Belief in God versus the Evolutionist's put down

BrianCalgary

OK, maybe I'll bite.

No matter who you are you have beliefs as to how a country should be run both economically and socially.

I am a Christian so I believe that if our society was run based on Judeo-Christian values we would have ot pretty good.

The non-Christian would scream, 'you're not letting me do what I want though, you're strangling me.' Prohibition here comes to mind.

The non-Christian would then get involved in politics and bring there morality into the picture and strive to impose his morals on that same society.

Prohibition goes. The pendulum swings the other way. Here comes the Christian, 'alcoholism and drunkenenss is destroying our society, outlaw liquor and alcohol.'

To which the non-Christian says, 'beware the Christian right. They are trying to impose their outdated values on our society.'

philologos

Scofflaw wrote: »

So, you would promote the idea that the laws of the land should reflect aspects of Christian morality?

If only, that would be fantastic in my opinion!

robindch

FC wrote:

I see no problem with certain aspects of Christian morality being integral to the laws of our land.

Brian wrote:

I am a Christian so I believe that if our society was run based on Judeo-Christian values we would have ot pretty good.

Jakkass wrote:

If only, that would be fantastic in my opinion!

Well, if you guys had write-access to the Statute Book, what laws would you enact? Please be specific -- remember you're writing laws that must be interpreted by judges!

BrianCalgary

robindch wrote: »

Well, if you guys had write-access to the Statute Book, what laws would you enact? Please be specific -- remember you're writing laws that must be interpreted by judges!

:eek: I sometimes wonder why we leave it up to judges as opposed to the heart intent of a law.

robindch

Brian wrote:

I sometimes wonder why we leave it up to judges as opposed to the heart intent of a law.

It's all to do with things like the independence of the judiciary, the delicate balance of power, the transparency of process, encouraging legislators to draft clear laws, the relationship between the rulers and the ruled, the use of precedence, the value of consistency, the powers of the enforcers and so on.

Democracy doesn't work if interpreters are allowed to decide that a piece of text means something other than what it says (which, I suspect, may be the cause of your unhappiness with judges).

Anyhow, some suggested "christian-derived" laws anybody? Yiz're all uncharacteristically quiet...!

Scofflaw

robindch wrote: »

Anyhow, some suggested "christian-derived" laws anybody? Yiz're all uncharacteristically quiet...!

Tricky. After all, prohibitions against robbery, theft, murder, rape, false witness, etc etc turn up in all ancient law tracts from Ur-Nammu (2100BC) on.

cordially,
Scofflaw

pinksoir

A new thread perhaps?

Fanny Cradock

robindch wrote: »

Anyhow, some suggested "christian-derived" laws anybody? Yiz're all uncharacteristically quiet...!

That's because we realise you rabbit atheists are chomping at the bit, so to speak. Admittedly I don't have the specific knowledge to tie the origins of legal system to Christianity. But do you believe that, in our ounce overtly Christian country (and I apply that statement in general terms), Christian morality has not shaped our laws?

robindch wrote: »

Well, if you guys had write-access to the Statute Book, what laws would you enact? Please be specific -- remember you're writing laws that must be interpreted by judges!

I'm quite happy to let the legislators decide matters of State. That's their role after all. I feel absolutely no compunction for not do their job for them.

philologos

robindch wrote: »

Anyhow, some suggested "christian-derived" laws anybody? Yiz're all uncharacteristically quiet...!

I could mention some, but you'd be crying out about how they aren't in the "moral Zeitgeist".

One that comes to mind would be measures on adultery. I believe the promises of marriage should be legally protected.

Ireland's policy on abortion is most favourable at the minute.

Scofflaw

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

That's because we realise you rabbit atheists are chomping at the bit, so to speak. Admittedly I don't have the specific knowledge to tie the origins of legal system to Christianity. But do you believe that, in our ounce overtly Christian country (and I apply that statement in general terms), Christian morality has not shaped our laws?

It's very hard to see where they have, really. However, I think my original question "would we find it hard to find Christian posters who believe that the law of the land should reflect Christian morality", has been answered. We evidently wouldn't.

As to how you'd identify specifically Christian laws, I'm not sure. Has anyone any suggestions as to how you identify a specifically Christian law? Coincidence with the Bible is insufficient, since much of what is covered there is covered elsewhere previously.

I'm ignoring "rabbit atheists chomping at the bit" for the moment, although I have to say it's a very colourful image.

