leaving atheism...

[Inertialmass]

Show me the stats where Christian couples who take their faith seriously... who make God the center of their lives and their marriage... who pray together everyday and who read the bible together everyday... and who belong to groups that do pray and have bible studies...

We've never been treated to a more florid, shameless -- or less self-aware -- example of "Victory By Definition."

No True Scotsman (also referred to as the fallacy of "Victory by Definition" in Robert Allen's "The Propaganda Game") is an intentional logical fallacy which involves the act of setting up standards for a particular scenario, then redefining those same standards in order to exclude a particular outcome.

The Trope Namer and prime example of this sort of behavior is a hypothetical scenario (first told by British philosopher Antony Flew in his 1975 book Thinking About Thinking) in which a Scotsman reads about a horrible crime in the newspaper that takes place in the English town of Brighton and smugly thinks to himself, "No Scotsman would ever do such a thing." Something much worse happens in nearby Aberdeen and is reported on the next day. Rather than admit that he's wrong, he instead thinks, "No true Scotsman would ever do such a thing." In this case, he is going from "someone who lives in Scotland" to "someone that meets my standard of Scottish behavior."

A similar way of illustrating the point:

Angus: No Scotsman puts sugar in his porridge!
Bonnie: But my uncle Scotty MacScotscot does just that!
Angus: Weel, then he's no' a true Scotsman.    

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/NoTrueScotsman


Given multiple, independent surveys (including evangelical christian Barna Group) showing high divorce rates among the conservative christian demographic, you retrospectively attempt to redefine the True Christian.

[Francis]

What on earth are you talking about Intertialmass????????

I'm going by the stats and charts from Pewforum which you cited.  They are the ones who asked SPECIFIC questions of the divorced or separated adults about what they did or didn't do.... and what they believed and didn't believe.

So once again, show me ANY stats which shows that when Christian couples who take their faith seriously... who make God the center of their lives and their marriage... who pray together everyday and who read the bible together everyday... and who belong to groups that do pray and have bible studies... end up in divorce at the same rate or at a larger rate as non-Christian couples and/or Christian couples who DON'T do the above things together as a couple.

When you can do that, then you've proven me wrong.  Why is this complicated?

I'm not trying to win by definition. I'm asking you to back up your contention with facts and stats.  And until you can, then I have no reason to believe what you say about divorce and Christians.

As for the "No True Scotsman Fallacy"... I never said that those Christian who DON'T regularly practice their faith in a committed and deliberate manner like those who do... are NOT Christians.   The definition of a Christian is very simple.  Christians are people who have acknowledged and have accepted Christ as their savior and the way to salvation.  A Christian person can live their faith in a strong way or in a weak way... but they are still Christian.  It's just that those people who don't practice or live their faith in a strong committed manner, can't expect to gain any benefits from their beliefs and faith if they don't practice their beliefs and faith.

How is that not true or not common sense? How is that not true for anyone concerning any belief?  Since when is it true that a person can gain benefits from their belief (no matter what that belief is) if they don't practice that belief?????????

Indeed, there are such people and terms as non-practicing Jews and non-practicing Catholics and lapsed Catholics and secular Jews, etc.  Just look in the dictionary or Wikipedia.

Is a lapsed Catholic or a non-practicing Jew going to gain the SAME BENEFITS from Catholicism or the Jewish faith as those who practice Catholicism or their Jewish faith on a regular and consistent manner?????

I don't think so.

I genuinely don't understand what you are trying to claim.

Take Care

[none]

Like believing in Jesus isn't enough, and admitting it isn't enough
Not to mention evangelical and conservative

[Francis]

Like believing in Jesus isn't enough, and admitting it isn't enough
Not to mention evangelical and conservative

Since you don't explain what you mean, I can only guess.  Therefore my response is based on what i THINK you meant.

How does believing in Jesus or admitting it... help ANYONE or ANY couple to have a strong marriage if they don't APPLY their belief and faith in a consistent and deliberate and frequent manner?

Take Gandhi.... or Buddha... or any self-help book... or even any instructional manual for that matter.   How does believing in Gandhi help a follower of his to live out Gandhi's principles if they don't apply his principles as he has laid out?  The same with Buddha. How does believing in Buddha help a follower live out Buddha's principles if they don't apply them in the way Buddha says?

How about an instructional manual?  A person can believe in the author of the instructional manual and believe it is filled with wonderful advice about how to fix a car or a computer or lawnmower, etc... but if they don't apply the principles and steps in the instructional manual in the manner it says, it won't help the person who believes in the author or in the instructional manual.

I just don't know what you are trying to say.

Anyway... I can see this conversation is going no where.

Take care.

[none]

Conservative and evangelical?
It's in the survey

[Inertialmass]

I genuinely don't understand what you are trying to claim.

And I genuinely believe you.

1Religion / Re: Burning in Hell
? by Francis on March 20, 2016, 04:31:36 PM ?

......  That would be unfortunate.      What information? I don't understand what you're asking.   Quote  Francis wrote:  ......

2Religion / Re: Giving children false hopes
? by Francis on April 14, 2014, 05:42:18 PM ?

...... , 05:17:48 PM  Then I am still not following. I don't understand how a greeting and a salutation affects the way a  ......

3Religion / Re: How is belief justified?
? by Francis on April 30, 2014, 05:28:05 PM ?

...... ... and all over the WEB for all to see. So I don't understand your question and statement: "How do you go about  ......

4Religion / Re: Get them while they are young
? by Francis on September 09, 2013, 06:25:34 PM ?

