The Gospel

[bluess]

I'm not quite sure what you have in mind by "any influence whatsoever on committed relationships". I am under the impression, for example, that there's evidence of a relationship, even if not entirely understood, between premarital sexual conduct and the likelihood of divorce.

I would be interested in seeing those statistics. And does that mean premarital sex with the person that ends up being the spouse, or other people?

 

[ned flandas]

What is christianity?

A relationship with Jesus

 

[ned flandas]

God doesn't step in and take away physical urges. That is a claim that is simply not founded in reality.

Galations 22-23
"But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control."

 

[ned flandas]

You know, I did not realize that you were an artist. Unfortunately, your homepage is blocked by my firm's screening software, so I'll have to consult it later (I hope to find there examples of your work).

But I wasn't speaking of representationalism in art (artistic realism) when I referred to the truth-value of art.

Could I have this link too pleeease. I am an artist as well.

 

[RandFan]

Ursula, I dig your stuff. I love wang land and the self portrait with bird in the rib cage. A bit reminiscent of Frida IMO though not derivative. BTW, does it bother you when others compare your work to other artists? I've often wondered since I have a habbit of it.

And though I am somewhat of a perv, I really do enjoy the female form (and the male one too) fore purely aesthetic reasons. I think Angel of Babylon and black orchid quite good. Many have struggled with reproducing the human body. It's not easy. I have a number of prints that I really enjoy. Picasso's Blue Nude, some Nagels, Vallejo and Varga.

Anyway, great work.

 

[RandFan]

Galations 22-23
"But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control."

This is a scripture. Yes, we KNOW what the claim is. Sadly it is not reality. If you choose to simply accept that then fine. Your belief has no basis in fact. Victorian views of sex have largely led to many serious problems. On the other hand, honest and frank discussion and a realistic approach to issues of sex have been demonstrated to be a healthy alternative to stigma and repression.

 

[RandFan]

Could I have this link too pleeease. I am an artist as well.

The link you request is http://www.metalandmagic.com

Beware, there are a few images that some might find objectionable in some of the links, particularly if naked bodies cause you discomfort. If you don't have a problem with the Sistine Chapel then you should have no problem with any of the images. Though to be sure such images at the artist's site are the exception and not the rule.

My appologies to Ursula if I have spoken out of turn. I don't know her. She certainly deserves the right to speak on her own behalf.

 

[ned flandas]

This is a scripture. Yes, we KNOW what the claim is. Sadly it is not reality. If you choose to simply accept that then fine. Your belief has no basis in fact. Victorian views of sex have largely led to many serious problems. On the other hand, honest and frank discussion and a realistic approach to issues of sex have been demonstrated to be a healthy alternative to stigma and repression.

This is my belief yes.

But I fully agree with you that honest and frank discussion is the best way forward with any situation.

 

[ned flandas]

I loove this one:

http://www.metalandmagic.com/albums/anthromorphic/mindrace.sized.jpg

 

[RandFan]

Ned, you should get permission before posting images. Please see the rules. http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=25744

[#4] You will not post "copyright-protected1" material in its entirety, including "hotlinking2" to images or other media

 

[RandFan]

This is my belief yes.

But I fully agree with you that honest and frank discussion is the best way forward with any situation.

Cool, then we are in agreement as far as that goes.

 

[ned flandas]

Cool, then we are in agreement as far as that goes.

Excellent, and the art as well.

Thats two things.

 

[ceo_esq]

I would be interested in seeing those statistics. And does that mean premarital sex with the person that ends up being the spouse, or other people?

I'll poke around to see what I find online ... and my understanding is that the correlation appears at least where the premarital sex was with someone who doesn't end up being the spouse. Beyond that, I don't specifically recall.

 

[articulett]

I'll poke around to see what I find online ... and my understanding is that the correlation appears at least where the premarital sex was with someone who doesn't end up being the spouse. Beyond that, I don't specifically recall.

I remember the statistic--but it didn't take into account how many divorces were prevented by people who felt compelled to marry others to sanctify their sex life or whatever. Evangelical Christians have the highest divorce rate, btw.
And I would never marry someone I didn't live with first.

Of course, I think religions invent problems--souls that live forever, gods, devils, "life is a test", etc. etc. and then proffer a solution and sit back while god and their banal teachings are everlastingly praised for bringing "salvation" and keeping "evil" at bay.

