An Evangelical Rethink on Divorce?

[Suzie]

An Evangelical Rethink on Divorce? (http://news.yahoo.com/s/time/20071106/us_time/anevangelicalrethinkondivorce;_ylt=AnIyHjMrSVMtAzg AVeOwLFsDW7oF) Time.com - Tue Nov 6, 12:30 AM ET Sent 2,271 times A new interpretation of the Bible's edicts on divorce suggests that some conservative Christians may be reevaluating their hard line

[ThomasMore]

Time Magazine as an authority on evangelical Christianity? Color me skeptical.

[Timberwolf]

They can "rethink" it all they want...God hasn't changed HIS mind on the subject since....well, forever.

[ThomasMore]

The fact that many evangelical Christians, including some respected ones, have divorced their spouses, is well-known (e.g., Charles Stanley, Amy Grant, and many others).

The Bible's statements on the subject are clear and unequivocal. Yes, there are reasons for divorce. Choosing to dislike your spouse isn't one of them.

Perhaps THIS (http://www.slate.com/id/2175640/) is what the Time writer is hoping to see more of.

Dear Prudie,

I am the father of a 13-year-old daughter whose mother has been taking her to an evangelical Christian church her whole life. I'm not a Christian and think that organized religion is harmful to her development into a rational adult.

...

As my daughter has gotten older, she has become fearful that because I'm not a Christian, I'm going to hell. ... --Rationalist

Dear Rationalist,

I get a disturbing number of letters from nonreligious relatives of religiously raised children saying that the kids have been warning them of eternal damnation...Isn't it rather devilish, however, to raise children to be rude, and cruel, to loving family members?

...

Consider trying some rationalist jujitsu with her.

[Timberwolf]

Rude and cruel...to tell someone the TRUTH?

Whatever...

[CzechPrince]

An Evangelical Rethink on Divorce? (http://news.yahoo.com/s/time/20071106/us_time/anevangelicalrethinkondivorce;_ylt=AnIyHjMrSVMtAzg AVeOwLFsDW7oF) Time.com - Tue Nov 6, 12:30 AM ET Sent 2,271 times A new interpretation of the Bible's edicts on divorce suggests that some conservative Christians may be reevaluating their hard line

They have the highest divorce rates in the nation, I don't see how they could not.

[ThomasMore]

They have the highest divorce rates in the nation, I don't see how they could not.


#1:

I am familiar with the statistics, and it doesn't bear out.

#2:

Even if that fact was true, it wouldn't justify your conclusion. If 80% of murders were committed by evangelical Christians, that wouldn't change what is right.

[Gonzo67]

#1:

I am familiar with the statistics, and it doesn't bear out.


As he didn't post the statistics, you're right, he has no evidence. But then... you did not post them either. At any rate, statistics in these forums are accepted and rejected depending on what they prove. I've seen many people ask for statistics, or provide statistics to support THEIR argument, yet in other threads reject statistics that prove an argument that opposes them on another topic.

So you'll forgive me if Statistics, or anyones support or use of them, fails to impress me one way or the other.

Fact is simple... According to "the' religion, Divorce is wrong? In "the" religion, Evangelicals are getting divorced (I don't care if it's only 2 or 3)?

What does that say about either the religion, or those claiming to practice it?


#2:

Even if that fact was true, it wouldn't justify your conclusion. If 80% of murders were committed by evangelical Christians, that wouldn't change what is right.


Sure it would. it would MORE than condemn them all. After all, in these very forums, it's commonly stressed that the percentage of homosexuals that commit a sex crime against a minor is more than enough to villanize all homosexuals.

Why isn't the standard worthy enough to be applied to both?

Now, this is NOT an "attack on religion", I want to state that loud and clear right now. Though a lot of good that will do because I know damn well that within the next 3 or 4 posts, someone will be calling me an atheist heathen with an agenda to murder God and destroy the fabric of humanity. Never the less...

How can you seriously take moral advice from someone that does not follow the same morals they claim to support?

As TimberWolf said:


They can "rethink" it all they want...God hasn't changed HIS mind on the subject since....well, forever.