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I'm quite happy to let the legislators decide matters of State. That's their role after all. I feel absolutely no compunction for not do their job for them.

Hmm. Given the choice of two otherwise identical candidates, would you support by preference the one who wishes to bring in "Christian" laws?

cordially,
Scofflaw

Fanny Cradock

Scofflaw wrote: »

It's very hard to see where they have, really. However, I think my original question "would we find it hard to find Christian posters who believe that the law of the land should reflect Christian morality", has been answered. We evidently wouldn't.

Maybe. But there is a difference between desiring something and imposing something. DeVore implied the latter.

As to how you'd identify specifically Christian laws, I'm not sure. Has anyone any suggestions as to how you identify a specifically Christian law? Coincidence with the Bible is insufficient, since much of what is covered there is covered elsewhere previously.

Scofflaw wrote: »

I'm ignoring "rabbit atheists chomping at the bit" for the moment, although I have to say it's a very colourful image.

Woops!

Scofflaw wrote: »

Hmm. Given the choice of two otherwise identical candidates, would you support by preference the one who wishes to bring in "Christian" laws?

cordially,
Scofflaw

Not necessarily. I'd like to think I would vote for this hypothetical candidate based on a number of factors - including those outside their Christian belief. They certainly would tick a box but that wouldn't guarantee them a vote. For example, there are some American politicians who apparently run predominately on the fact that they are Christians. Despite this, they wouldn't get my vote given the choice. George Bush springs to mind here.

Scofflaw

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Maybe. But there is a difference between desiring something and imposing something. DeVore implied the latter.

I think the quote there is this one:

DeVore wrote:

You have though, neatly betrayed an example of the type of mindset (ie: religion should be in charge of society) which greatly annoys those of us who dont belong to that particular "club".

I would say, myself, that there are many ways for religion to be in charge of society. For example, if a majority vote to impose laws that penalise adultery (cf Jakkass) because their religion says adultery is wrong, that is hardly an extraordinary situation. All that is necessary is for a sufficiently influential minority to desire such laws, and a majority to be willing to vote for them rather than "go against their conscience".

I'm not arguing for a second that every person who is religious will either desire such a law, or support such a law. There are plenty of religious people who will say "it is not for society to enforce religious morality through law", which is the essence of the secular position. However, I would argue that it is certainly harder for a religious person to say that than it is for the irreligious, and more likely that they won't.

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

As to how you'd identify specifically Christian laws, I'm not sure.

It's a tricky one, alright. Jesus didn't really do the whole 'lawgiver' thing, which I suspect is part of the reason Christians often fall back on the OT for definitive statements.

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Not necessarily. I'd like to think I would vote for this hypothetical candidate based on a number of factors - including those outside their Christian belief. They certainly would tick a box but that wouldn't guarantee them a vote. For example, there are some American politicians who apparently run predominately on the fact that they are Christians. Despite this, they wouldn't get my vote given the choice. George Bush springs to mind here.

Hmm. Yes, hence the "otherwise identical". However, we can make the matter easier by considering, say, a referendum to legislation that makes adultery (or idolatry, or coveting) punishable by law, based on the relevant Christian teachings on the subject. Would you vote against such legislation on the basis that religious morality should not be enforced by law? Or would you vote for it on the basis that laws in tune with Christian morality are better for society?

The question is, of course, open to all posters. I might make it a poll.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Acid_Violet

Jakkass wrote: »

I could mention some, but you'd be crying out about how they aren't in the "moral Zeitgeist".

One that comes to mind would be measures on adultery. I believe the promises of marriage should be legally protected.

Can we stone 'em?

Zombrex

Jakkass wrote: »

I believe the promises of marriage should be legally protected.

What do you mean?

Should two people who are not happy together and do not want to stay together should be legally forced by the State to remain in a loveless marriage?

Ciaran500

Wicknight wrote: »

What do you mean?

Should two people who are not happy together and do not want to stay together should be legally forced by the State to remain in a loveless marriage?

Pretty sure he means cheating on your wife/husband should be punishable by law.

Zombrex

Ciaran500 wrote: »

Pretty sure he means cheating on your wife/husband should be punishable by law.

Oh right ... how would that work? A fine? Jail time? Your wife/husband gets to have a "free go?"

Seems rather pointless to me. Is it proper that the State sends out the message to people creating a situation where someone goes "Well I was going to shag my secretary but I won't now because I really don't want that €5000 fine for doing so"

If the only thing stopping a person cheating on their husband or wife is criminal intervention from the State the marriage has pretty serious problems to begin with.