......  must be having a communication problem, because I don't understand your point here.   Quote  Francis wrote: I  ......

5Religion / Re: Once saved always saved?
? by Francis on September 19, 2013, 10:42:44 PM ?

......  know you're saved when OSAS is not in effect?   I don't understand this question. OSAS is only an issue AFTER YOU  ............  reject God in their daily life, etc?  That is why I don't understand your questions.  And now what about a lazy  ......

6Religion / Re: Jealous Sinful God
? by Francis on March 20, 2014, 12:51:08 PM ?

......  don't want to read what I write... then don't. I don't understand why I can't be myself as long as I'm respectful  ......

7Religion / Re: Jesus as God dying on the cross sacrificed absolutely nothing.
? by Francis on May 23, 2013, 08:19:03 PM ?

......  have an honest and sincere discussion together? I don't understand your response. I certainly don't agree with the  ............  have a problem with that translation either.  So I don't understand your point.  The translation is not from "You do  ......

8Religion / Re: Don't understand the Trinity ...
? by Francis on June 20, 2013, 05:31:39 PM ?

......  computer dramatically effects you?  So... I don't understand your objection at all.   Quote  Dutchy wrote:  ............  give some sort of explanation for the trinity I don't understand.   I never claimed to be a good teacher or  ......

9Religion / Re: I present this as evidence of God's existance
? by Francis on July 22, 2013, 05:38:39 PM ?

......  that you read the Bible in the first place?"  So I don't understand your point.  What you may have wanted to say...  ......

10Religion / Re: Why believe Bible?
? by Francis on April 10, 2013, 05:45:41 PM ?

......  to make sense of where the hole came from. So I don't understand your statement here.   Quote from: Gnu Ordure on  ......

11Religion / Re: Bill Maher's most brilliant commentary on the Christian God
? by Francis on March 28, 2014, 03:53:56 PM ?

......  object to God exploiting people.   Maybe I don't understand what you wrote... but I'm not aware that I said  ......

12Religion / Re: Evidence for God (or anything else supernatural)
? by Francis on March 20, 2013, 04:04:44 PM ?

......  and translation remains spurious!   What? I don't understand what you're saying. God doesn't know everything?   ............  had an opinion on what we are talking about.  So I don't understand why you gave me this link at all. Maybe you can  ............  the Jews thought of the phrase "Good & Evil". So I don't understand your point.   Composer: You claimed that Good &  ............ . This is HISTORY I'm bringing in and using.   So I don't understand your question.  Quote  Composer: You also still  ......

13Religion / Re: A place for Wilson to provide evidence
? by Francis on June 12, 2013, 09:02:29 PM ?

......  Peter 3:15)  The scriptures speak for me.   ???? I don't understand your comment here.   The scriptures can't really  ......

14Religion / Re: Historicity of the New Testament
? by Francis on July 03, 2010, 05:34:48 PM ?

......  the early Church and neither did the Sanhedrin. I don't understand your question.  Quote  What four "facts"? Did I  ......

15Religion / Re: HERESY 101
? by Francis on October 29, 2011, 08:09:46 AM ?

......  of a shred of credibility for my alleged cause!   I don't understand what you are saying in the above statement.      ......

16Religion / Re: theist double standards
? by Francis on March 27, 2014, 04:25:06 PM ?

......  under much higher scrutiny? Facts are facts. So I don't understand you.  Respectfully  ......

17Religion / Re: Do atheists have double standards?
? by Francis on March 23, 2014, 12:08:05 AM ?

......  beliefs and worldview. NOT MINE.   Therefore, I don't understand the relevancy of your question since it has  ......

18Religion / Re: Historical Messiah, Biblical Jesus.
? by Francis on September 09, 2013, 03:24:20 PM ?

......  exists... that is how it happened back then.  So I don't understand your question.  Best Regards  ......

19Religion / Re: Turn your sinful accusations around, be real skeptics
? by Francis on July 05, 2010, 07:11:51 AM ?

......  be the best evidence for the existence of God   I don't understand. Or do you think there is a defference between  ......

20Religion / Re: Seven days is seven days
? by Francis on February 09, 2013, 11:23:04 AM ?

......  used in Exodus as written in the OP?   Anyway... I don't understand your confidence when the experts themselves are  ......

21Religion / Re: Just for the HELL of it
? by Francis on December 29, 2011, 02:32:13 PM ?

......  same level as a belief in God's existence?     i don't understand this, francis.  if there is any argument of any  ......

22Religion / Re: I'd like to meet your god
? by Francis on March 14, 2014, 04:14:41 PM ?

......  discussion about meeting your God in 2014.   ??? I don't understand your question. You may think the Resurrection of  ............  the heck out of you... but at the same time, I don't understand you at all.  The statement: "It might be the case  ......

23Religion / Re: Is god worse than Hitler?
? by Francis on August 27, 2013, 10:51:21 AM ?

......  that this should be considered as an anomaly. So I don't understand why you would think I was special pleading.    .....

24Religion / Re: A few questions for everyone...
? by Francis on December 14, 2012, 12:32:32 PM ?

...... . You don't fix things that aren't broken"   I don't understand your point. The universe is in a mess because of  ......

25Religion / Re: Advice from Pastor C. T. Russell
? by Francis on July 18, 2013, 01:15:14 PM ?