To me, it sounds like Evangelicals have decided to "revamp" the religion.

Maybe I can help them... Bring the 10 commandments into the 21st century...

Though shalt not kill, unless the one thou kills was a total butt-nugget and needed needed it!

Thou shalt not covet thy neighbors wife, unless thy neighbor is out of town and his wife is a real hottie.

Though shall not steal. But thou may cheat on thy taxes, after all, everyone does it.

Hmmmm what do ya think? Think I got a future in the "evangelical game"?

[Gonzo67]

Quote:
Originally Posted by TM
#2:

Even if that fact was true, it wouldn't justify your conclusion. If 80% of murders were committed by evangelical Christians, that wouldn't change what is right.

Sure it would. it would MORE than condemn them all. After all, in these very forums, it's commonly stressed that the percentage of homosexuals that commit a sex crime against a minor is more than enough to villanize all homosexuals.


Sorry, when I reread this thread, I see I have misunderstood what you were saying. You were saying that because evangelicals are doing it doesn't make divorce right. My mistake.

But my point still stands, though not as an argument against your point.

I still say that such a large percentage of hypocrites being self appointed spokes people for a religion is enough to discredit the religion, much the same way that a large percentage of sex crimes committed by homosexuals is enough for a lot of people in these forums to label all homosexuals as potential criminals.

[MSGT]

:flame:Atheist Heathen:flame:













Sorry, I couldn't resist and I didn't want to disappoint Gonz. We now return you to the regularly scheduled debate.

[Gonzo67]

There's always one...

lol

:D

[ThomasMore]

Let me praise hypocrisy --

Not that hypocrisy in which people set themselves up as pious judges of others, above them.

But hypocrisy has also been called "the homage vice pays to virtue."

Speaking as one who has done enough to merit a one-way ticket to hell, I know that I will make mistakes again, and I will have a bad heart again. And yet, I try to speak up for what is right.

Anyone who does speak up for what is right, will immediately be accused of being a hypocrite. Because he will fall down.

Hypocrisy is the left's weapon and shield. It is their shield, because the left will decry and demean every standard of value -- by having no values, they can never be accused of hypocrisy. Gerry Studds slept with underage, male pages. Barney Frank's gay lover ran a prostitution ring from the Congressman's house. Hill and Billy could have filled an encyclopaedia with their peccadilloes. All of it was OK, they never held others to any moral standard of conduct.

It is the left's weapon, because anyone who speaks up for a standard will fall down, somewhere. Bill Bennett was a gambler. Rush Limbaugh abused prescription pain medications. Newt Gingrich left his wife. John Tower abused alcohol. Ted Haggard dallied with a male masseur. Jimmy Swaggart couldn't stay away from prostitutes. Some were destroyed, others were damaged, because they spoke up for standards, but were found to be human.

So, the dilemma:

1. Stand up for nothing, and insulate yourself from being called a hypocrite.

2. Stand up for values, and run the risk of being so accused when your own human failings reveal themselves.

I will take the second. And I will remember that we are ALL human, and we all fall down.

Better to aspire to a standard and come up short, than to say there are no standards.

[MSGT]

Wow, That's a thread killer. I'm not trying to be a cheerleader here but that was a fine post.:claps:


Is that yours?

[Gonzo67]

Quite true TM, all of it.

But the trick is to LEARN from it.

When a preacher runs around with prostitutes and gets busted, then stands in front of his congregation and cries, admitting his sin, and apologizing for "letting you down", then jumps in his car and drives straight to the nearest whore house... well, you see what I'm getting at.

There's plenty in these forums who stand up and defend people like this. They say "he made a mistake". There's only a FEW priests who molest kids. You can't question the priest hood.

Those same people LOVE to point out that because SOME child molesters are gay, ALL gays are potential child molesters.

It's the double standards that people REFUSE to learn from that makes them worse than guilty of simple hypocrisy.

Yes, we are ALL hypocrites. I know I am about many things. I refuse to label all gay people as despicable criminals because of the actions of the criminal elements in their ranks.

At the same time, I'm perfectly willing to say ALL muslims are guilty for the actions of the ones that engage in terrorism for their religion.