I think religions promote ignorance...they train their members to twist facts and evidence to support predetermined truths. They tell people faith and feelings are paths to truth (they aren't...just a good way to fool yourself). They are promoters of confirmation bias and ignorance on a grand scale and they encourage people not to ask too many questions because that can lead to hell (or is a sign of demons...or a sign that they are losing that fab gift of faith).

To me, all religious teaching are the equivalent of raindancers trying to refine their rain dance just right to please the rain gods so they'll let it rain. A hamster wheel of delusion.

You can study astrology, palmistry, the bible, or the koran ad nauseaum and still not know anything useful or true.

 

[kurious_kathy]

Hey, you and I will probably not agree on a lot, but you're straightforward and honest with your answers. That's a refreshing change from a certain poster who started this mess.

Are you throwing stones at me RT? I would just like to state that everything I share here on this board is what I believe. I take God at His word. I still have much to learn, but at least I believe which in my opinion is better than not believing. Is that a direct and honest enough answer for you?

 

[ceo_esq]

I would be interested in seeing those statistics. And does that mean premarital sex with the person that ends up being the spouse, or other people?

On Google Scholar I found the following abstracts of relevant papers:


Kahn, J.; London, K. "Premarital Sex and the Risk of Divorce". Journal of Marriage and Family (Nov. 1991):

Examined relationship between premarital sexual activity and risk of divorce among women married between 1965 and 1985. Found that nonvirgin brides faced considerably higher risk of marital disruption than did virgin brides. Results suggest that positive relationship between premarital sex and risk of divorce can be attributed to prior unobserved differences rather than to direct causal effect.

Axinn, W.; Thornton, A. "The Relationship between Cohabitation and Divorce: Selectivity or Causal Influence?" Demography (Aug. 1992):

Recent evidence linking premarital cohabitation to high rates of divorce poses a complex theoretical and empirical puzzle. We develop hypotheses predicting that premarital cohabitation is selective of those who are prone to divorce as well as hypotheses predicting that the experience of premarital cohabitation produces attitudes and values which increase the probability of divorce. Using multiwave panel data from a recent cohort of young men and women in the United States, we specify and test models of these predictions. The results are consistent with hypotheses suggesting that cohabitation is selective of men and women who are less committed to marriage and more approving of divorce. The results also are consistent with the conclusion that cohabiting experiences significantly increase young people's acceptance of divorce.

DeMaris, A.; MacDonald, W. "Premarital Cohabitation and Marital Instability: A Test of the Unconventionality Hypothesis". Journal of Marriage and Family (May 1993):

This study examines whether the greater instability of marriages begun by premarital cohabitation can be accounted for by cohabitors' greater unconventionality in family ideology. The hypothesis was largely unsupported. Although family attitudes and beliefs tend to predict the attractiveness of a cohabiting lifestyle, they do not account for differences between cohabitors and noncohabitors in instability. Moreover, controlling for background differences, only serial cohabitation is associated with greater instability among intact first marriages of up to 10 years duration.

Teachman, J. "Premarital Sex, Premarital Cohabitation, and the Risk of Subsequent Marital Dissolution Among Women". Journal of Marriage and Family (May 2003):

Using nationally representative data from the 1995 National Survey of Family Growth, I estimate the association between intimate premarital relationships (premarital sex and premarital cohabitation) and subsequent marital dissolution. I extend previous research by considering relationship histories pertaining to both premarital sex and premarital cohabitation. I find that premarital sex or premarital cohabitation that is limited to a woman's husband is not associated with an elevated risk of marital disruption. However, women who have more than one intimate premarital relationship have an increased risk of marital dissolution. These results suggest that neither premarital sex nor premarital cohabitation by itself indicate either preexisting characteristics or subsequent relationship environments that weaken marriages. Indeed, the findings are consistent with the notion that premarital sex and cohabitation limited to one's future spouse has become part of the normal courtship process for marriage.

Phillips, J.; Sweeney, M. "Premarital cohabitation and marital disruption among white, black, and Mexican American women". Journal of Marriage and Family (May 2005):

We use data from the 1995 National Survey of Family Growth (N = 4,547) to investigate racial and ethnic differences in risk factors for marital disruption, with a particular emphasis on premarital cohabitation. We find that the nature and strength of the estimated effects of several risk factors for disruption differ across groups. In particular, premarital cohabitation is positively associated with subsequent marital disruption among non-Hispanic White women but not among non-Hispanic Black or Mexican American women. Little of the observed gaps between groups in levels of disruption, however, appears to be attributable to differences in premarital cohabitation. In addition to improving our understanding of marital disruption, this research contributes to a growing literature emphasizing heterogeneity across groups in the meaning and function of cohabitation.