PDN

Wicknight wrote: »

Oh right ... how would that work? A fine? Jail time? Your wife/husband gets to have a "free go?"

Seems rather pointless to me. Is it proper that the State sends out the message to people creating a situation where someone goes "Well I was going to shag my secretary but I won't now because I really don't want that €5000 fine for doing so"

If the only thing stopping a person cheating on their husband or wife is criminal intervention from the State the marriage has pretty serious problems to begin with.

I guess this depends on your definition of marriage.

We have plenty of laws that hold people to contracts that they make. If you sign a contract to rent a property for a 5 year lease then there are penalties for breaking the contract. That is not Christian morality so much as common values we all cherish such as honesty and integrity.

If you make promises to another person (in this case your spouse) that you will behave in a certain way for the rest of your life, and if you insist on those promises being recognised by the State in a public ceremony, then it hardly seems unreasonable that you get penalised for breaking the contract.

I would be in favour of people being able to contract civil unions with each other that are temporary contracts that allow for no fault divorces whenever you want. These unions would attract all the tax advantages of marriage. The rest of us, who really want to make lifelong commitments to someone, and who value our integrity enough not to want to bail out when we feel like it, could still get married.

Scofflaw

PDN wrote: »

I would be in favour of people being able to contract civil unions with each other that are temporary contracts that allow for no fault divorces whenever you want. These unions would attract all the tax advantages of marriage. The rest of us, who really want to make lifelong commitments to someone, and who value our integrity enough not to want to bail out when we feel like it, could still get married.

Thereby making everyone else feel their relationship is second class, and that they themselves lack integrity - a sort of state-sponsored condescension. Ah well.

cordially,
Scofflaw

robindch

Scofflaw wrote:

Thereby making everyone else feel their relationship is second class, and that they themselves lack integrity

...which is similar, I believe, to what lies behind the common antipathy towards extending the rite of marriage to include gay people. If, through marriage, you're in part making a statement about your own heterosexuality in a society which was taught to reject it as a base abomination, then wouldn't gay marriage retrospectively invalidates that statement?

PDN

robindch wrote: »

...which is similar, I believe, to what lies behind the common antipathy towards extending the rite of marriage to include gay people. If, through marriage, you're in part making a statement about your own heterosexuality in a society which was taught to reject it as a base abomination, then wouldn't gay marriage retrospectively invalidates that statement?

Let's not try to launch yet another homophobia smear against Christians?

No, I don't consider marriage to be making a statement about my heterosexuality. My marriage is a statement about my love and commitment to my wife - and we consider ourselves bound in a lifelong union due to the vows we made in the sight of God (a covenant) rather than the legal side of stuff when we signed the register (a contract).

If the government chooses to alter the basis of marriage to allow men to marry other men (or even bicycles) then that does not affect my marriage in the slightest. If the government chooses to make no fault divorce available at a drop of a hat, or even to abolish marriage altogether - that would invalidate nothing in my marriage. I would still be bound to keep the promises I made.

My original point is that people should keep the promises they make if society is to operate on any kind of basis of trust. If marriage vows include a commitment for life, or vows of fidelity, then it does not appear unreasonable that there should be penalties for breaking those vows, so long as said vows are in a legal framework recognised by the government. Since a large part of society appears incapable of keeping such promises then why not give then a less onerous 'civil union' that won't ask them to make promises they can't keep?

Incidentally, this is why I will never vote for a politician whom I know has committed adultery. It is an integrity and trust issue, not a matter of Christian morality. If the guy couldn't keep the most important promises he made in his life then he certainly isn't likely to keep all the promises he makes in an election campaign.

DeVore

I have no issue with people voting as they see fit for whatever reason they see fit that way

What I have a problem with is representation beyond that or special pleadings for their rules to become everyone's rules. The attitude that religious organisations should have some sort of special position (church and state anyone?) really grinds my gears.

DeV.

MDTyKe

Hmm, while all this is interesting, it does raise a point. Christianity lies behind the principal of Love, which is what Jesus tried to teach. It is *that*, that Christians are meant to go and spread - the perfect love story as such - not necessarily religious legislation.

However, "legislation" as such is meant to come naturally if you follow it. For example, if you love somebody, you ain't going to murder them.. therefore to say "Do not kill" isn't necessarily a backdated tradition as such.

