You've moved from the societal level to the "can particular couples still be successful parents despite...." The exception does not make the rule, correct?

At a societal level, it doesn't work. Sky high divorce rates, rapidly declining reproduction, lowering marriage rates, mental illness rampant, etc. All of these are consequences of the faltering family, and the family is faltering, in part, because we are not prioritizing the proper use of our sexuality.

That's why I included both... They're supposed to go together.

Man I completely missed the ethic vs ethnic. Nice.

Zobel said:

---

Man I completely missed the ethic vs ethnic. Nice.

---

This is my proudest moment.

kurt vonnegut said:

---

one MEEN Ag said:

---

Who says I'm mistreating them? Demons is a diagnosis not a treatment plan. And yes, Hindus, modern Jews, and atheists are all deceived. This is, again, the Christian worldview 101.

And hey look you're already onto catechesis 201. Homosexuality, premarital sex are major destroyers of society and a disordering of how God wants us to live. Rap music, curse words, rebellion in all physical forms follow suit. Alcohol can be as well. But drink and be merry, don't pursue drunknessness. Now you're getting it.

You live under the umbrella of a Christian ethic nation. Your worldview can build nothing, honor nothing, preserve nothing. It will always descend into despair and chaos. All I'm asking for is a return to our American roots here, am I not?

And you're just pure cope about demons. You don't love them. They don't love you. How about you do the One MEEN Ag 30 day ruin your life challenge where you do Oujia boards and sances at 3AM for a month straight and see if you don't have some dark figures visit you at night, dart out of your corner of your eye and cabinet doors start slamming shut. Angels won't come on command, but demons will certainly accept a willing host. (Don't do this, you're too stubborn to get exorcised at a Catholic or Orthodox Church and they'll stick with you forever).

---

I'm not saying you are mistreating them, I don't know your politics. I'm just saying I have no interest in convincing you to change your values. Hindus, Jews, and atheists all think you are deceived as well. And since it is not possible to prove or disprove anyone else right or wrong, I find it most reasonable to accept people for what they believe with as little judgement as possible. I call this humility 101. That doesn't mean I'm going to agree with them or accept their views. I'm just not going to claim that the universe thinks my made up **** is better than your made up *****

Homosexuality and premarital sex don't destroy society. Greed, hatred, judgement, and obsession over power destroys societies. Sexual transgressions are one of the many boogey man ideas that people use to control others in their greedy thirst for power and control over others. Societies are destroyed when people are obsessed with power, and wealth, and control, and in demonizing others as a scapegoat for real problems.

Once again, I am so thankful to have Christians here that can tell me what I believe and what my world view is. . . I don't know what returning to our American roots means? I assume this means you want society to return to a set of values . . . but you also want to be able to pick and choose which ones we return to. What I think Christians really want is a society that idolizes Christianity as a sacred cow that must be held objectively true and cannot be questioned. That doesn't necessarily mean theocracy, most Christians are willing, as they are personally entitled by God to do so, to allow others to not be Christian. Very gracious of them, of course. Its not necessarily important to American Christians that we all live by God's law, what is important is the idolization of your faith remains intact. This is why 'In God we Trust' is on our money and in our pledge. Its why people want the 10 Commandments plastered in our schools and prayers read over loudspeakers. Its why Christians demanded Jimmy Kimmel donate to Charlie Kirk's charities before he could be forgiven. Christians wants submission from non-Christians. And yeah yeah yeah. . . the other side. I get it. Criticize them all you want. I might join you in some of it.

Anyway, that is my broad perception of many Christians (maybe not you). I don't want to make your mistake and tell you what you believe. I'll let you explain 'returning to our roots'.

The funny thing about the human brain is that you can train it in all sorts of ways. I'll do the One MEEN Ag 30 day challenge if you do the KV 30 day challenge. You can spend a month obsessed with pink unicorns and in worshipping pink unicorns and see if you don't start dreaming and having visions of pink unicorns. People see what they want to see. Every group of people has visions and revelations from their diety - its not coincidence and its not demons. Its just our brains.