......  an actual f**king god first.   First of all... I don't understand the logic or reasoning of this statement at all.  ............  also how historians work. Isn't this true?  So I don't understand what your point was.  Secondly... there is no  ............  evidence for my belief? Of course it is.  So I don't understand your logic or reasoning here. If God exists,  ......

26Religion / Re: Was the first Temple Prostitute a man or a woman?
? by Francis on April 17, 2013, 11:27:02 AM ?

......  bury sons or should sons bury fathers?  Francis: I don't understand this question. Both occur all the time in our  ......

27Religion / Re: Disturbing interview with a geophysicist
? by Francis on April 06, 2013, 02:49:01 PM ?

......  reality. Just as we do the SAME THING today.  So I don't understand the thrust of your argument or concern.  Bottom  ......

28Religion / Re: Can immoral people get into heaven?
? by Francis on November 20, 2012, 08:16:28 AM ?

......  heaven, then I don't know of any.  But anyway... I don't understand people who appear to be aghast at the thought  ......

29Religion / Re: A true prophet!
? by Francis on July 28, 2010, 01:08:47 AM ?

......  was a Christian, but who is to say I was right?   I don't understand the difficulty here. Words matter. One of the  ......

30Religion / Re: Tracing your epistemology
? by Francis on September 19, 2011, 10:34:36 PM ?

......  wrote: Quote  maybe I don't understand craigs argument... who cares... still I don't  ............  for your thoughts.  1)... You wrote: "maybe I don't understand craigs argument... who cares..."  If you don't  ......

31Religion / Re: Jesus Penis Thread V.1
? by Francis on October 08, 2011, 04:23:19 AM ?

...... i don't understand your fixation and/or obsession with the penis.  ......

32Religion / Re: The Inn of the Sixth Happineess
? by Francis on October 28, 2011, 12:13:30 AM ?

......  to be a "formal faith system".  But then maybe I don't understand how you understand the phrase "formal faith  ......



Pages: [1]     

Nevertheless, as an atheist concerned the damage brought to our contemporary world by irrational religion, I'm glad we had this opportunity to examine another realm of its retrograde harms.

[Francis]

Hello Inertialmass...

How are you on this beautiful day? I genuinely hope you are doing well.

I freely acknowledge that I'm probably the least intelligent person on this forum. I'm not particularly bright. Even Kevin says that he feels that he is not particularly bright. So I'm in good company. 

Compound that with the fact in many instances, people are not articulating or being clear in their responses, then it does indeed sometimes become difficult to understand another person's statement or viewpoint or obsessions.

And as a gentleman, I figure it is civil and proper (it was the way I was raised and taught in school) to ask for clarification by saying: "I don't understand...."

I apologize if you feel differently or were raised differently.

Nevertheless, as an atheist concerned the damage brought to our contemporary world by irrational religion, I'm glad we had this opportunity to examine another realm of its retrograde harms.

As a Christian, I am also concerned with the damage brought to our contemporary world by irrational religion (and irrational atheism)... and irrational people.  That is why I'm glad that Christianity and theism is not irrational. while it is often true that people or followers of religions and/or philosophies might be irrational, it is not true that a belief in the God of Abraham is irrational.

As for  examining "another realm of its retrograde harms"... you have yet to show any "retrograde harm".  Pewforums certainly doesn't support your contention.  The most you've done is shown that often times, people themselves can be weak and hypocritical and emotional and prone to making mistakes... and sometimes irratinoal.  But we all know that, don't we?

Take Care.

I hope you had a wonderful Easter.  And I wish you and your family much happiness and good fortune.

[none]

Maybe one day when you are an adult you will understand
Conservative and evangelical, its in the survey
No true Scotsman outs one of the fallacies you employ regularly
Not only that you rant  continually on that which is irrelevant and claim you just understand, I'm not advocating that you are intelligent
Nobody is arguing you are intelligent, although you could be we just can't say but that doesn't change evangelical and conservative in the survey

[Francis]

Maybe one day when you are an adult you will understand
Conservative and evangelical, its in the survey
No true Scotsman outs one of the fallacies you employ regularly
Not only that you rant  continually on that which is irrelevant and claim you just understand, I'm not advocating that you are intelligent
Nobody is arguing you are intelligent, although you could be we just can't say but that doesn't change evangelical and conservative in the survey

Hello none...

How are you on this wonderful glorious day? I hope you are doing well.


1)... I am an adult and I hope I will continue to grow in understanding in wisdom because there is so much I don't know. I've discovered that the more I study and read and learn, the more I see how little I know compared to all the knowledge contained in the unviverse. The more I learn, the more I recognize how littel I know.  I envy your confidence in your vast store of knowledge.

2)... Whether a person is an atheist, a theist, a Republican, a Democrat, a Moderate, a Marxist, a free-market believer, a conservative, a liberal, an evangelical, a catholic, a Jew, a Buddhist, a Hindu, a Mormon, etc etc etc etc... no matter what a person believes in or how they label themselves... if they don't live or apply the beliefs and things and principles that that they say they believe in, into their everyday lives in a consistent and faithful manner and live it out... then they can't logically expect to see the results one would expect from their beliefs and from the principles they say they believe in.

How is that not true?

3)... The Pewforum research does not show any correlation between divorce and those couples who live their Christian faith in a strong committed consistent manner everyday and have put God and prayer as the center of their lives and their marriage everyday. I went through every single chart with you to show that there was no such correlation.  And therefore, I have not employed any "no true Scotsman" fallacy... despite your repeated claim that I have done so.

Instead of showing any such correlation, you just keep saying I am claiming things that are not true. That appears to be your "go to" tactic when you can't prove your case.