The Bible is full of principals, which, if followed usually end up for the 'greater good' that everyone so earnestly seeks. A good one to throw into the fan is that about pre-marital sex. While it's not there to say "do not enjoy yourself", as many of the Bibles great "heroes" were involved in things even modern society would moot, it's there to protect the greater, ie: kids getting stable families; if the husband-wife morals are followed. It's one of those really...


Matt

daveharnett

PDN wrote: »

we consider ourselves bound in a lifelong union due to the vows we made in the sight of God (a covenant) rather than the legal side of stuff when we signed the register (a contract).

Well said. If only everyone could understand and respect the importance of keeping religion and government apart.

On the subject, does anyone know if you can get married by the catholic church(a covenant in PDN's terms), without being legally married?

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

If you make promises to another person (in this case your spouse) that you will behave in a certain way for the rest of your life, and if you insist on those promises being recognised by the State in a public ceremony, then it hardly seems unreasonable that you get penalised for breaking the contract.

For what purpose? What would that actually do?

(you seem to be ignoring why we have laws such as fraud covering business contracts)

PDN wrote: »

The rest of us, who really want to make lifelong commitments to someone, and who value our integrity enough not to want to bail out when we feel like it, could still get married.

You would stay in a loveless marriage (and I assume require your wife to as well) rather than leave? Again, why? What purpose does that serve? Would you lie to your wife and pretend to love her even if you didn't? Do you think that is fair on her?

Asiaprod

MDTyKe wrote: »

The Bible is full of principals, which, if followed usually end up for the 'greater good' that everyone so earnestly seeks.

Personally, I would rather say guidelines.:)That provides for flexibility, which for me is key.

Zombrex

Asiaprod wrote: »

That provides for flexibility, which for me is key.

Exactly.

Clean your mildew - Good princple
Homosexuality is an abomination - Bad principle

Don't eat a goat's heart cooked in its stomach - Good principle
Adulterers should be executed, painfully - Bad principle

I could go on ...

PDN

daveharnett wrote: »

Well said. If only everyone could understand and respect the importance of keeping religion and government apart.

On the subject, does anyone know if you can get married by the catholic church(a covenant in PDN's terms), without being legally married?

No, I don't think you can, that would apply to any Church including the Catholic Church. I don't think any church will go down the road of carrying out weddings that are not legal - it would just open them up to the accusation of conducting 'pretend' weddings.

PDN

Wicknight wrote: »

For what purpose? What would that actually do?

It might make marriage actually be something significant rather than a farce.

(you seem to be ignoring why we have laws such as fraud covering business contracts)

Maybe you could state what those reasons are and say how I am ignoring them?

You would stay in a loveless marriage (and I assume require your wife to as well) rather than leave? Again, why? What purpose does that serve? Would you lie to your wife and pretend to love her even if you didn't? Do you think that is fair on her?

Love is not something you fall in and out of. It is a choice. If I was in a loveless marriage it would be because I, or my wife, had chosen to do so, thereby breaking our wedding vows where we promised to love one another.

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

It might make marriage actually be something significant rather than a farce.

How exactly?

How does a criminal charge or fine make a person love someone else?

PDN wrote: »

Maybe you could state what those reasons are and say how I am ignoring them?

Certainly, money

The vast majority of reasons that there are legal systems around contracts is to protect investment of money.

Since marriage isn't about money, its about love, that becomes rather redundant.

Two people in a business contract don't have to love each other. They don't even have to like each other. They do have to pay each other.

You can make someone pay up, you can't make someone love someone else. What you are talking about is criminalizing not loving someone anymore

Marriage isn't a business.

PDN wrote: »

Love is not something you fall in and out of.

Oh it most certainly is.

PDN wrote: »

It is a choice.

Its not a choice. You don't choose to love someone, and you certain don't choose to stop loving someone. We don't control love, if we did it wouldn't be love.

PDN wrote: »

If I was in a loveless marriage it would be because I, or my wife, had chosen to do so, thereby breaking our wedding vows where we promised to love one another.

What are you talking about PDN?

You seem to have a very bizarre idea of love. Love is not simply saying "Umm, to day I'm going to decide to fall in love with Mary, then maybe next Saturday I might decide to not love her anymore"

Perhaps robots fall in love like that, but not humans.

BrianCalgary

wicknight, love is a choice. Lust you fall in and out of. Love involves a conscious commitment to someone else.