I also found a study by White et al. published in the October 2000 issue of the journal AIDS suggesting that cheating on one's spouse is significantly associated with having had more than one premarital sexual partner. I suppose that doesn't come as a complete surprise.

Evangelical Christians have the highest divorce rate, btw.

"Evangelical" covers a lot of ground. According to one recent and well-publicized survey, members of unaffiliated Protestant churches (which would include many, though not all, evangelicals) had a 34% divorce rate. Baptists generally had a 29% rate. "Born-agains" had an overall rate of 27%. Jews came in at 30%. These figures don't mean much, of course, unless controlled for other factors known to have an influence on divorce rates.

 

[Roadtoad]

Are you throwing stones at me RT? I would just like to state that everything I share here on this board is what I believe. I take God at His word. I still have much to learn, but at least I believe which in my opinion is better than not believing. Is that a direct and honest enough answer for you?

I don't waste time throwing stones. For one thing, I'm a lousy shot, and I usually toss 'em too high up. I usually wind up getting beaned by what I've intended for someone else.

I note, Kathy, you STILL have not fully answered Fowlsound's questions. Nor have you fully answered Delphi's. You've ducked and evaded. You have provided no EVIDENCE.

We're not asking for what you BELIEVE. We're asking for what you KNOW. And frankly, given my profession, it's what you KNOW that keeps your backside on the blacktop. Provide EVIDENCE that what you believe is true, rather than your own personal anecdotes, or those you've managed to dredge up from an internet search, and there's something to listen to.

Instead of preaching, which has irritated everyone on this board, including those who might have listened to you, may I suggest you actually take some time listening to what others have said, and learn a little bit about whom it is you're trying to convert. I would strongly suggest that you take the time to learn who among us came out of religious backgrounds, and learn why we left. Trust me, that would be one hell of an education for you.

I would further suggest you take time to listen to what the more respected members of this board say to others. You might realize why they bear the respect they do.

Tricky, DeBunk, Lost Angeles, Suezoled, Hutch, Soapy Sam, Fowlsound, jj, Delphi Ote, and a number of others, have demonstrated a great deal of compassion towards those who hurt. They may not pray for others, but they do extend a hand to those who are in pain. I know this. I have been a recepient of their assistance, and have cried, (and occasionally bled) on their shoulders. And at no time has anyone ever said that God was trying to force me back to his corner through the pain I was going through. Something you ought to consider.

Think about what I've said about these people, and a whole host of others. These are my friends. They are the people I respect, the people I listen to. And, FYI, none of them throws stones, either. Promise.

 

[RandFan]

Are you throwing stones at me RT? I would just like to state that everything I share here on this board is what I believe. I take God at His word. I still have much to learn, but at least I believe which in my opinion is better than not believing. Is that a direct and honest enough answer for you?

You are obtuse. You don't answer questions and respond in a way that is meaningful to us. You preach which is terribly patronizing. You are not respected because we are not children and we don't need your condescending self righteous attitude.

I respect a lot of Christians. None of them stick their fingers in their ears while quoting scriptures and spouting religious propaganda.

Kathy, try treating us as intelligent adults and not wayward children.

 

[Roadtoad]

You are obtuse. You don't answer questions and respond in a way that is meaningful to us. You preach which is terribly patronizing. You are not respected because we are not children and we don't need your condescending self righteous attitude.

I respect a lot of Christians. None of them stick their fingers in their ears while quoting scriptures and spouting religious propaganda.

Kathy, try treating us as intelligent adults and not wayward children.

A case in point, Kathy.

(Thanks, Dude. You just made the point far more eloquently than I could.)

 

[kurious_kathy]

I
I think religions promote ignorance...they train their members to twist facts and evidence to support predetermined truths. They tell people faith and feelings are paths to truth (they aren't...just a good way to fool yourself). They are promoters of confirmation bias and ignorance on a grand scale and they encourage people not to ask too many questions because that can lead to hell (or is a sign of demons...or a sign that they are losing that fab gift of faith).

To me, all religious teaching are the equivalent of raindancers trying to refine their rain dance just right to please the rain gods so they'll let it rain.

Well articulett this statement shows me you yourself are a true intellectual. Could it be this is your value system but not everyones?
I myself have always cared about people, and peoples feelings are definately an important part of life. (Unless you want to go around living in some kind of bubble or pretend you are a computer or robot.)

A life without faith is no life at all, in my humble opinion!