The thing is, I have never DENIED my hypocrisy. I have never CLAIMED to be innocent of doing that. Yet there's plenty among us who do that quite frequently. There's plenty who insult atheists and use the "atheist belief" as an insult because some atheists speak out about a nativity display on a courthouse lawn.

There's plenty here that consistently berate and insult gay people because ALL of them are "no better than the freaks that parade" and they're just as guilty as the ones that rape little kids.

But not one of those voices have ever denounced their religion when priests are accused, proved, and convicted of sexual abuse of MALE CHILDREN. And when anyone points that out, SHOWS them their hypocrisy, you'll never see a "Yeah, you know, you're right" from a single one of them.

[gnome]

I think that implicit and explicit accusations of hypocrisy are overused in politics for precisely the reasons ThomasMore explains--everyone falls from time to time.

To me the point is not to be infallible in order to stand on principle... but if one wishes (quite reasonable) to be allowed to make mistakes, they should give reasonable leeway to others as well.

Maybe to make it more clear:

Being against drugs: Fine, even if once you too were tempted and tried them.

Attacking another candidate for admitting having once done drugs: expect to be equally attacked if something similar is dug up in your past.

Proportionality--not all mistakes are equal... unfortunately common sense is absent from politics.

[ThomasMore]

Is that yours?

I have heard the concept before, both on this board and elsewhere. The words in my post above, though, were mine.

But the trick is to LEARN from it.

When a preacher runs around with prostitutes and gets busted, then stands in front of his congregation and cries, admitting his sin, and apologizing for "letting you down", then jumps in his car and drives straight to the nearest whore house... well, you see what I'm getting at.

There's plenty in these forums who stand up and defend people like this. They say "he made a mistake". There's only a FEW priests who molest kids. You can't question the priest hood.

It's the double standards that people REFUSE to learn from that makes them worse than guilty of simple hypocrisy.

Yes, we are ALL hypocrites. I know I am about many things. I refuse to label all gay people as despicable criminals because of the actions of the criminal elements in their ranks.

At the same time, I'm perfectly willing to say ALL muslims are guilty for the actions of the ones that engage in terrorism for their religion.

The thing is, I have never DENIED my hypocrisy. I have never CLAIMED to be innocent of doing that. Yet there's plenty among us who do that quite frequently. There's plenty who insult atheists and use the "atheist belief" as an insult because some atheists speak out about a nativity display on a courthouse lawn.

There's plenty here that consistently berate and insult gay people because ALL of them are "no better than the freaks that parade" and they're just as guilty as the ones that rape little kids.

But not one of those voices have ever denounced their religion when priests are accused, proved, and convicted of sexual abuse of MALE CHILDREN. And when anyone points that out, SHOWS them their hypocrisy, you'll never see a "Yeah, you know, you're right" from a single one of them.

Gonzo, great points all.

Maybe to make it more clear:

Being against drugs: Fine, even if once you too were tempted and tried them.

Attacking another candidate for admitting having once done drugs: expect to be equally attacked if something similar is dug up in your past.

Gnome, that is exactly what SHOULD happen.

[CzechPrince]

#1:

I am familiar with the statistics, and it doesn't bear out.

How do you figure?

2007:
"The current rate of divorce is about 30-34% in any given year, and is lower among the college-educated (about 20%), Catholics, Muslims, and atheists, In a comparison of various religious denominations, the group that actually performs the worst are Baptists and Evangelical christians..."

2005:

"George Barna, an evangelical pollster, comments: "You can understand why atheists and agnostics might have a high rate of divorce since they are less likely to believe in such concepts as sin, absolute moral truth and judgment. Yet the survey found that the percentage of atheists and agnostics who have been married and divorced is 37 percent very similar to the numbers for the born-again population."