4)... I don't expect you to advocate that I am intelligent.  But I believe that you are intelligent. That's the difference between you and I.

5)... I understand that nobody is arguing that I am intelligent. But I do argue that you are intellgient. That's the difference between you and I.

Hope you had a nice Easter.  And I hope you and your family and loved ones are wonderfully blessed and that good fortune follows you everyday of your life.

Take care

[Inertialmass]

... if they don't live or apply the beliefs and things and principles that that they say they believe in, into their everyday lives in a consistent and faithful manner and live it out...

Good Afternoon Francis!

I anticipate today's delightsome spring rains are freshening your spirit even as they awaken garden lilies and birds of the wood in this new season of rebirth and growing!

Yours is a truly bright suggestion to arrange a correlation survey querying in parallel both marital failure rates and seriousness of churchly devotional attendance.  Unfortunately -- and with heavy heart I must relay to you -- social scientists in the field long ago and repeatedly confirmed an insurmountable inhibition to accurate parsing of self-reported attendance at church and church functions.  It pains me to even need mention this little indelicacy.  But the fact is that your tribe of churchgoers is -- oh how can I put it diplomatically??? -- your tribe has proven itself truthiness-challenged.  They lie about attendance, and the harder they thump their bibles, the harder they lie:

Did You Really Go To Church This Week?

Behind the Poll Data

by C. Kirk Hadaway and P.L. Marler

Kirk Hadaway is minister for research and evaluation at the United Church of Christ?s Board for Homeland Ministries. Penny Long Marler is associate professor of religion and philosophy at Samford University in Birmingham, Alabama. This article appeared in The Christian Century, May 6, 1998, pp. 472-475. Copyright by The Christian Century Foundation; used by permission. Current articles and subscription information can be found at www.christiancentury.org. This article prepared for Religion Online by Ted & Winnie Brock.

...Several years ago we teamed up with sociologist Mark Chaves to test the 40 percent figure for church attendance. Our initial study, based on attendance counts in Protestant churches in one Ohio county and Catholic churches in 18 dioceses, indicated a much lower rate of religious participation than the polls report. Instead of 40 percent of Protestants attending church, we found 20 percent. Instead of 50 percent of Catholics attending church, we found 28 percent. In other words, actual church attendance was about half the rate indicated by national public opinion polls...

These studies increased our confidence that church attendance is overreported and that it is not a uniquely American phenomenon. But we also wanted to know why people overreport. Although some colleagues have (somewhat) jokingly accused us of calling decent Americans "liars," we have never argued that people "lie" about their church attendance. Follow-up questions about what people meant by "attending church" revealed that a few were counting things other than attending worship?such as going to weddings, funerals, committee meetings, Sunday school and choir practice. One individual in Ashtabula County even said his attendance consisted of mowing the church lawn on the previous Saturday. Being at church for reasons other than worship "counts" as church attendance for some people who answer poll questions. But these cases represent less than 2 percent of all persons polled, and a large attendance gap remains when they are removed. Why do other people misreport attendance?...

Most overreporting occurs among those who consider themselves to be regular church attenders. In another study, conducted among members of a large evangelical church in the South, we were able to determine exactly who misreported their attendance. Most of those who said they attended and who, in fact, did not were people who report that they normally attend church "every week." People who attend less often?particularly those who say they normally attend once a month or less?accurately reported that they did not attend church in the previous week...     

http://www.religion-online.org/showarticle.asp?title=237
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/249291178_Testing_the_Attendance_Gap_in_a_Conservative_Church

Perhaps here we have the key to unlock our correlative secret.  A successful marriage to some large extent relies upon mutual honesty within the partnership.  Given that the tribe of bible thumpers is long habituated in the ways of delivering counterfactuals, should it come as any surprise that evangelical/conservative Christian marriages fail at high rates?

Best of health and happiness to you and yours free of adverse stochastic eventualities, and hoping that you had a really enjoyable springtime zombie Revivification Celebration.

[none]

Maybe one day when you are an adult you will understand
Conservative and evangelical, its in the survey
No true Scotsman outs one of the fallacies you employ regularly
Not only that you rant  continually on that which is irrelevant and claim you just understand, I'm not advocating that you are intelligent
Nobody is arguing you are intelligent, although you could be we just can't say but that doesn't change evangelical and conservative in the survey

Hello none...

How are you on this wonderful glorious day? I hope you are doing well.


1)... I am an adult and I hope I will continue to grow in understanding in wisdom because there is so much I don't know. I've discovered that the more I study and read and learn, the more I see how little I know compared to all the knowledge contained in the unviverse. The more I learn, the more I recognize how littel I know.  I envy your confidence in your vast store of knowledge.

2)... Whether a person is an atheist, a theist, a Republican, a Democrat, a Moderate, a Marxist, a free-market believer, a conservative, a liberal, an evangelical, a catholic, a Jew, a Buddhist, a Hindu, a Mormon, etc etc etc etc... no matter what a person believes in or how they label themselves... if they don't live or apply the beliefs and things and principles that that they say they believe in, into their everyday lives in a consistent and faithful manner and live it out... then they can't logically expect to see the results one would expect from their beliefs and from the principles they say they believe in.

How is that not true?

3)... The Pewforum research does not show any correlation between divorce and those couples who live their Christian faith in a strong committed consistent manner everyday and have put God and prayer as the center of their lives and their marriage everyday. I went through every single chart with you to show that there was no such correlation.  And therefore, I have not employed any "no true Scotsman" fallacy... despite your repeated claim that I have done so.