---

Look, this is just moral relativism. Its called dudeism in philosophy circles. 'We can't make a claim about the truth because there are false claims out there about truth.' Its not humility, its just ignorance and apathy and consumerism. There's a reason its called dudeism. Its the worldview of the satiated man smoking weed on the couch who just wants to continue smoking weed on the couch.

At the root of it, your worldview is that its all made up **** so who cares and who knows. You have no moral authority to condemn or promote anything besides libertarian expansion of vice. Nor really any desire to because you probably don't either A) see evil up close or B) don't recognize it as evil or C) don't care because look at the all the cool weed, porn, booze, free sex and netfllix binge watching I can do.

Are you married and do you have kids? It doesn't sound like you do. Usually the very least marriage and children keeps dudeism at bay because you are forced to at least take the first step in ordering your life in some fashion of right and wrong.

Who are you to tell christians what does and does not destroy society? You have no moral framework to do anything beyond say 'in my opinion X is wrong.' Opinions don't matter. Truth does. And yes, Christians are interested in the worldview game and converting others. Thats the whole point is to share that A) demons are ordering your life and B) your life and your next life will be infinitely better if you aligned your will with your creators will. I don't believe in leaving uncontacted tribes alone whether they are off the coast of india or hiding out in whatever the coolest newest hipster bar is.

You have no idea just how real demons are. This isn't for you because you don't want to face the fact demons and God is real, but for anyone reading this thread, you owe it to yourself to watch this video about the conversion of Zachary King from satanism to christianity.



And then Father Ripperger is a catholic priest who specializes in exorcisms and shares stories of his time exorcising demons out of people. He's got a good 4ish hours of content specifically about this stuff but this video is mostly a good hook about the reality of demons. (From my limited understanding Catholics and Orthodox approach demons slightly differently - Orthodox have less focus on interrogation of the demon. I don't know of an orthodox exorcist specialist because all orthodox priests do exorcisms on those coming into the church right before baptism. Everything the orthodox church does is an exorcistic act. So don't extrapolate exorcism accounts as an endorsement of the sum total of the catholic church's claims of validity).

The Banned said:

---

You've moved from the societal level to the "can particular couples still be successful parents despite...." The exception does not make the rule, correct?

At a societal level, it doesn't work. Sky high divorce rates, rapidly declining reproduction, lowering marriage rates, mental illness rampant, etc. All of these are consequences of the faltering family, and the family is faltering, in part, because we are not prioritizing the proper use of our sexuality.

---

I wouldn't object to your post if you were arguing that certain sexual practices were contributing to some of these issues.

kurt vonnegut said:

---

The Banned said:

---

You've moved from the societal level to the "can particular couples still be successful parents despite...." The exception does not make the rule, correct?

At a societal level, it doesn't work. Sky high divorce rates, rapidly declining reproduction, lowering marriage rates, mental illness rampant, etc. All of these are consequences of the faltering family, and the family is faltering, in part, because we are not prioritizing the proper use of our sexuality.

---

I wouldn't object to your post if you were arguing that certain sexual practices were contributing to some of these issues.

---

Are those issues not prime example of the family faltering? Certain sexual practices lead to these issues, and these issues indicate failing family structures. The family is foundational to the society, and these issues lead to faltering family structure, therefore the destroy societies. You agree with the parts, but not with the sum, so maybe I'm missing something?

kurt vonnegut said:

---

The Banned said:

---

You've moved from the societal level to the "can particular couples still be successful parents despite...." The exception does not make the rule, correct?

At a societal level, it doesn't work. Sky high divorce rates, rapidly declining reproduction, lowering marriage rates, mental illness rampant, etc. All of these are consequences of the faltering family, and the family is faltering, in part, because we are not prioritizing the proper use of our sexuality.

---

I wouldn't object to your post if you were arguing that certain sexual practices were contributing to some of these issues.