"What's more, 23 percent of Evangelicals have had TWO divorces."

http://www.ethicsandreligion.com/red...umns/C1241.htm (http://www.ethicsandreligion.com/redesignedcolumns/C1241.htm)
http://scienceblogs.com/denialism/20...ut_divorce.php (http://scienceblogs.com/denialism/2007/05/myths_about_divorce.php)



Keep in mind as well that the bible belt has a much divorce rate than the national average when reading.

http://www.divorcemag.com/faq/

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/14/we...ew/14pamb.html (http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/14/weekinreview/14pamb.html)

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/m...n10145284/pg_2 (http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4182/is_20010522/ai_n10145284/pg_2)




#2:

Even if that fact was true, it wouldn't justify your conclusion. If 80% of murders were committed by evangelical Christians, that wouldn't change what is right.

It means practice what you preach. I can't help but laugh at these people who can't take care of their own marital problems within their own homes, churches and congregation, but yet are so concerned with civil unions. It's hypocrisy at it's best, especially when Massachusetts has the lowest divorce rate in the nation.

Unfortunately, it's things like this that are going to hurt the Republican party big time once my generation gets a few more years on itself. This is exactly why the overwhelming majority of high school and college aged people have swung dramatically to the left over the past decade.

[ThomasMore]

Czech, I understand how you drew that conclusion.

The Barna study is flawed. (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=56685) It pits Christians against Christians and it does not distinguish between practicing Christians and non-practicing. Someone who says he is nondenominational, but hasn't been to church in 5 years, is scored in the Barna study as an evangelical. A Lutheran who has been frequent churchgoer and takes her faith seriously is not scored as an evangelical.

The Barna study has been widely publicized by partisan organs such as Time and the New York Times, precisely because it appears to embarrass devout Christians.

A clearer study is the General Social Study (http://www.norc.org/GSS+Website/Browse+GSS+Variables/), produced by the University of Chicago. It broke divorce rates down by denomination and frequency of worship. The 2000-2004 data produced the following divorce rate results:

58%, non-frequent Black Protestants
54%, non-frequent Evangelicals
51%, no religion (e.g., atheists & agnostics)
48%, ALL NON-CHRISTIANS
48%, non-frequent, other religions
47%, frequent Black Protestants
42%, non-frequent, mainline Protestants
41%, ALL CHRISTIANS
41%, non-frequent Catholics
39%, Jews
38%, frequent other religions
34%, frequent Evangelicals
32%, ALL FREQUENT CHRISTIANS
32%, frequent mainline Protestants
23%, frequent Catholics

[ThomasMore]

It means practice what you preach. I can't help but laugh at these people who can't take care of their own marital problems within their own homes, churches and congregation, but yet are so concerned with civil unions. It's hypocrisy at it's best, especially when Massachusetts has the lowest divorce rate in the nation.
Respectfully, Czech, your mocking attitude does not serve you well.

And you also have to take a divorce rate in the context of a marriage rate. For example, if only 40% of a population marry and another 30% cohabit, the divorce rate is likely to be lower than a population in which 85% marry, and marry young. I don't have specific numbers in the case of Mass, but I would be almost certain that marriage rates are decidedly lower than in most states.

Unfortunately, it's things like this that are going to hurt the Republican party big time once my generation gets a few more years on itself. This is exactly why the overwhelming majority of high school and college aged people have swung dramatically to the left over the past decade.


Disagree, CP. First, I think you are part in a fairly small population (relative to the nation) at your college -- and you are buying hook, line and sinker into your professors' leftism. I remember how bad it was 20 years ago when I went to college -- I was surprised how much worse it was half a decade later when I went to law school. I can only imagine how bad it is now.

I know a number of college-age kids. Some think like you do. And some think very differently. Respectfully, you need to look outside the little ivory tower you call a college.

[CzechPrince]

Czech, I understand how you drew that conclusion.

The Barna study is flawed. (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=56685) It pits Christians against Christians and it does not distinguish between practicing Christians and non-practicing. Someone who says he is nondenominational, but hasn't been to church in 5 years, is scored in the Barna study as an evangelical.

I don't see how that matters unless you are arguing that church decreases chances at divorce. Just because some people go to church more than others does not make them better or more moral, clearly, that hasn't been the case for lots of people.

A Lutheran who has been frequent churchgoer and takes her faith seriously is not scored as an evangelical.