Instead of showing any such correlation, you just keep saying I am claiming things that are not true. That appears to be your "go to" tactic when you can't prove your case.

4)... I don't expect you to advocate that I am intelligent.  But I believe that you are intelligent. That's the difference between you and I.

5)... I understand that nobody is arguing that I am intelligent. But I do argue that you are intellgient. That's the difference between you and I.

Hope you had a nice Easter.  And I hope you and your family and loved ones are wonderfully blessed and that good fortune follows you everyday of your life.

Take care

If you were Christian you'd accept the results and parameters of the survey

[kevin]

Bob,
But did you receive the Holy Spirit when you "accepted Jesus into [your] heart" ? If the answer is, 'Yes', then the Holy Spirit still dwells within you, albeit the light has dimmed, but is certainly not extinguished.

It is only an (your) opinion, that "the author of Hebrews" offers us chapter 6 - verses 4-6, as 'unequivocal' proof that salvation, once gifted, can be lost

"Once enlightened" has a plethora of meanings. For example, you have been "enlightened"; you are very aware of the Gospel of God and 'the perseverance of the saints', and to what effect? None. You would not affirm these things.

good points, eyes.

when i look at it again, i see that the author of hebrews was indeed more ambiguous than i thought. but the comments about the visible and invisible church have already caused me to reflect upon my own position.

your comment to bob (above) indicates that you believe that salvation, once accepted, cannot be lost.

however, jesus specifies that the difference between the saved and the damned is belief:

Luk_8:12  Those by the way side are they that hear; then cometh the devil, and taketh away the word out of their hearts, lest they should believe and be saved.


once i believed, sincerely. now i do not believe, and therefore am among the reprobate, by definition.

if one cannot lose salvation, then it follows that my earlier beliefs were either false or incorrect. they were not false, but were quite sincere. hence it follows that they were incorrect.

from this i conclude that sincere people, believing on jesus and requesting the holy spirit to come into their heart, praying to god for guidance and doing so in the company of a church also seeking guidance, must have made shipwreck and become a body of the damned, in spite of their prayers, penitence, supplications, and their hopes.

sort of grim, that.

on the other hand, it might be argued that the other two points-- the permanence of salvation, and it's reliance on belief-- are more subtle than i have indicated. jesus does not specify that belief is required, for example, only that those who do believe are saved. perhaps there is another category of people who are saved who do not believe. or not.

or perhaps no one is saved or condemned, because christianity is untrue.

i think i've listed all the possibilities.

[Inertialmass]

i think i've listed all the possibilities.

One other possibility may be that had not Western culture been wrenched off sideways ~ 400AD - 1900AD by this Sumerian/Egyptian/Phoenician/Greek/Roman tribal syncretism, all this while you coulda instead been teachin' yerself tensor calculus or somethin' else fun and useful.

[composer]

once i believed, sincerely. now i do not believe, and therefore am among the reprobate, by definition.-- are more subtle than i have indicated. jesus does not specify that belief is required, for example, only that those who do believe are saved. perhaps there is another category of people who are saved who do not believe. or not.

So a genuine Story book believing wife can not remain with an unbeliever! (2 Cor. 6:14)

Is it fair therefore to say under those conditions a Divorce is imminent?

[Francis]

Good Evening Inertialmass!!!!

How are you tonight?  It's not raining where I am but it appears that it must be raining where you are... and so I will greet you in the same manner that you greet me!!  With joy and delight and genuine affection!!  I anticipate today's delight-some spring rains are freshening your spirit even as they awaken garden lilies and birds of the wood in this new season of rebirth and growing!! Isn't God's creation wonderful!!!!!

Yours is a truly bright suggestion to arrange a correlation survey querying in parallel both marital failure rates and seriousness of churchly devotional attendance.  Unfortunately -- and with heavy heart I must relay to you -- social scientists in the field long ago and repeatedly confirmed an insurmountable inhibition to accurate parsing of self-reported attendance at church and church functions.  It pains me to even need mention this little indelicacy.  But the fact is that your tribe of churchgoers is -- oh how can I put it diplomatically??? -- your tribe has proven itself truthiness-challenged.  They lie about attendance, and the harder they thump their bibles, the harder they lie:

How does the article that you cited above (printed in 1998... almost 20 years ago) disprove anything I've said?????????

If anything, it proves my point, so I'm not sure why you supplied the link. Whether it is a 20 year old study like the one you bring up, or whether it is the more recent and very reliable Pewforum research... neither polls/studies demonstrates that those Christian couples who make God the center of their lives and the center of their marriage every day... and who consistently and faithfully pray everyday as a couple together... and who make and keep a commitment to live out their Christian faith everyday... and who consistently attend church and bible studies regularly every week together... that the divorce rate is higher or at the same rate among them as it is among non-Christians and those Christians who don't live their lives centered completely around God and their Christian faith.

Perhaps here we have the key to unlock our correlative secret.

The key for Christian couples for a successful marriage that doesn't end in divorce is to consistently and faithfully live out their faith together as a couple.

And every report you've brought up so far, only supports that contention and that key to success. 

A successful marriage to some large extent relies upon mutual honesty within the partnership.

Absolutely!!!!!!!  And lying and dishonesty is NOT part of the Christian faith.  Being honest and truthful is part of the Christian faith and when couples live out their Christian faith in a consistent and faithful manner, they will have a better chance of success than those that don't live out their faith everyday faithfully.

