Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#441
|
|||
|
|||
an_old_friend wrote: Why? The notion of formal marriage is a fairly recent religious invention, perhaps less than 5,000 years old. Many historic civilizations got along just fine without it. as do some modern ones like in Iceland, and other Nordic countries nobody thinks much about young girls having babies before they get married (and not always by the fellow they marry either) If they marry at all, 60% of children in Iceland are born outside of marriage. That does not mean that they are the products of broken homes or broken families (or teenage mothers), what it means is that Icelandic couples tend to do things in the order: meet and then have kids while at the same time finishing their education, buying their first home (and a couple of cars) and then later they probably marry. If they get around to it, I know a few couples that have been together for years (more than 20 in a couple of cases), had a bunch of kids and generally lived their life, without ever marrying. |
#442
|
|||
|
|||
K=D8HB wrote: "Michael Coslo" wrote Couple bonding is one of the best aspects of religion. "Couple bonding" isn't an aspect of religion. It's an aspect of human na= ture (some might even say of animal nature). But I have big problems with unmarried couples having children. Why? The notion of formal marriage is a fairly recent religious inventio= n, perhaps less than 5,000 years old. Many historic civilizations got along= just fine without it. If so successful, where are those civilations today? |
#443
|
|||
|
|||
|
#444
|
|||
|
|||
wrote If so successful, where are those civilations today? A lot of them were over-run by married Europeans with syphilis. beep beep de Hans, K0HB |
#447
|
|||
|
|||
Michael Coslo wrote: wrote: an_old_friend wrote: Why? The notion of formal marriage is a fairly recent religious invention, perhaps less than 5,000 years old. Many historic civilizations got along just fine without it. as do some modern ones like in Iceland, and other Nordic countries nobody thinks much about young girls having babies before they get married (and not always by the fellow they marry either) If they marry at all, 60% of children in Iceland are born outside of marriage. That does not mean that they are the products of broken homes or broken families (or teenage mothers), what it means is that Icelandic couples tend to do things in the order: meet and then have kids while at the same time finishing their education, buying their first home (and a couple of cars) and then later they probably marry. If they get around to it, I know a few couples that have been together for years (more than 20 in a couple of cases), had a bunch of kids and generally lived their life, without ever marrying. Then there is something else in the culture keeping them together. Do the ladies raise their children without the benefit of a male? not without a male but often without the father of the baby or the presence of a male of the same generation as the father - Mike KB3EIA - |
#448
|
|||
|
|||
an_old_friend wrote: Michael Coslo wrote: wrote: an_old_friend wrote: Why? The notion of formal marriage is a fairly recent religious invention, perhaps less than 5,000 years old. Many historic civilizations got along just fine without it. as do some modern ones like in Iceland, and other Nordic countries nobody thinks much about young girls having babies before they get married (and not always by the fellow they marry either) If they marry at all, 60% of children in Iceland are born outside of marriage. That does not mean that they are the products of broken homes or broken families (or teenage mothers), what it means is that Icelandic couples tend to do things in the order: meet and then have kids while at the same time finishing their education, buying their first home (and a couple of cars) and then later they probably marry. If they get around to it, I know a few couples that have been together for years (more than 20 in a couple of cases), had a bunch of kids and generally lived their life, without ever marrying. Then there is something else in the culture keeping them together. Do the ladies raise their children without the benefit of a male? not without a male but often without the father of the baby or the presence of a male of the same generation as the father The women often raise the children by themselves or with the help of a male that is not the father of the child but the children are raised by both parents in a majority of cases. |
#449
|
|||
|
|||
Mike Coslo wrote:
