In fact, no marriage does. It existed before organised religion and even then it was to do with the union of family resources and interests, or (occasionally) the bond of love. Until the 12th Century gay marriage was an accepted phenomenon even in Christianity. It only became an issue later, when the religious purpose of marriage was deemed to be procreation. The Church has tried to appropriate the concept as their own, but it really isn't.
Im assuming you deny that evolution explains how we evolve from an ape like ancestor? Your a fan of god using magic to poof us here instead?
When I see phrases like "pseudo-scientific" in this context my thoughts always turn to a certain NASA scientist talking about condensation trails reported as chem trails: by "this context" I mean trying to discredit articles based not upon the quality of the scientific study, but by a person's pre existing beliefs.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tWqpeGQVBj8&list=UU1yBKRuGpC1tSM73A0ZjYjQ Here is an interesting interview with Reza Aslan, a man far knowledge able than any of us on this subject. It is interesting how he describes how thinking about and talking about things has changed and how this affects any understanding we have of the Bible. Watch and listen to what he has to say.
I agree with him. The story conveys a truth. (I'm sure he'll be glad to know that I, Lawrence, the un-educated man agrees with him. Must be immensely flattering and gratifying)
It makes perfect sense. Humans think in story. We are not Homo Sapiens, the Thinking Man, but Pan Narrans, the Storytelling Ape. We do not hold in our head a collection of loose knowledge and facts; we weave a network between them, along a linear path of cause and effect. Story. To perceive, understand and explain is story. To infer and plan is story. Cave paintings are story. Dances and songs are story. Rituals are story; so are the names we give to things and people, language, dress, culture. So stories, anecdotes, parables and allegories are the natural way of conveying ideas and principles.
Not what I said; you're still missing the point. So we Christians should not believe him because science says it can’t happen? Of your own volition came into it many posts ago, if you had read everything I've posted in this thread you would know that by now. I'm not going to say God wants to totally enslave and control us; then say He's just guiding us and not infringing on free will in the same post. I'm sorry, I don't see a contradiction. I'll try again. Christians have freedom to do whatever they please. How else would a Christian teach error, commit murder etc? If God was in total control of them wouldn't he stop them? In fact, if He was in complete control of them He’s the one that made them do it. I'm not saying that now, pretty sure I've said it before. If you're implying there is no "correct" way to pray, please do tell how someone who has never studied the Bible knows more about it than someone who has? Best, safest and most civilised for whom? And for how much longer? Sure people are living longer, technology has its merits, the issue here, I’m looking at the world from a Christian perspective and you’re not. If you say so. Yup Greek Not the message contains "good news" to the poor, sick, broken hearted etc, that requires miracles. Pretty much I refer you to the quote and answer above and the words of Jesus Himself. What this to do with blindly following? Your question was along the lines of whether people got married because they saw it was a good thing and not because they feared God would judge them for not doing so. Excellent, thanks for proving my point. I think the arguement has run it's course, I think I've explained sufficiently for anyone to make up their minds. Now it's branching off into stuff that I'm not really interested in or spend my time looking to, or plan to sorry.
Errr yes, yes it is what you said... ..... afaik science hasn't said it cant happen, it a shame Christians have said things proven with fact by science didn't happen though. And you also said... The definition of serve a. To work for. b. To be a servant to. So when you said... If i tell someone i will punish them for "teaching error" how is that "personal freedom". Well your the one that said the studies where not carried out in accord with or sanctioned by biblical teaching, and you also said "Likewise this study applied prayer wrongly", so it there a correct way to apply prayer then ?
In very general terms, for everybody. There are still countries where quality of life is dismal of course, but as a whole this has been the most civilised time to be alive (that's still not saying much, I know, but it is a fact). I'm of course just looking at it from a humanitarian perspective: people matter more than what religious beliefs they espouse. Jesus himself is quoted to have said: "And now abideth faith, hope, charity, these three; but the greatest of these is charity." No, the evidence of human history says so. So the message itself is meaningless to people who are in real trouble? Not much of a message. Now you are being churlish. Not a compelling argument. Yes, and you said that the people who do so are those who don't believe in God.