Given that the tribe of bible thumpers is long habituated in the ways of delivering counterfactuals,...

Don't know what that means. I can only reiterate what I just said above.

...should it come as any surprise that evangelical/conservative Christian marriages fail at high rates?

If any evangelical/conservative Christian marriages fail, it is because they didn't live out their Christian faith. The pewforum research shows that to be true.  And for any evangelical/conservative Christian couples who don't regularly and faithfully attend church (which is part of the Christian faith)... and if they are in the habit of lying to each other and to others (which is not part of the Christian faith).... and if they refuse to faithfully pray together as a couple everyday (which is not part of the Christian faith)... and if they refuse to attend bible studies regularly (which is not part of the Christian faith)... and if they refuse to make God the center of their lives and the center of their marriage... etc, etc.. then it wouldn't surprise me that those same couples have a higher chance of getting divorced or separated than those Christian couples who practice their faith consistently and faithfully everyday. 

Thank you for once again proving my point.

Best of health and happiness to you and yours free of adverse stochastic eventualities,...

And the same to you Inertialmass!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

...and hoping that you had a really enjoyable springtime zombie Revivification Celebration.

You obviously don't know what a zombie is. If you did, then you wouldn't have made the intellectual mistake of equating the Resurrection of Jesus and Easter as a "zombie Revivification Celebration".

But that is okay. I forgive you for your transparent attempt at criticizing, disparaging and belittling my intellectual beliefs and opinions. After all, no one is perfect.  Neither you nor am I. And neither are Christians. And neither are atheists. And so if Christ forgave me, so I can forgive you.  It's the least I can do for someone I care about as a human being.

Take Care. I hope you and your family and loved ones are wonderfully blessed and that good fortune follows you everyday of your life!!!!!!!!

[composer]

You obviously don't know what a zombie is.

Your error is again noted!

Noun: zombie = e.g. jebus - A dead body that has been brought back to life by a supernatural force. (WordWeb)

[Inertialmass]

Zombie - Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zombie
A zombie is a fictional undead being created through the reanimation of a human corpse. Zombies are most commonly found in horror and fantasy genre works.

[Mr. Blackwell]

And here I am just wondering why the survey didn't also include Liberal and evangelical. You know, like Nancy Pelosi. Good Lord. Can she not say anything during a speech without evoking her religion and imploring the Catholic church to take the lead in liberal causes? I swear, sometimes liberal atheists make is seem like all religious people are conservative or that all conservatives are religious. That's asinine.

[eyeshaveit]

Bob,
But did you receive the Holy Spirit when you "accepted Jesus into [your] heart" ? If the answer is, 'Yes', then the Holy Spirit still dwells within you, albeit the light has dimmed, but is certainly not extinguished.

It is only an (your) opinion, that "the author of Hebrews" offers us chapter 6 - verses 4-6, as 'unequivocal' proof that salvation, once gifted, can be lost

"Once enlightened" has a plethora of meanings. For example, you have been "enlightened"; you are very aware of the Gospel of God and 'the perseverance of the saints', and to what effect? None. You would not affirm these things.

good points, eyes.

when i look at it again, i see that the author of hebrews was indeed more ambiguous than i thought. but the comments about the visible and invisible church have already caused me to reflect upon my own position.

your comment to bob (above) indicates that you believe that salvation, once accepted, cannot be lost.

however, jesus specifies that the difference between the saved and the damned is belief:

Luk_8:12  Those by the way side are they that hear; then cometh the devil, and taketh away the word out of their hearts, lest they should believe and be saved.


once i believed, sincerely. now i do not believe, and therefore am among the reprobate, by definition.

if one cannot lose salvation, then it follows that my earlier beliefs were either false or incorrect. they were not false, but were quite sincere. hence it follows that they were incorrect.

from this i conclude that sincere people, believing on jesus and requesting the holy spirit to come into their heart, praying to god for guidance and doing so in the company of a church also seeking guidance, must have made shipwreck and become a body of the damned, in spite of their prayers, penitence, supplications, and their hopes.

sort of grim, that.

on the other hand, it might be argued that the other two points-- the permanence of salvation, and it's reliance on belief-- are more subtle than i have indicated. jesus does not specify that belief is required, for example, only that those who do believe are saved. perhaps there is another category of people who are saved who do not believe. or not.

or perhaps no one is saved or condemned, because christianity is untrue.

i think i've listed all the possibilities.

Except the possibility that you are a fallible human being and your (bolded) supposition is incorrect: meaning that, like all of us, you either remain 'saved' or you never were 'saved'.

[kevin]

it is not a supposition, eyes. it is an inescapable conclusion from the premises you supplied. please think about it a little more.

your next point merely repeats my own. thank you for the confirmation. those who fall away, in your view, were never real christians in the first place. you can tell, because tbey fell away, and no true christians can fall away.

maybe they were scotsmen?

[eyeshaveit]

it is not a supposition, eyes. it is an inescapable conclusion from the premises you supplied. please think about it a little more.

1 - Either you (Kevin) share God's attributes or you don't.
2 - Either the Hound of Heaven has or will run you down or he won't.
3 - Either the Lord will have you or you are just fertilizer waiting to be spread.

your next point merely repeats my own. thank you for the confirmation. those who fall away, in your view, were never real christians in the first place. you can tell, because tbey fell away, and no true christians can fall away.

The 'whole' idea of the invisible church is that man cannot make "inescapable conclusions" and judge these things. This for many reasons, but one very practical one: simply put, there is always (human) hope for the sinner while breath remains.