---

I see. This is your vice of choice. You picked a good one. Some people pick gambling and my reaction is, 'What are you doing? There's two legged deer to go hunt and ruin your life over. Who gives a **** about regular season NBA games.'

Quote:

---

For my youngest, I was the rec soccer coach until he joined a club team

---

The worst of all offenses. You shall be shunned.

So we've gone from Christian Nationalism to Demons… well, ok?

The Banned said:

---

Quote:

---

For my youngest, I was the rec soccer coach until he joined a club team

---

The worst of all offenses. You shall be shunned.

---

Was I suppose to say 'football' or is soccer not an appropriate sport?

kurt vonnegut said:

---

The Banned said:

---

kurt vonnegut said:

---

The Banned said:

---

You've moved from the societal level to the "can particular couples still be successful parents despite...." The exception does not make the rule, correct?

At a societal level, it doesn't work. Sky high divorce rates, rapidly declining reproduction, lowering marriage rates, mental illness rampant, etc. All of these are consequences of the faltering family, and the family is faltering, in part, because we are not prioritizing the proper use of our sexuality.

---

I wouldn't object to your post if you were arguing that certain sexual practices were contributing to some of these issues.

---

Are those issues not prime example of the family faltering? Certain sexual practices lead to these issues, and these issues indicate failing family structures. The family is foundational to the society, and these issues lead to faltering family structure, therefore the destroy societies. You agree with the parts, but not with the sum, so maybe I'm missing something?

---

Families are struggling because of massive economic pressure and demands. 60 years ago, you could support a family and own a home in the burbs doing a job today that places you under the poverty line. Families have to have two working parents, and even then can barely afford basic necessities like healthcare. Social media obsessions puts a strain on everything, radicalizes people, sets unrealistic expectations, and feeds any discontentment until its all you can think of. Parts of the medical community hand out pain killers like its candy. We have something like 2 million people in prison - mostly for bull**** like possession of weed. Rising mental health issues, lack of prioritizing family time, abuse, etc. There are many reasons.

Yes, sexual infidelity is an issue. I'm not advocating in favor of it. I'm also not advocating the government to have the power to make it illegal. Homosexuality is a small percentage of people. You can point to them as part of the problem of declining populations, but to put it all there is ridiculous.

---

We said premarital sex and homosexuality. When did I say it all belongs to homosexuality? Of course that is a much smaller percentage of the problem. That's common sense.

So your genesis for the decline of the family is economic, all while watching the family decline during one of the greatest economic periods of all time (50s - today)? We drop from 3.5 to ~2 kids per household between the 50s and the 70s. Divorce rates skyrockets between the 60s and 80s. In the 50s, over 90% of women were married. By the 70s it was 76%. By 2000 it was down in the 40s. All while we became wealthier.

During this time we also became more promiscuous and less religious. Drug use and acceptance also increased during that time, so you could argue materialism in general is the cause of familial decline, and you won't catch me arguing with you. Boomers were raised during a time that these attitudes became mainstream, and the result is the familial decline we see today. The free love movement of the 60s and 70s is clearly a key factor in getting to where we are today.

Rise in child mental illness is strongly corelated to poor familial structures, so I don't see how the result can be part of the cause. It speeds the decline in future generations, but it started because of the initial decline.

I'm tossing social media out of the conversation as it factors in for only 1 of the previous 6.5 decades of decline.

kurt vonnegut said:

---

The Banned said:

---

Quote:

---

For my youngest, I was the rec soccer coach until he joined a club team

---

The worst of all offenses. You shall be shunned.

---

Was I suppose to say 'football' or is soccer not an appropriate sport?

---

I was hoping the winky face and picking out such a random thing from a very serious post would have shown it was a joke. Soccer is perfectly fine.

I got the winky face. I just wasn't sure if the joke was on my naming of the sport or the sport itself. I appreciate the levity even if it didn't come off that way.

The Banned said:

---

We said premarital sex and homosexuality. When did I say it all belongs to homosexuality? Of course that is a much smaller percentage of the problem. That's common sense.