Caring for them through good and bad. Sticking around for the bad and rejoicing in teh good.

Lust, you stick around at your pleasure.

Love is a work at times and a breeze at others.

A college friend of mine used to take public transit to see his girlfriend, about 60 mins to get there. If he sat on that bus thinking of all her bad points, he didn't like her much. If he thought of all her good points, he was in love.

He choose which to think of, love or dislike. He choose how he felt by the time he got there.

Zombrex

BrianCalgary wrote: »

wicknight, love is a choice. Lust you fall in and out of. Love involves a conscious commitment to someone else.

No, commitment involves conscious commitment. You can choose to do this because you love someone. You can choose not to do this despite loving someone.

What you don't choose is to fall in or out of love with someone. That is emotion, it isn't a conscious decision.

As they say in pretty much every soppy love story ever told (including South Park)

"If we could choose who we love, life would be much more convenient, but far less magical"

I very much doubt that either you or PDN consciously decided to fall in love with your partners. You might have decided to commit to them, because you already loved them. You might have decided to marry them, because you already loved them. But you didn't go "You know what, she has nice teeth and doesn't fart in bed, I am going to decide to fall in love with her"

We don't choose when we fall in love. And we don't choose when we fall out of love.

If we did it would be certainly easier, but far less magical.

BrianCalgary wrote: »

A college friend of mine used to take public transit to see his girlfriend, about 60 mins to get there. If he sat on that bus thinking of all her bad points, he didn't like her much. If he thought of all her good points, he was in love.

He sat around thinking about all her bad points? That doesn't sound like your friend was in love. More like he was in love with being in a relationship, but wasn't too happy about his girlfriend. But then if he was still in college he was probably too young to know what real love is.

The biggest probably people have is confusing the sense of happiness of being with someone, anyone, with actually loving a person. There are far too many people who are unhappy not being in a relationship, which makes it difficult for them to tells if they actually love the person they are with or do they just love being with someone, anyone.

robindch

PDN wrote:

Love is not something you fall in and out of.

Brian wrote:

He choose how he felt by the time he got there.

Funny you guys should say this -- I've seen similar things said by other religious people, but never by atheists.

Anybody else seen/not seen this?

Zombrex

robindch wrote: »

Funny you guys should say this -- I've seen similar things said by other religious people, but never by atheists.

Anybody else seen/not seen this?

TBH I have never heard this before, to the point where I had to read both PDN and BC posts twice to make sure they were actually saying what I think they are saying.

Very bizarre. It makes love sound like buying underwear.

Scofflaw

robindch wrote: »

Funny you guys should say this -- I've seen similar things said by other religious people, but never by atheists.

Anybody else seen/not seen this?

It does sound curiously devoid of any passion. I would certainly accept that the fall-in/fall-out level of love is often primarily chemical, and that past that you do have to put work into love - but both PDN and BC appear to be talking about a sort of compassionate commitment hopefully leavened by affection.

To be fair, I think that is what has historically been considered appropriate for marriage, while 'passionate love' has generally been regarded as disruptive and potentially dangerous.

cordially,
Scofflaw

bogwalrus

Two examples.

1; Boyfriend A Loves girlfriend B in the "i choose you" commitment kind of way. He travels 4 hours in a bus every tuesday and friday for the weekend to see his girlfriend "that he loves (supposedly)".

2; Boyfriend A loves girlfriend B in the "real love kind of way" where commitment is second to the love he has for her (or becuase he is so in love he doesnt have to conciously think about commiting to her as thats a given). He also travels 4 hours in a bus every tuesday and friday to see the girlfriend.

Can someone point out the difference between Boyfriend A's transit to see his G/F and Boyfriend B's transit to see his G/F. Lets think on the lines of commitment for Bf A and Love for Bf B.

Would love an atheist response and christian response and then compare answers=)=)

PDN

bogwalrus wrote: »

Two examples.

1; Boyfriend A Loves girlfriend B in the "i choose you" commitment kind of way. He travels 4 hours in a bus every tuesday and friday for the weekend to see his girlfriend "that he loves (supposedly)".

2; Boyfriend A loves girlfriend B in the "real love kind of way" where commitment is second to the love he has for her (or becuase he is so in love he doesnt have to conciously think about commiting to her as thats a given). He also travels 4 hours in a bus every tuesday and friday to see the girlfriend.

Can someone point out the difference between Boyfriend A's transit to see his G/F and Boyfriend B's transit to see his G/F. Lets think on the lines of commitment for Bf A and Love for Bf B.