[Goombah]

Zombie - Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zombie
A zombie is a fictional undead being created through the reanimation of a human corpse. Zombies are most commonly found in horror and fantasy genre works.

Exactly Francis' point.Jesus wasn't fictional so he wasn't a zombie.

[Goombah]

You obviously don't know what a zombie is.

Your error is again noted!

Noun: zombie = e.g. jebus - A dead body that has been brought back to life by a supernatural force. (WordWeb)

Do they go on to explain which supernatural force would be responsible for bringing a human,dead for several days,back to life?

[Inertialmass]

And here I am just wondering why the survey didn't also include Liberal and evangelical. You know, like Nancy Pelosi. Good Lord. Can she not say anything during a speech without evoking her religion and imploring the Catholic church to take the lead in liberal causes? I swear, sometimes liberal atheists make is seem like all religious people are conservative or that all conservatives are religious. That's asinine.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_burden_of_proof

The number of whole gumballs in the jar is either even or odd, but the degree of personal acceptance or rejection of claims about that characteristic may vary. We can choose to consider two claims about the situation, given as:

1.The number of gumballs is even.
2.The number of gumballs is odd.

Either claim could be explored separately; however, both claims tautologically take bearing on the same question. Odd in this case means "not even" and could be described as a negative claim. Before we have any information about the number of gumballs, we have no means of checking either of the two claims. When we have no evidence to resolve the proposition, we may suspend judgment. From a cognitive sense, when no personal preference toward opposing claims exists, one may be either skeptical of both claims or ambivalent of both claims. If there is a dispute, the burden of proof falls onto the challenger of the status quo from the perspective of any given social narrative. If there is no agreeable and adequate proof of evidence to support a claim, the claim is considered an argument from ignorance. 

Gumball's in your court!...

[kevin]

you don't seem to recognize logic, eyes. god also demostratez logic, because logic is the demonstration of truth. if god does not demonstrate truth, then he is the author of lies.

my prdvious statements were valid arguments. they can only be false if the premises were dalse, and the premises came from you, as i said.

more interestingly, you say that there is always hope for the sinner. if so, then damnation is not fixed, until death, perhaps. i suppose, then, that there are three possible human conditions: saved, damned, and undetermined.

is this correct? i want to be sure i understand you.

[eyeshaveit]

you don't seem to recognize logic, eyes.

Logic and biblical truth go hand-in-hand if one understands the Bible correctly

god also demostratez logic, because logic is the demonstration of truth. if god does not demonstrate truth, then he is the author of lies.

God is not the author of lies, so if we are finding fault it lies elsewhere.

my prdvious statements were valid arguments. they can only be false if the premises were dalse, and the premises came from you, as i said.

So we have a "premises came from you" kerfuffle, and hopefully, someone who recognizes logic better than myself will straighten out this pretzel for you.

more interestingly, you say that there is always hope for the sinner. if so, then damnation is not fixed, until death, perhaps. i suppose, then, that there are three possible human conditions: saved, damned, and undetermined.

is this correct? i want to be sure i understand you.

There is always hope for the sinner in the 'eyes of man'. That is why there is a visible church with some (even many) unregenerate members, and also an invisible church; believers whose names are written "in the book of life of the Lamb".

[Francis]

Does the word Zombie apply to the Resurrection of Jesus is? No. Not according to Wikipedia... and not according to the free dictionary online... and not according to the dictionary online... and not according to oxford dictionaries.

And not according to what the word Resurrection means in the Bible.

According to the Bible, when we are Resurrected... our current bodies are not re-animated or brought to life. Instead, when we are Resurrected, we get a new resurrected body. We won't have the same bodies we have now.  That is to say, our new resurrected bodies are perfect and eternal and imperishable... whereas our current bodies are imperfect. Our new resurrected bodies will have no weaknesses... no diseases... no blemishes... no physical handicaps... and they won't be bound by the laws of physics and nature as our current mortal bodies are.

Zombies have the SAME bodies they started with. A Zombie's body is simply a re-animated body.  But the resurrected body is not the same body we start with... but a brand new body that is eternal and perfect and imperishable.

So when people equate the resurrection with zombies, they error because they are not understanding what the Resurrection is or what it means.

But even beyond that, the dictionaries themselves also don't support the notion that a resurrected person is the same as a zombie.

Let's go through the definitions carefully.

From Wikipedia:

"A zombie (Haitian French: zombi, Haitian Creole: zonbi) is a fictional undead being created through the reanimation of a human corpse. Zombies are most commonly found in horror and fantasy genre works.  The term comes from Haitian folklore, where a zombie is a dead body reanimated through various methods, most commonly magic."


"In Haitian folklore, a zombie (Haitian French: zombi, Haitian Creole: zonbi) is an animated corpse raised by magical means, such as witchcraft."

"Zombies are featured widely in Haitian rural folklore as dead persons physically revived by the act of necromancy of a bokor, a sorcerer or witch."

"A zombie remains under the control of the bokor as a personal slave, having no will of its own."

Christianity is completely opposed to magic and sorcery and witchcraft and necromancy and voodoo and spells, etc.  A Resurrected person is resurrected not only into a brand new body (not re-animated), but they are resurrected by God.  A zombie is re-animated by sources that are evil... whereas the resurrection is not a re-animation of the body, but it is accomplished by God.

Secondly, it is obvious that when Jesus was resurrected, he was not under any control of a "bokor" or of a "witch"... but Jesus had his own free will.

