, deception, fraud, murder, revenge, unforgivness, anger, and greed. Those are the fruits of another Master and it is not God or Christ.
Posted by Judith at October 6, 2005 07:55 PMShe can leave but she can not remarry.
Muckcat, I think that is a Catholic belief, is it not?
Posted by Judith at October 6, 2005 07:58 PMSo far as I know it's just an analysis of what actually appears in the Bible relative to the options of an abused wife. Don't know about Talmud. I'm Catholic but I'm not sure what the policy is on abusive marriages. Obviously the RC church has annulments but I have no idea what the policy is on granting an annulment because of abuse.
Posted by muckcat at October 6, 2005 08:04 PMThe divorce rate is not "just over half." If the author plays this loose with this data, what else may we suspect?
THE DIVORCE RATES: Annual per capita, raw numbers, and the lifetime prediction
1. PER CAPITA ANNUAL. The last-reported U.S. divorce rate for a calendar year, available as of May, 2005, is 0.38% divorces per capita per year, the provisional estimate for the year 2003 from the National Center for Health Statistics. The absolute latest annual divorce rate is 0.37 % for the "year" ending Nov. 30, 2004, given in the latest Monthly Vital Statistics Report .
When a rate for the entire calendar year 2004 is released, you can find it in the Vital Statistics Report for the year ending in December 2004, via this page. Later Vital Statistics Reports covering 2005 and later will be available via this page.
Notes on understanding this per capita rate:
This rate is only for the states that keep track of the number of divorces. California, Colorado, Indiana and Louisiana do not.
Since every divorce involves two people, the percentage becomes somewhat more meaningful if you double it. E.g., 0.74% of the entire population gets divorced every year.
A rate per married people, instead of per straight population, would be even more helpful, but we do not know of a consistent source for that number. If you do, please tell us.
U.S. Per Capita Divorce Rates Every Year 1940-1990
Per capita divorce rates 1990-2002:
1991, 0.47%
1992, 0.48%
1993, 0.46%
1994, 0.46%
1995, 0.46%
1995, 0.43%
1997, 0.43%,
1998, 0.42%,
1999, 0.41%,
2000, 0.41%,
2001, 0.40%,
2002, 0.38%
(Mostly from NCHS, some from Census Bureau's Statistical Abstract of the U.S., which often differs from NCHS by 0.01%)
See also U.S. divorce rates and other vital stats from 1950 to 2001.
2. RAW NUMBERS. The Center has released total state and regional marriage and divorce numbers (not the same thing as rates) for the years 2000, 1999 and 1998.
The total numbers of U.S. divorces (excluding the non-counting states) reported finalized annually are 957,200 in 2000, 944,317 in 1999, and 947,384 in 1998.
The total numbers of U.S. marriages (including those states) reported celebrated annually are 2,355,005 in 2000, 2,366,623 in 1999, and 2,267,854 in 1998.
Chart of all states and regions from this report.
3. PROJECTION/PREDICTION. This is the Census Bureau's often-cited "50%" rate, the proportion of marriages taking place right now that will eventually divorce, which has since been revised downward to roughly 43% by the National Center for Health Statistics but was moved back up to around 50% by the Census Bureau in 2002, with even more ifs ands and buts than usual. Most recently, according to the New York Times, it has been revised downward to just over 40%.
One of the best explanations of what is an accurate prediction for this statistic, and of the limits of divorce statistics, is an April, 2005 New York Times article, "Divorce Rate: It's Not as High as You Think."
This kind of thing is probably the best estimate statisticians can come up with, but it is only a prediction of how many people currently entering their first marriages will ever get divorced. It is a very rough estimate even if current trends continue unchanged, but it is also subject to change if divorce becomes more or less popular or available. For a more detailed exploration of the nature of this and other divorce rates, see messages on "Divorce Statistics and Interpretation" by Scott Stanley and Paul Amato, November, 1998
Here is an excerpt from the Census Bureau report, with a link to the full report:
"The National Center for Health Statistics recently released a report which found that 43
percent of first marriages end in separation or divorce within 15 years. The study is based on
the National Survey of Family Growth, a nationally representative sample of women age 15 to
44 in 1995. Bramlett, Matthew and William Mosher. "First marriage dissolution, divorce, and
remariage: United States," Advance Data From Vital and Health Statistics; No.323. Hyattsville
MD: National Center for Health Statistics: 2 1.