So your genesis for the decline of the family is economic, all while watching the family decline during one of the greatest economic periods of all time (50s - today)? We drop from 3.5 to ~2 kids per household between the 50s and the 70s. Divorce rates skyrockets between the 60s and 80s. In the 50s, over 90% of women were married. By the 70s it was 76%. By 2000 it was down in the 40s. All while we became wealthier.

During this time we also became more promiscuous and less religious. Drug use and acceptance also increased during that time, so you could argue materialism in general is the cause of familial decline, and you won't catch me arguing with you. Boomers were raised during a time that these attitudes became mainstream, and the result is the familial decline we see today. The free love movement of the 60s and 70s is clearly a key factor in getting to where we are today.

Rise in child mental illness is strongly corelated to poor familial structures, so I don't see how the result can be part of the cause. It speeds the decline in future generations, but it started because of the initial decline.

I'm tossing social media out of the conversation as it factors in for only 1 of the previous 6.5 decades of decline.

---

Look, in a lot of ways, I think you are preaching to the choir. I am all for strengthening the family unit, but I think I have a less strict picture of what a successful family unit can look like.

kurt vonnegut said:

---

The Banned said:

---

We said premarital sex and homosexuality. When did I say it all belongs to homosexuality? Of course that is a much smaller percentage of the problem. That's common sense.

So your genesis for the decline of the family is economic, all while watching the family decline during one of the greatest economic periods of all time (50s - today)? We drop from 3.5 to ~2 kids per household between the 50s and the 70s. Divorce rates skyrockets between the 60s and 80s. In the 50s, over 90% of women were married. By the 70s it was 76%. By 2000 it was down in the 40s. All while we became wealthier.

During this time we also became more promiscuous and less religious. Drug use and acceptance also increased during that time, so you could argue materialism in general is the cause of familial decline, and you won't catch me arguing with you. Boomers were raised during a time that these attitudes became mainstream, and the result is the familial decline we see today. The free love movement of the 60s and 70s is clearly a key factor in getting to where we are today.

Rise in child mental illness is strongly corelated to poor familial structures, so I don't see how the result can be part of the cause. It speeds the decline in future generations, but it started because of the initial decline.

I'm tossing social media out of the conversation as it factors in for only 1 of the previous 6.5 decades of decline.

---

Look, in a lot of ways, I think you are preaching to the choir. I am all for strengthening the family unit, but I think I have a less strict picture of what a successful family unit can look like.

---

That sounds like nominalism. Would you agree with that label for your idea of a 'successful family unit'?

kurt vonnegut said:

---

The Banned said:

---

We said premarital sex and homosexuality. When did I say it all belongs to homosexuality? Of course that is a much smaller percentage of the problem. That's common sense.

So your genesis for the decline of the family is economic, all while watching the family decline during one of the greatest economic periods of all time (50s - today)? We drop from 3.5 to ~2 kids per household between the 50s and the 70s. Divorce rates skyrockets between the 60s and 80s. In the 50s, over 90% of women were married. By the 70s it was 76%. By 2000 it was down in the 40s. All while we became wealthier.

During this time we also became more promiscuous and less religious. Drug use and acceptance also increased during that time, so you could argue materialism in general is the cause of familial decline, and you won't catch me arguing with you. Boomers were raised during a time that these attitudes became mainstream, and the result is the familial decline we see today. The free love movement of the 60s and 70s is clearly a key factor in getting to where we are today.

Rise in child mental illness is strongly corelated to poor familial structures, so I don't see how the result can be part of the cause. It speeds the decline in future generations, but it started because of the initial decline.

I'm tossing social media out of the conversation as it factors in for only 1 of the previous 6.5 decades of decline.

---

Look, in a lot of ways, I think you are preaching to the choir. I am all for strengthening the family unit, but I think I have a less strict picture of what a successful family unit can look like.

---

What does it look like?

The Banned said:

---

What does it look like?

---

The traditional nuclear family unit is two heterosexual persons and their children (biological and/or adopted). The dad goes to work and the mom stays home and runs the household and minds the children.