Doesn't sit well with me either. Are you saying Shichibukai, that the needy may only rely on miracles? From my small perspective of the teaching of the bible, it seems quite off point. I would have thought it would more be to give them hope. As far as I know it is empathy followed with kindness and generosity that by design would save them. Which from a social perspective on a large scale would be a miracle. Again, I think we're linking back to the truths Rezla Aslan spoke of. The miracle is a story. That by virtue of goodwill mankind can save itself from itself. Whether God exists would be in my eyes immaterial.
^^^ Most excellently put. A belief in miracles (which basically means: divine intervention) allows us to sit back and do nothing. If the poor, sick or broken hearted survive, it's a miracle! If they perish, it was obviously God's will (or punishment). We can abdicate concern and responsibility for their fate. Meanwhile the message is discounted: that no man is an island, that we are all involved in humankind and that every person's suffering and death diminishes us as a whole; that we should treat others as we would be treated by them, and that the most important things are faith, hope and charity --the most important of which is charity.
The actually talked about this in Science - Under complimenting darwins theory of evolution how Co-operation between a species is more likely to bring about survival - hence marriage / family / teamwork / civilisations and so forth Interesting to note that Marriages (in whatever form) and so forth could have been before the major religions. Hmm possibly science has an upper-hand here in this domain, when discussing origins of ourselves of course.
This is the beauty of religion. No matter what happens it can be made to fit into reality and whatever circumstances are present at the time. Healed, god loves you. Died, gods plan or punishment or he works in mysterious ways. Those are a just a few of the chestnuts in religion that are catch all for every circumstance. These are ultimately vacuous statements without real meaning or even offer any real sense of consolation (when things go bad). Still, people seem happy to accept them as answers to big questions. Perhaps, because there's not much thinking involved.
It's the dark side of religion for sure. Hopefully the beauty is in its ability to steer our morals towards a single human goal. The media, politicians etc use a keyword for it: values. But we all know how divisive it is also for a whole plethora of reasons - hence the endless ramblings on the interweb by people like us. Also... I didn't know that about marriage. Gay marriage being a recent thing to be discriminatory against? Why is this not the subject of radio interviews etc on radio 4? Seems a rather large oversight for the gay community - but as I don't spend a lot of time researching I wouldn't know if they do I suppose. The idea that union(as in marriage) is only for procreation doesn't make much sense to me.
Certainly, I was using beauty in an ironic sense. The values which are attributed to religion are essentially (in the case of Christianity) values from the late bronze age. Many of which we now disregard (slavery is OK for example) Those which we haven't disregarded (treat people the same as you would like to be treated for example) would still exist without religion. These values would exist without religion because not all modern values are taken from religion. Therefore, there exists another benchmark outside of religion upon which we decide what is good, moral and just. What we perceive as good moral and just evolves and changes as society evolves and changes. The values of religion are essentially stuck in the late bronze age unable to evolve and change. My point is, the possible beauty you attribute to religion is not in fact the beauty of religion, but the beauty of the natural evolution and progression of society.
A man and a women come together, they start a family, they create children, they are responsible for their childrens well-being and upbringing. After all, they brought them into this world. Marriage (a union between a man and a woman) is just a logical step/result of that interaction. It also creates social structure and stability, for all parties involved. It makes perfect sense. Added Family is after all the cornerstone of civilization. It would be nice if we could get back to that, it would be nice if society could promote family instead of the promiscuous destructive behavior that they are promoting today. Just my 2 cents.
a (wo)man and a (wo)man come together, adopt kid(s), they are responsible for their children well being and upbringing. Marriage creates social structure and stability, a better environment for the children. Marriage makes sense for everyone in that regard, regardless of the gender involved.
Indeed. Or what about couples who don't have children at all? There are many, equally valid reasons for marriage.