"Data in the Census report were collected from both men and women, age 15 and over, and a
different methodology was used than in the NCHS report.
"About 50% of first marriages for men under age 45 may end in
divorce, and between 44 and 52% of women's first marriages
may end in divorce for these age groups. The likelihood of a divorce
is lowest for men and women age 60, for whom 36 % of men
and 32 percent of women may divorce from their first marriage by
the end of their lives. A similar statistical exercise was performed in
1975 using marital history data from the Current Population Survey
(CPS). Projections based on those data implied that about one-third of
married persons who were 25 to 35 years old in 1975 would end their
first marriage in divorce.
"This cohort of people, who in 1996 were about 45 to 55 years old, had
already exceeded these projections as about 40% of men and
women in these ages had divorced from their first marriage. Current
projections now indicate that the proportion could be as high as
50% for persons now in their early forties."
Rose M. Kreider and Jason M. Fields, "Number, Timing, and Duration of
Marriages and Divorces: 1996", U.S. Census Bureau Current Population Reports, February 2002, p. 18.
Russ,
Was the point of all that to say that the divorce rate is more like in the mid to high 40's than just over half? Of course California is one of the most populus states so counting their marriages and not counting their divorces could skew the numbers a bit.
Posted by snark at October 6, 2005 08:13 PM"1Do you not know, brothers—for I am speaking to men who know the law—that the law has authority over a man only as long as he lives? 2For example, by law a married woman is bound to her husband as long as he is alive, but if her husband dies, she is released from the law of marriage.
3So then, if she marries another man while her husband is still alive, she is called an adulteress. But if her husband dies, she is released from that law and is not an adulteress, even though she marries another man." (Romans 7:1-6) (obtained here
I remember clearly a sermon one Sunday morning (back in my Bible-thumping days as an evangelical Protestant) the pastor telling us how divorce is repugnant to God, and that nothing short of death of the hubby allows remarriage. If the husband is abusive, it doesn't matter. Even if unfaithfulness is a factor, it doesn't matter. She can leave, but if she remarries, she's an adultress. It doesn't matter. This is the same youth pastor who taught that we should give 100% of our money, beyond that needed to live, to the church. In all seriousness.
Posted by DukeRevolution at October 6, 2005 09:28 PMif you wanted to reduce divorce...if that were your sole purpose, you could abort every Christian baby in this country, and your divorce rate would go down.
Posted by Bill B at October 6, 2005 10:20 PM1) Divorce rates do not reflect the huge numbers of people creating a dysfunctional familys by not marrying in the first place.
In other words: More bastards = less divorce.
2) The EU nations who are more secular yet have better "indicators" also have poor economies and are militarily weak, therefore they require America's money and military support to survive (and so does the United Nations BTW). They rely on Christian America. So, by extension, they actually are not prospering without religion.
3) If it is true that most Christians cannot recite all 10 Commandments (and I don't doubt that assertion), then how is that any different than most Americans not being able to recite the Bill of Rights, or even tell you what, say, the 4th Ammendment is? Any subgroup is full of ignorance.
4) I'm Jewish, but this is a Christian nation, whether I like it or not - whether you like it or not, and we should be supportive of other people's desire to be moral. Nobody is perfect, and I'm sure there is no shortage of bad people in [insert your group here].
Speaking of ignorance. You know as well as I do that, at least in the modern day, the vast majority of Christains are normal people who just want to live their lives in peace. To suggest otherwise is pretty ignorant, and focusing on the worst elements of a subgroup is no rationale to condemn the whole lot of them.