There are family units where the mom works and the dad stays home. In some family units, both parents work. Its not at all uncommon (particularly in different cultures) for older parents or relatives to live in the same household and be prominent in raising the children and help making family meals. You can have a gay couple with or without adopted children. You can have a couple that had premarital sex with other people before marriage, but are committed to each other now. I don't think I'd recommend it, but I could imagine a couple with an open relationship having a successful family unit. Single parent families exist for different reasons. Blended families where the parents were married previously. Some couples don't or can't have kids. And I'm sure I'm missing other examples.

You probably object to a couple of these arrangements and likely think that others are fine or within the boundary or intent of traditional nuclear family.

Whether a family unit is successful or not really depends on your definition of successful. And I suspect our definitions are different which is why I said my picture of a family unit is probably less strict - so as to allow other family unit arrangements that you might object to.

I'm about to define a family unit without putting a ton of thought into it, so don't pick it apart too much. . . Lets say that the purpose of a family unit is to provide emotional support, protection, love, and stability for its members, especially during formative years for children. For children, it is to serve as the primary environment for teaching values, social skills, and helping individuals grow into responsible members of society.

My guess is that your definition of a family unit is probably going to include something about being fruitful and multiplying as well as faith and religious education. And your definition is going to exclude some of the examples above.

In anticipation of what your successful family unit definition will be, the last thing I would say is that even in non-traditional family arrangements, you still have potential for meeting the requirements of love, and help, and support - all of which are net positives in society. What I fear is a push toward a definition of family that is so strict as to be willing to toss out the good benefits of being in a non-typical relationship because it doesn't fully check every box of the some people's version of 'traditional relationship'. One of my wife's best friends growing up being a good example where you have a gay couple with two people in the relationship that help, love, and support one another. It would be far less healthy for them (in my opinion) to spend their entire lives alone, isolated, without love, and sad. This is where I perceive cruelty in some Christian line of thinking. There are some that would rather see a homosexual sin free and miserable, lonely and sad as opposed to living in sin but happy, healthy, and a productive member of society. "Sorry you were born that way . . . in order to not be spitting on God's natural order, you have to live your life sad and loveless." I don't think cruelty is intended, but I find cruelty in it nevertheless.

The thing is, this "Leave it to Beaver" mindset of the nuclear family is actually pretty ahistorical when stepping back into a much bigger picture of culture and family structures over time.

Macarthur said:

---

The thing is, this "Leave it to Beaver" mindset of the nuclear family is actually pretty ahistorical when stepping back into a much bigger picture of culture and family structures over time.

---

Maybe. But it is still pretty cool...

AggieRain said:

---

Macarthur said:

---

The thing is, this "Leave it to Beaver" mindset of the nuclear family is actually pretty ahistorical when stepping back into a much bigger picture of culture and family structures over time.

---

Maybe. But it is still pretty cool...

---

Sure, it can be wonderful. Mine was amazing, but there are those that are a horror show, too.

It's not about the structure itself that makes it good or bad.

I really appreciate your response, and I do intend to give it a thought out response, but, if you're willing to go along with my line of questioning, I'll ask my next question: is there a "best" scenario out of all the ones you offered? Is there an arrangement that is most likely to provide "emotional support, protection, and stability for its members, especially during the formative years for children"?

Macarthur said:

---

The thing is, this "Leave it to Beaver" mindset of the nuclear family is actually pretty ahistorical when stepping back into a much bigger picture of culture and family structures over time.

---

Are you approaching this from a standpoint that extended family and the community at large were very important aids in raising your children, or that children were viewed as members of the society first, and their parents had no particular rights over them?

The Banned said:

---

I really appreciate your response, and I do intend to give it a thought out response, but, if you're willing to go along with my line of questioning, I'll ask my next question: is there a "best" scenario out of all the ones you offered? Is there an arrangement that is most likely to provide "emotional support, protection, and stability for its members, especially during the formative years for children"?