Would love an atheist response and christian response and then compare answers=)=)

I don't see a lot of difference in the transit. The difference may come about if girlfriend B were to receive facial scars in an accident, or if a potential girlfriend C were to try to muddy the waters.

People do not 'fall in love'. They fall into lust or infatuation. Love is a choice - and an excellent choice at that. I'm sick and tired of hearing selfish men (and it usually is men) using the 'falling out of love' excuse instead of acknowledging their own lack of moral fibre.

PDN

Scofflaw wrote: »

It does sound curiously devoid of any passion. I would certainly accept that the fall-in/fall-out level of love is often primarily chemical, and that past that you do have to put work into love - but both PDN and BC appear to be talking about a sort of compassionate commitment hopefully leavened by affection.

To be fair, I think that is what has historically been considered appropriate for marriage, while 'passionate love' has generally been regarded as disruptive and potentially dangerous.

cordially,
Scofflaw

On the contrary, I believe that the love that is a choice is much more passionate than the biological urge you fall into. Such a love is primarily based around giving pleasure and joy to someone else, rather than gratifying your own impulses and needs.

Zombrex

bogwalrus wrote: »

Two examples.

1; Boyfriend A Loves girlfriend B in the "i choose you" commitment kind of way. He travels 4 hours in a bus every tuesday and friday for the weekend to see his girlfriend "that he loves (supposedly)".

2; Boyfriend A loves girlfriend B in the "real love kind of way" where commitment is second to the love he has for her (or becuase he is so in love he doesnt have to conciously think about commiting to her as thats a given). He also travels 4 hours in a bus every tuesday and friday to see the girlfriend.

Can someone point out the difference between Boyfriend A's transit to see his G/F and Boyfriend B's transit to see his G/F. Lets think on the lines of commitment for Bf A and Love for Bf B.

Would love an atheist response and christian response and then compare answers=)=)

Well in number 1 the boyfriend would simply choose not to love this girl, assuming love is simply a choice that someone can turn on and off at will. I mean why travel so far to see a girl you don't love? Problem solved.

The point is that in reality he isn't choosing to love this girl, he does love her. He loves her for reasons he doesn't control.

What he is choosing to do is to travel that far to see her, and the reason he is choosing to do this is because he loves her

We choose to commit to the people we love. We don't choose to love someone.

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

On the contrary, I believe that the love that is a choice is much more passionate than the biological urge you fall into. Such a love is primarily based around giving pleasure and joy to someone else, rather than gratifying your own impulses and needs.

On what grounds do you choose who you fall in love with someone PDN?

Do you make a list? Why would you choose someone over anyone else? Do you tell the person that you decided to love them, and you could equally decide not to love?

TBH I my be being a little harsh on you. I think you are simply confusing love with commitment. I find it inconceivable that you would really have decided to fall in love with your wife (and I imagine she would divorce you tomorrow if you said that to her). What you did do is decide to commit to her because you loved her and wanted to be with her and wanted to make her happy. The reason it was her rather than any of the other 3 billion women on the planet is because you fell in love with her.

Scofflaw

PDN wrote: »

I don't see a lot of difference in the transit. The difference may come about if girlfriend B were to receive facial scars in an accident, or if a potential girlfriend C were to try to muddy the waters.

People do not 'fall in love'. They fall into lust or infatuation. Love is a choice - and an excellent choice at that. I'm sick and tired of hearing selfish men (and it usually is men) using the 'falling out of love' excuse instead of acknowledging their own lack of moral fibre.

I don't agree - and I speak as a man married for over seven years, and having been with my wife for 15 years. Nor, come to that, do I appear to have any choice but to love my daughter.

The difference, I would say, is that loving my wife is not primarily an act of conscious choice, but an involuntary recognition of compatibility deepened by shared experience.

I agree that the commitment is a choice, and that love, after the initial period of infatuation, requires a decision to continue - but I find it difficult to regard what you're talking about as anything other than, as I said above, compassionate commitment leavened by affection.

The problem I have with it is that the form of love you describe can only work as long as there is commitment, and from the divorce stats we know that Christianity, even evangelical Christianity, is no guarantee of continued commitment.

Certainly I reject the implication that any other form of love is actually just lust based on physical appearance, and liable to disruption from every passing flirt.

cordially,
Scofflaw

PDN

Wicknight wrote: »

On what grounds do you choose who you fall in love with someone PDN?