So that is another difference between someone who is resurrected and someone who becomes a zombie.

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/zombie
noun
1. the body of a dead person given the semblance of life, but mute and will-less, by a supernatural force, usually for some evil purpose.
   
2. Informal.
a person whose behavior or responses are wooden, listless, or seemingly rote; automaton.

When we see Jesus' actions and interactions with his followers after he was Resurrected... it is obvious that a Resurrected person is not mute or will-less or wooden or listless.. and he didn't exhibit any automaton kind of behavior.

Jesus also was not Resurrected for some evil purpose.

So here we can once again see that a zombie is something completely different than someone who is Resurrected.

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/zombie
zombie
noun

    1A corpse said to be revived by witchcraft, especially in certain African and Caribbean religions.

1.2 informal A person who is or appears lifeless, apathetic, or completely unresponsive to their surroundings.

1.3 Philosophy A hypothetical being that responds to stimulus as a person would but that does not experience consciousness.

Here again we see by Jesus' interactions with his followers after He was Resurrected... that he was not lifeless... or apathetic.... or completely unresponsive to his surroundings.. or that he did not experience consciousness.


Anyway... it's for these reasons that it is an unfortunate intellectual mistake to equate zombies with the resurrection... or saying that Easter is a "zombie Revivification Celebration".  Nothing could be further from the truth.

Take Care

[Boots]

Does the word Zombie apply to the Resurrection of Jesus is? No. Not according to Wikipedia... and not according to the free dictionary online... and not according to the dictionary online... and not according to oxford dictionaries.

And not according to what the word Resurrection means in the Bible.

According to the Bible, when we are Resurrected... our current bodies are not re-animated or brought to life. Instead, when we are Resurrected, we get a new resurrected body. We won't have the same bodies we have now.  That is to say, our new resurrected bodies are perfect and eternal and imperishable... whereas our current bodies are imperfect. Our new resurrected bodies will have no weaknesses... no diseases... no blemishes... no physical handicaps... and they won't be bound by the laws of physics and nature as our current mortal bodies are.

Zombies have the SAME bodies they started with. A Zombie's body is simply a re-animated body.  But the resurrected body is not the same body we start with... but a brand new body that is eternal and perfect and imperishable.

John 20:24-29 directly contradicts this.

[Francis]

Does the word Zombie apply to the Resurrection of Jesus is? No. Not according to Wikipedia... and not according to the free dictionary online... and not according to the dictionary online... and not according to oxford dictionaries.

And not according to what the word Resurrection means in the Bible.

According to the Bible, when we are Resurrected... our current bodies are not re-animated or brought to life. Instead, when we are Resurrected, we get a new resurrected body. We won't have the same bodies we have now.  That is to say, our new resurrected bodies are perfect and eternal and imperishable... whereas our current bodies are imperfect. Our new resurrected bodies will have no weaknesses... no diseases... no blemishes... no physical handicaps... and they won't be bound by the laws of physics and nature as our current mortal bodies are.

Zombies have the SAME bodies they started with. A Zombie's body is simply a re-animated body.  But the resurrected body is not the same body we start with... but a brand new body that is eternal and perfect and imperishable.

John 20:24-29 directly contradicts this.

Hello Boots...

I don't think that contradicts anything I said.  It certainly doesn't equate with Jesus being a zombie.

But anyway... I think in Jesus' case, He has chosen to keep the wounds on His body as a reminder to all creation the sacrifice he made on the cross for all humanity. The wounds on Jesus will bring glory to God.  But the point is, Jesus voluntarily keeps those wounds.

But as for the rest of us who are in heaven, you will not find legless people in heaven... or paralyzed people... or blind people... or deaf people... or people with pock-mocked faces or burns on their bodies.. or mangled bodies from war and accidents, etc.

Such bodies don't bring glory to an all-powerful God as a creator who can restore bodies to brand new and perfect bodies.

But again, Jesus voluntarily keeping his wounds serves a different function and purpose... which is to bring Glory to God.

But thanks for your input.

[Boots]

Does the word Zombie apply to the Resurrection of Jesus is? No. Not according to Wikipedia... and not according to the free dictionary online... and not according to the dictionary online... and not according to oxford dictionaries.

And not according to what the word Resurrection means in the Bible.

According to the Bible, when we are Resurrected... our current bodies are not re-animated or brought to life. Instead, when we are Resurrected, we get a new resurrected body. We won't have the same bodies we have now.  That is to say, our new resurrected bodies are perfect and eternal and imperishable... whereas our current bodies are imperfect. Our new resurrected bodies will have no weaknesses... no diseases... no blemishes... no physical handicaps... and they won't be bound by the laws of physics and nature as our current mortal bodies are.

Zombies have the SAME bodies they started with. A Zombie's body is simply a re-animated body.  But the resurrected body is not the same body we start with... but a brand new body that is eternal and perfect and imperishable.

John 20:24-29 directly contradicts this.

Hello Boots...

I don't think that contradicts anything I said. 

Our new resurrected bodies will have no weaknesses... no diseases... no blemishes... no physical handicaps... and they won't be bound by the laws of physics and nature as our current mortal bodies are.

you sure?

But anyway... I think in Jesus' case, He has chosen to keep the wounds on His body as a reminder to all creation the sacrifice he made on the cross for all humanity. The wounds on Jesus will bring glory to God.  But the point is, Jesus voluntarily keeps those wounds.

and the only support you have of this opinion is that it fits your narrative. (see my signature for my definition of "apologietics")