---

I grew up in a mostly traditional nuclear family and it is what I have now. For that and other reasons, I'm going to be partial to that as a good arrangement. A strong case would be made by some that a multi-generational household is superior. And maybe its more correct to view the multi-generational household as a variation on the traditional family unit, rather than something separate.

I have a relative who is a widow and raising two girls because her husband passed away from cancer in his 30s. Thats not an ideal situation, but I doubt that anyone here is going to want to delegitimize her family because it currently lacks one woman and one man. I have a friend that is married and has been trying unsuccesfully to have kids for a decade. I doubt anyone here is going to delegitimize her family or marriage as a result.

With children, having two parents is good. I understand the benefit of having both a man and a woman, but I also believe in a looser interpretation of gender roles. Meaning that I think roles in a relationship can be determined by who is best suited for the role rather than what is between their legs. Which is why I don't see an issue with a mother than works and stay at home dad, for example. And its why I think criticisms of gay parents are either overstated or sometimes just not correct.

In the end, I'm hesitant to rank these arrangements from best to worst. I think what matters more is the people in these arrangements. Having people that are loving and kind and attentive and well intentioned is the 'best' scenario. I suspect that there are statistics that will show that certain arrangements result in certain results. What I do not want to do, is use those statistics as a means of delegitimizing non-traditional family units with supportive, loving, etc. family members that are resulting in well formed and adjusted children.

In other words, I think the 'best' scenario is having the right people with the right attitude. Too much focus on a rigid structure, I think, puts us in danger of making 'perfection' the enemy of the good.

I think we're in close agreement on a lot of things until we get here:

Quote:

---

In the end, I'm hesitant to rank these arrangements from best to worst. I think what matters more is the people in these arrangements. Having people that are loving and kind and attentive and well intentioned is the 'best' scenario.

---

Man + Woman = Babies they raise together. This is the way it always has been and always will be. The very basics of biology prove this. We may be using laboratories as a middleman right now (whole other topic), but it's still a man and a woman providing the necessary materials to make that baby. Therefore, we can easily conclude that the man and woman who make the baby have the right and responsibility to take care of the baby, and from a policy standpoint, we should be doing whatever we can to make that arrangement as strong as possible. Strong includes loving, kind and attentive to each other and their children. If these are not present, the arrangement is failing. When this arrangement is failing, we should be doing whatever we can to reverse that failure. It easily the most logical, biologically proven arrangement. So what is causing this failure?

There are a couple of issues, but I would argue that it is predominantly sex related. When we look at the macro level, we know that more sex partners before marriage = higher rates of divorce, lower rates of marital happiness, etc. We also see premarital sex leading to delayed marriage, as the primary driver for shortening the dating period (sex) is given up all too easy beforehand. This also leads to more unwanted pregnancies, because babies "weren't supposed to happen" when engaging in the only activity that makes babies. Sex for recreation makes the idea of a baby some sort of infringement upon the person's autonomy rather than the obvious natural end of having sex.. It also increased the view that marriage and family is for my happiness, not an objective good that humans are designed to do (at least for the vast majority of humans). This reduces the idea that the marriage should be protected in all but the worst circumstances (physical abuse, for example) because of it's pivotal role for healthy children and a healthy society. It's all a nebulous idea of "happy".

Because of sexual promiscuity (pre-marital or during the marriage), we see more broken families, which increases mental health issues (well documented), leading to more divorce and promiscuity, if these kids get married at all. It also leads to more children needing adoption, more people never having kids, etc. Because of this, you can see situations of "single parent" "gay couple" "blended families" etc all exist because of the reasons above (outside of death of a spouse or both parents, which is a sad reality). And because these situations exist, you are hesitant to label them as "less than" the Man + Woman = babies they raise together.

Because there is a hesitancy to label the other arrangements as "less than", we avoid doing what is necessary for society to thrive: reinforce that Man + Woman = babies is THE standard that we promote and nothing else. We recognize that other situations exist. We do not condemn them, and in many ways they are necessary because of the situation we are in. We are kind to them. They are still a part of our community. But they are not THE standard, and we need to get back to promoting THE standard. Without it, society crumbles, and the real time metrics are proving it. If we are open to the promiscuity and the alternate livestyles as equally "good" then what we are seeing now is the inevitable end.