Do you make a list?

If we are talking about romantic love (eros rather than agape) then yes - I certainly did make a list. Here was mine:

1. I believed that God knew of one person who would be more suited to become my wife than anyone else on earth. Therefore knowing that someone was God's choice for me was number one on the list.

2. Someone who would love God with all their heart and soul and strength. That means that, if presented with the dilemma, she would always do what God wants before what I want.

3. Someone who was full of faith - willing to take risks and be adventurous rather than always playing safe.

4. Someone who possessed basic qualities such as compassion, integrity and the capacity to forgive.

5. Someone with a sense of humour.

6. Physically attractive.

7. An Arsenal supporter.

That was pretty well my list, and in that order (although, at a pinch, I would have sacrificed #7 on the basis that 6 out of 7 isn't bad).

I found someone who matched all seven items. On our second ever date she said she wanted to go somewhere exciting - so I took her to Highbury to watch Arsenal play Leicester City. Today, after 21 years of marriage we are more in love than on our wedding day and having a wonderful life. That has been by choice, not accident.

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

I found someone who matched all seven items.

I'm pretty sure you could find a million people who matched those seven items

Did your wife just happen to be the first one you got around to? Did you say "she'll do"?

bogwalrus

Your choice to be with her though is becuase you truly love her not because she was compatible to your list. It my have been a decision you made to marry her but you already knew you wanted to before the decision, because you truly loved her. Lust, attraction, infactuation are all tools to let that human fall in love and connect at the soul (or something along those lines).
Love is truly abstract and impossible to explain the feeling though some might like to try and think they are close. Its kind of like trying to explain consciousness.

PDN

Wicknight wrote: »

I'm pretty sure you could find a million people who matched those seven items

Did your wife just happen to be the first one you got around to? Did you say "she'll do"?

Actually only one person could have matched #1.

PDN

robindch wrote: »

Funny you guys should say this -- I've seen similar things said by other religious people, but never by atheists.

That is one of the strongest arguments against atheism that I have ever heard.

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

Actually only one person could have matched #1.

Ok, lets back up a bit. God told you that the woman in front of you was to be your wife. And because of that you decided to fall in love with her?

PDN

Scofflaw wrote: »

I don't agree - and I speak as a man married for over seven years, and having been with my wife for 15 years. Nor, come to that, do I appear to have any choice but to love my daughter.

I would think you do have a choice whether to love your daughter or not. As a pastor I deal every day with the consequences of men who deliberately took choices that harmed their children (ie having an affair, knowing full well that it would destroy their marriage and devastate their kids). They had a choice - and they chose not to love. Love, and hate, are not some cosmic forces that hold us helplessly in their grip. We choose whether to love or not, and we choose whether to hate or not.

PDN

Wicknight wrote: »

Ok, lets back up a bit. God told you that the woman in front of you was to be your wife. And because of that you decided to fall in love with her?

No - I decided to love her. I didn't fall anywhere. IMO the whole concept of 'falling in love' is an unthinking and irrational denial of personal responsibility.

bogwalrus

So when they say the love of god is in your hearts (or something like that) does it mean gods love is a choice or something. Please explain that for me please, the whole gods love to his flock if it is based on what you say then it doesnt really mean much no?

For some reason i get the feeling that the atheists should be arguing for your point of view PDN and you for the atheists one.

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

No - I decided to love her. I didn't fall anywhere. IMO the whole concept of 'falling in love' is an unthinking and irrational denial of personal responsibility.

The point about "falling" in love PDN is the idea that love is (supposed) to be a powerful, magical, emotion (I can't believe a Christian is bringing out the sentimentalists in me).

Its not a rational decision based on if the person likes Arsenal or not. ("Sorry we aren't aren't right for each other, you don't even like the Gunners. Whats that? You do like Arsenal! Ok, then I have decided to love you and marry you")

I mean we are so far away from any concept of "love" that I'm aware off I am having a very difficult time even understanding what you are talking about. And I'm not even that sentimental at heart. I know love is an evolutionary response, it is chemicals in the brain. But it is still supposed to be something amazing.

Your description of love sounds like someone buying a car ("Good suspension. ABS brakes. Does it come in red?").

It is so cold and calculated and devote of emotion. You decided to love her based on her matching a list you had already drawn up? Humans don't even decide what food they like, yet you decided to love your wife?

I can't relate. Its about as romantic as a postage stamp.