I'm not Lutheran, I know some Lutherans call themselves Evangelical Lutherans, but not all I don't think. Furthermore, the doctrine differences between most Lutherans and Evangelicals as defined in this survey are probably the reason they were not included.

The Barna study has been widely publicized by partisan organs such as Time and the New York Times, precisely because it appears to embarrass devout Christians.

A clearer study is the General Social Study (http://www.norc.org/GSS+Website/Browse+GSS+Variables/), produced by the University of Chicago. It broke divorce rates down by denomination and frequency of worship. The 2000-2004 data produced the following divorce rate results:

58%, non-frequent Black Protestants
54%, non-frequent Evangelicals
51%, no religion (e.g., atheists & agnostics)
48%, ALL NON-CHRISTIANS
48%, non-frequent, other religions
47%, frequent Black Protestants
42%, non-frequent, mainline Protestants
41%, ALL CHRISTIANS
41%, non-frequent Catholics
39%, Jews
38%, frequent other religions
34%, frequent Evangelicals
32%, ALL FREQUENT CHRISTIANS
32%, frequent mainline Protestants
23%, frequent Catholics

I couldn't find the stats on that website. I guess you can make the argument that Church helps with marriage rates, but my problem I guess is dictating what is, "frequent" or "non frequent." I think its something worth looking into more. Here are two more recent studies found:

http://www.barna.org/FlexPage.aspx?Page=BarnaUpdate&BarnaUpdateID=95

http://www.barna.org/FlexPage.aspx?Page=BarnaUpdate&BarnaUpdateID=170

[CzechPrince]

Respectfully, Czech, your mocking attitude does not serve you well.

I don't mock often, so when I do, I'm serious.

And you also have to take a divorce rate in the context of a marriage rate. For example, if only 40% of a population marry and another 30% cohabit, the divorce rate is likely to be lower than a population in which 85% marry, and marry young. I don't have specific numbers in the case of Mass, but I would be almost certain that marriage rates are decidedly lower than in most states.

Possibly, but marriage is a big responsibility. Those people are choosing to get married.


Disagree, CP. First, I think you are part in a fairly small population (relative to the nation) at your college --

Could you clarify what you mean?


and you are buying hook, line and sinker into your professors' leftism.

I'm not a leftist.

I remember how bad it was 20 years ago when I went to college -- I was surprised how much worse it was half a decade later when I went to law school. I can only imagine how bad it is now.

I have had several professors that were quite conservative, some quite liberal. All were very intelligent.

I know a number of college-age kids. Some think like you do. And some think very differently. Respectfully, you need to look outside the little ivory tower you call a college.

Ivory tower? Again, hardly.

[ThomasMore]

I don't mock often, so when I do, I'm serious.

Mockery is by its own nature NONserious. It is not a factual answer or even an argument. It is insult and demonization, in order to avoid addressing the merits (or lack thereof) of an argument. If you don't agree, try using mockery in a term paper, and see how it is graded.

You did advance a claim, though. That evangelicals who opposed "civil unions" (whoever they are) proclaim themselves morally superior to others, but don't walk their own talk. To that end, you asserted the Barna study.

The Barna study has already been dealt with.

But you also presented half-claims and strawmen in that argument.

Which evangelicals are out there militating against "civil union" laws? I have heard of no such movement. What is your correlation between the issues of individual divorce cases and civil unions?

After you have explained those, then you can explain who you are "laughing at," and why. And as someone in your early 20's, I am sure you have LOTS of life experience to draw on, to entitle you to laugh at them.

I'm not a leftist.

Maybe not on all issues. But on this one, CP, you are well to the left of center.

I have had several professors that were quite conservative, some quite liberal. All were very intelligent.

At GMU, you probably do have some conservative professors. I attended four universities (Michigan State, Northwestern, UW-Madison, and DePaul), but I have never yet been to a school where ALL my professors were very intelligent. Perhaps your experience has been unusual.

Ivory tower? Again, hardly.

CP, by definition, college life IS the ivory tower (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivory_Tower). And I hate to break it to you, but it is hardly unusual for college kids to run around, scorning the pedestrian opinions of the rest of the world, and thinking that they have all the answers. In virtually every case, those answers have been untested in the school of hard knocks. Most people gain perspective after about 10 years, but some don't.