Gender roles is downstream of this, and not something I intended to get into, but can if you'd like.

Quote:

---

And maybe its more correct to view the multi-generational household as a variation on the traditional family unit, rather than something separate.

---

I also agree with this. Maybe not "household" in terms of living inside of the same 4 walls, but living nearby at the very least. One of my biggest regrets in life is that my siblings, parents and my family all live so far apart. Maybe in the future we can relocate to become nearer to each other again. We're actively teaching our children that "best" is to stay somewhat close. At least within the driving distance that if someone asks to get together spontaneously that it is an easy possibility. It eases the burdens of parenthood, especially in the early years, when you can share the load. They'll end up doing what they want, but they'll be informed about the pros and cons of both sides.

So taking this back to Christian Nationalism… I'd rather not at a federal level. But I can see why there is a rise in CN to protect society when the "anything reasonable goes" approach is garnering the results that it is, and the results are only getting worse. Christian values of marriage and parenthood are integral part of what made Western society so great.

kurt vonnegut said:

---

Quote:

---

Look, this is just moral relativism. Its called dudeism in philosophy circles. 'We can't make a claim about the truth because there are false claims out there about truth.' Its not humility, its just ignorance and apathy and consumerism. There's a reason its called dudeism. Its the worldview of the satiated man smoking weed on the couch who just wants to continue smoking weed on the couch.

At the root of it, your worldview is that its all made up **** so who cares and who knows. You have no moral authority to condemn or promote anything besides libertarian expansion of vice. Nor really any desire to because you probably don't either A) see evil up close or B) don't recognize it as evil or C) don't care because look at the all the cool weed, porn, booze, free sex and netfllix binge watching I can do.

---

Moral relativism can be a reasonable position in the absence of God. It appears as an absurd system of morality to those unwilling to consider the possibility of their own fallibility. Atheism need not result in moral relativism per se. . . . but I think that any secular set of moral standards struggles to deal with foundational questions about the source of morality. As far as I'm concerned, criticisms of my secular morality amounts to criticism of the fact that I am unconvinced in a supernatural objective source for morality.

But, I'm very interested in this 'moral authority'. How do I get this authority? Do I just need to claim that there is a God, that I know this God, and that I know the mind of this God? And then I can claim moral authority? And then I can play God and tell people what is right and wrong? Is that how it works?

Quote:

---

Are you married and do you have kids? It doesn't sound like you do. Usually the very least marriage and children keeps dudeism at bay because you are forced to at least take the first step in ordering your life in some fashion of right and wrong.

---

Happily married 20 years with two boys. I'm a working professional engineer licensed in about 30 or so states and on the board of my firm. I'm a member of a couple industry organizations. The only person I've ever slept with is my wife. I probably have 3-5 drinks a week (mainly on the weekend). Weed makes me paranoid and I don't like it much, but I do take a 2.5mg THC gummy from time to time because it works like magic on my occasional sleep problems. Gave up porn long ago. Home owner. My wife stays home with the kids and is president of the PTA. For my youngest, I was the rec soccer coach until he joined a club team. We regularly volunteer at a couple groups - one that takes special needs kids for a couple hours so parents can rest while we play different sports. Last weekend, my 'athlete' (as we call them), Aiden, and I played flag football with a number of other kids. My boys both joined, but my wife was not feeling well. Aiden was a beast on defense. The other charity is a Christian lead group that collects and packages food and clothing and ships it oversees to a few different countries. It meets once a month and we have a blast. After each session, about 80% of the people go and pray and the other 20% quietly wait. They do wonderful work and are wonderful people as far as I can tell.

This might surprise you, but I very rarely sacrifice goats and eat babies.