wrote: Mike Coslo wrote: K4YZ wrote: wrote: K4YZ wrote: nobodys_old_friend wrote: Mike Coslo wrote: wrote: Bingo! It is no exaggeration to note that the biggest atheists here in the US are almost all filled to the gills with "Christian Values". ?? I'm not sure what you mean, Mike. Even though a person may proclaim to be an atheist, that person was raised in a society that is pretty much Christian, and overwhelmingly Judeo-Christian. The atheist person is going to have most of those same values as the rest of the society. Maybe. After all, "Christian" societies gave us folks like Joe Stalin and that German guy with the Charlie Chaplin mustache. We all have to have some sort of values, save for the rare and sick few. But all value systems are not created equal. Of course not. Now compare the other value systems to ours, and you see why even atheists have Christian values even if they were raised in a Christian country Way too simplified. "Christians" can't even agree on what "Christian values" are. For example, look at how long some "Catholics" and "Protestants" have been going at each other, in places like Northern Ireland. Is that a "Christian value"? How about equal rights for people of different genders, races, creeds, ethnicities? Heck, go back just 150 years and there were "Christians" arguing that it was His will that some people *own* other people.... And there is nothing wrong with most of those values. The ten commandments? A lot of that is good stuff. Sure - but a lot of that is also not necessarily only derived from religion. The religions were some of original social order came from. Sure - but that doesn't mean we have to do things the way they were done thousands of years ago. Democracy came from the Greeks - who were pagans. In fact most of what we consider "western civilization" (the concept of a republic, the dome and the arch, even the alphabet you read these words with) came from Romans, who were pagans too. Mostly, anyway. But we don't honor Zeus anymore. Most of what is in the Ten Commandments can be easily derived from a pair of questions: "What would a society be like if everyone obeyed that rule?" "What would a society be like if everyone disobeyed that rule?" For example, take stealing. A society composed solely of thieves (people who live by theft rather than production) cannot exist, because pretty soon there will be nothing left to steal. But a society composed of people who don't steal can prosper, because production is the basis of wealth. Therefore stealing is intrinsically "wrong" because it's not productive. We better not stand too hard on that "covet thy neighbors goods stuff, tho'. Depends how you define "covet". Keeping up with the Joneses kind of works that way for me. If my neighbor has a new car, and I want one too, and I work hard and save up to buy one, that's a good thing! That is keeping up with the Joneses And it's a good thing! That's not "coveting" to me. But if my neighbor has a new car, and I want one too, and I hate him for it, try to steal or damage it, that's a bad thing! A redundant commandment? No. And "not having any other God before me" kind of makes it a problem to post it in the courthouse. Why should a courthouse, which is paid for by taxes, be a place where the specific words of one religion are publicized to the exclusion of others? We agree. When they let me post quotes from the Book of Bokonon next to the Ten Commandments.... I see no problem with private citizens posting their Commandments on public property *if* other private citizens have the same right. I want a turtle holding up the world statue! Turtles all the way down! Flying Spaghetti Monster. (look it up) We are what we are, and our heritage is where it comes from. But not just our heritage. We've gotten beyond a heritage of some people owning other people as property. We've gotten beyond a heritage where people of one gender can vote and people of the other gender cannot. Etc. There are some for whom this new state of being is a problem. Are they "Christians"? I suppose that it is a great comfort to many people to "know" just how things are supposed to be, and to have great faith in that "knowing". Of course. But the faithful have had a long and storied history of depriving others of what they believe is their own faith's fundamental rights. Every freedom carries with it at least one responsibility. Freedom of religion can only extend to those religions that can tolerate each other. (For example, a religion that taught that unbelievers must be murdered cannot claim that such behavior is protected by religious freedom. That case is obvious but many similar cases aren't.) Do you think that Fundies actually want freedom? Certainly for themselves, but I wonder about others..... Sometimes the question is more important than the answer... 73 de Jim, N2EY |
#450
|
|||
|
|||
K=D8HB wrote: wrote If so successful, where are those civilations today? A lot of them were over-run by married Europeans with syphilis. beep beep de Hans, K0HB Those Vikings were an impressive lot. |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
K8CPA Email | CB |