I see all these people complaining about the intollerance of people they do not tollerate.
Really you have no right to complain about their intolerance when you obviously have your nose up in their business - what is so respectable about that?
Posted by Anonymous at October 6, 2005 11:57 PMAnonymous Coward:
In other words: More bastards = less divorce.
Wrong. The EU has a very low birthrate. The reasons for this are immaterial to the topic at hand, but the government still counts "illegitimate" infants in addition to those offspring birthed within the holy bonds of matrimony. Europeans are more interested in living the good life together than raising a family. That's neither good nor bad at this juncture, though they might see a harmful decline in population over the next few decades.
The EU nations who are more secular yet have better "indicators" also have poor economies and are militarily weak, therefore they require America's money and military support to survive
Poor economies? The four major European nations are in the top ten for GDP purchasing powers! That's pretty damn healthy in my book. Nobody's economy is as healthy as the US. But we're not even in the top 30 for unemployment rates, either. And the EU countries are in the top 25 for per capita GDP, with two Euro countries tying or even surpassing the US! Imagine that! I don't deny the high unemployment rates (10.5% in Germany two years ago. Ouch!), but economic health is comprised of many factors other than that.
They don't value fighting wars, so they don't have a crushing military. After a couple centuries of colonizing other countries and infighting over religious disputes, who can honestly blame them?
we should be supportive of other people's desire to be moral.
Good idea. Let's start by ceasing to be a stop pretending to be Christian nation, which makes a mockery both of the country and of Christ. WWJD? He'd probably shake his head in shame.
Nobody is perfect, and I'm sure there is no shortage of bad people in [insert your group here].
"Nobody is perfect." I love that line. It's a great cop-out of everything from a failure of the justice system to a half-hearted attempt to support a bad politician (ANY OF THEM! NOT JUST THE CURRENT ONE, OKAY!?). The trouble is when these bad apples dictate policy for the whole group, and are the PR of the Christian religion, whether or not the rank-and-file consent.
I see all these people complaining about the intollerance[sic] of people they do not tollerate.[sic]
Ah, but when these people make it a goal to introduce state-sponsored intolerance, wouldn't our silence on the matter far more violate the principles of tolerance than to rebuke them for it? We tolerate their ability to say such things, but when it comes to hijacking the government, we will not sit idly.
Really you have no right to complain about their intolerance
For further research, see: "Amendment, First." Founding Fathers. Constitution of the United States of America Philadelphia, 1776.
...when you obviously have your nose up in their business - what is so respectable about that?
An informed, active citizen is a respectable citizen.
What the heck does turn the other cheek mean anyway? I've never understood that. Does this mean that if your husband beats you, you should just stay with him because you deserve it and you should let him do it some more? Can someone who is Christian, or who was raised Christian explain this to me?
This gets misinterpreted a lot as saying you should let someone beat you up. In the culture Jesus was adressing, slapping someone's check was like spitting in their face - a great insult. I don't think this gesture was done with a lot of force and it was mainly a message of disrespect. Kind of like seeing the Iraqi's hitting things with their shoe as an insult. I guess if he was speaking in that culture today the quote could have been "If someone hits you with their shoe ask them to use the other one also." I'm just taking a stab there, but that's how I see it.
Posted by Tex at October 7, 2005 07:27 AMPretty funny Bill
Posted by Tex at October 7, 2005 07:29 AMThanks Tex. So basically it just means don't take the bait. If someone disses you, just let it go. OK.
Posted by CG at October 7, 2005 03:05 PMWhat the heck does turn the other cheek mean anyway?
I remember hearing the words, "...turn the other cheek..." in sermons at an early age. It's funny that I can't remember having ever been taught its meaning. Regardless, I usually imagine a mash-up of Thoreau, Gandhi, Buddism, and the teachings of Christ when I hear it. I believe it encompasses such concepts as civil disobedience and unconditional love.
Posted by OffTheFence at October 9, 2005 12:13 AM