Quote:

---

Who are you to tell christians what does and does not destroy society? You have no moral framework to do anything beyond say 'in my opinion X is wrong.' Opinions don't matter. Truth does. And yes, Christians are interested in the worldview game and converting others. Thats the whole point is to share that A) demons are ordering your life and B) your life and your next life will be infinitely better if you aligned your will with your creators will. I don't believe in leaving uncontacted tribes alone whether they are off the coast of india or hiding out in whatever the coolest newest hipster bar is.

You have no idea just how real demons are. This isn't for you because you don't want to face the fact demons and God is real, but for anyone reading this thread, you owe it to yourself to watch this video about the conversion of Zachary King from satanism to christianity.

---

Who are YOU tell anyone what does and does not destroy society? This is inherently a matter of opinion. I have no interest in telling you what you must believe. Sure, truth matters. When you can prove your religion true, then sign me up for that Sunday service you mentioned the other day. Until then, thats just like . . . your opinion man. (Play on the Dudeism comment).

A) Demons are not real and are not ordering my life. B) Incentivization of 'getting in line' is the quickest way to know you are being manipulated.

I'm not afraid of God and I'm not afraid of changing my mind. I don't hate God. I'm not angry at God. I just don't think its real. And if I die and am proved wrong, then lets agree now to meet up in the afterlife and I'll eat all the crow you want and we can laugh at how silly I was. Hopefully God isn't the type to cast people into eternal torture for finite mistakes or misunderstandings. If He is, I literally cannot conceive of anything more gross and horrific and evil. If your God rewards followers for blind submission and tortures free thought, then I think you might be worshipping the devil, my friend.

I'll try to find time to watch the videos. I've seen similar videos and I can't find any reason to grant them credibility without also granting credibility to every single supernatural claim ever. Extraordinary claims and extraordinary evidence. . . . . you know the saying.

---

There are huge swaths of philosophy that are devoted to trying to extract morality without God. Atheism doesn't demand dudeism. Its pretty apparent that not only do you believe in atheism but also blank slatism and that the individual has no duty to society or a duty to pursue virtue. The sum total of this worldview is complete collapse of society. Your own fatalism is used against you.

I'm glad you have a wife and kids and looks like all the trappings of the good life but seriously you're going to defend all the points you do on this board as virtuous positions to your kids? Its equally okay to have premarital sex, have as many sexual partners as they'd like, pursue whatever consumerism they want? Divorce? Cheat? Lie? Steal? They don't have to get married to raise a family? You'd support transgenderism and its anti-fascism corner for your own kids? Support all of these as virtues as equally good as the obvious virtues they are in opposition to?

The funny part is, the more you divulge about yourself the more you prove you live within a christian construct but refuse to acknowledge it. I guarantee you if your daughter one day says she's shacking up with an older guy who openly does drugs, dabbles in the occult, supports antifa, has been arrested multiple times and was already married and divorced you'd say nothing like what you do on these threads about all of these views are equally valid.

About your view on the afterlife, it is again pure cope that you came up with on your own. You might as well have a personal theory on gravity or electricity you devoutly hold to be true and are willing to put your own life on the line to test it. No story of people who have gone to the afterlife and returned, or from saints coming back down to warn us say anything about this idea of you getting to just go 'whoopsie - I see you're real, God, I've done nothing to honor you or in your name. Let me into heaven'. That defeats the whole purpose of this life. You've done basically 0 inquiry into world religion and its claims. Again, Christianity doesn't say oh look at these other groups doing signs and wonders - they're lying about it. Christians go - yes demons have some powers as well, those people are deceived by demonic powers. Yahweh is the God of Gods and the creator God, but angels and demons are also gods. They have wills and powers. Look closer at what they're doing and what they're honoring.

What do you need to convince you? Have you sought out extraordinary evidence? Lives and miracles of the saints? Historicity of Jesus? Monty Python God in the sky?

" If your God rewards followers for blind submission and tortures free thought"

Kurt, do you actually believe that?

Would you describe yourself as a humanist?

Also this is a really cool discussion.