[CzechPrince]

Mockery is by its own nature NONserious. It is not a factual answer or even an argument. It is insult and demonization, in order to avoid addressing the merits (or lack thereof) of an argument. If you don't agree, try using mockery in a term paper, and see how it is graded.

I've never avoided anything. It was merely my personal opinion, which I am entitled to.

You did advance a claim, though. That evangelicals who opposed "civil unions" (whoever they are) proclaim themselves morally superior to others, but don't walk their own talk. To that end, you asserted the Barna study.

The Barna study has already been dealt with. To an extent, it still doesn't change the fact that the bible belt is the leading area in the nation with the highest percentages of failed marriages. Furthermore, the churches that are most opposed to gay unions and such, specific denominations, (besides the Catholic Church) are the ones with the highest divorce rates.

But you also presented half-claims and strawmen in that argument.

Which evangelicals are out there militating against "civil union" laws? I have heard of no such movement. What is your correlation between the issues of individual divorce cases and civil unions?No such movement? Evangelicals are one of the front forces against civil unions/marriage for homosexuals.

http://pewforum.org/gay-marriage/


Here is a great article to read:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,229641,00.html



After you have explained those, then you can explain who you are "laughing at," and why. And as someone in your early 20's, I am sure you have LOTS of life experience to draw on, to entitle you to laugh at them.I do have lots of life experiences, everything from where I grew up to my travels all over the world, and everything in between. I'm sure I do have more life experiences than a lot of those people, and I don't have any qualm stating that.



Maybe not on all issues. But on this one, CP, you are well to the left of center. I'm completely fine with that. You call it being left of center, I call it not using religion and Christ as a scapegoat to hate and deny others the same rights as others. I'm not accusing you of either, I'm speaking in general terms.



At GMU, you probably do have some conservative professors. I attended four universities (Michigan State, Northwestern, UW-Madison, and DePaul), but I have never yet been to a school where ALL my professors were very intelligent. Perhaps your experience has been unusual. I take grad classes at GMU, my undergrad is UVA.


CP, by definition, college life IS the ivory tower (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivory_Tower). And I hate to break it to you, but it is hardly unusual for college kids to run around, scorning the pedestrian opinions of the rest of the world, and thinking that they have all the answers. In virtually every case, those answers have been untested in the school of hard knocks. Most people gain perspective after about 10 years, but some don't.I know I'll have more understanding when I get out of college on many things, but that hardly includes my support for gay marriage. On the contrary, people who thought they had the answers and believed it was this evil thing which would kill our society are starting to realize how silly they have been.

[ThomasMore]

I've never avoided anything. It was merely my personal opinion, which I am entitled to.

Sigh...

Let's put it back into its original context.

I didn't say you weren't entitled to an opinion. I originally remarked that your sarcasm did not serve you well.

You said that you did it when you were serious (sounding very self-righteous).

I said that sarcasm is, by nature, unserious and demonizes instead of arguing.

Go ahead. Be smug and sarcastic.

Furthermore, the churches that are most opposed to gay unions and such, specific denominations, (besides the Catholic Church) are the ones with the highest divorce rates.

No such movement? Evangelicals are one of the front forces against civil unions/marriage for homosexuals.

http://pewforum.org/gay-marriage/

Now you are conflating two issues. You commented earlier on civil unions -- which are NOT the same as homosexual marriage. I agree that there is significant opposition to homosexual marriage, and I join in that.

I do have lots of life experiences, everything from where I grew up to my travels all over the world, and everything in between. I'm sure I do have more life experiences than a lot of those people, and I don't have any qualm stating that.

You were born in the Czech Republic, and lived both in Europe and the U.S.

You are still very young -- there are some who have less life experience than you, but life experience does not just consist of living in a few countries. I think you are demeaning others' experiences to flatter your own.

You think yourself broad-minded, but unwilling to seriously consider what many other people have to say about the consequences of your "broad-minded" attitudes.

I know of nobody scapegoating Christ, and I haven't heard anyone talking of hate.