Abortion.

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

And I think ANYONE that leaves their family because they're more drawn to ANYONE else needs to suck it up and put someone else ahead of themselves for once

I probably agree, here.
But is there a way this relates to this discussion that I missed?

[elven dragonrider]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

What I meant by the "think they are god" statement is this: they think they are the highest moral authority around, at least for themselves, and often for others. Most "religious" people recognize a higher moral authority.

And I think ANYONE that leaves their family because they're more drawn to ANYONE else needs to suck it up and put someone else ahead of themselves for once

Okay, that makes sense, I think I can handle that.
Agreed on the second statement!

[elven dragonrider]

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

Don't overgeneralize. Non-religous does not equal atheist/agnostic.

Okay, I think I misunderstood your post, sorry.

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

Don't overgeneralize. Non-religous does not equal atheist/agnostic.

What does it mean?

[Rían]

Originally Posted by sisterandcousinandaunt

I probably agree, here.
But is there a way this relates to this discussion that I missed?

Just replying to the second half of Elven Dragonrider's post - you'll have to ask Elven Dragonrider how it relates


... and TOTALLY off-topic - what is it today with misspellings and grammar mistakes in the threads?! My inner Grammar Nazi is stirring up ...

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

Just replying to the second half of Elven Dragonrider's post - you'll have to ask Elven Dragonrider how it relates

I found it, thank you.
For myself, I don't think I'd want to be married to someone who was miserable and not attracted to me, whatever the cause. I happen to think I'm "all that" and I expect my partner/s to think so, too.

So, in that case, I hope I'd be able to get over my mad in a way that let my spouse go and continue to be a parent, instead of trying to lock them down and bring up the kids in that situation.

... and TOTALLY off-topic - what is it today with misspellings and grammar mistakes in the threads?! My inner Grammar Nazi is stirring up ...

Moon's waning in Capricorn.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by sisterandcousinandaunt

I found it, thank you.
For myself, I don't think I'd want to be married to someone who was miserable and not attracted to me, whatever the cause. I happen to think I'm "all that" and I expect my partner/s to think so, too.

So, in that case, I hope I'd be able to get over my mad in a way that let my spouse go and continue to be a parent, instead of trying to lock them down and bring up the kids in that situation.

I don't think it's that simple *shrug* People tend to see only the problems that will go away, and don't realize the many problems that will crop up to take their place. I think for all the problems that a divorce solves, more problems are created, and the kids are the ones that are typically hit the hardest. But that's a long and complex subject, and rather off-topic...

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

I don't think it's that simple *shrug* People tend to see only the problems that will go away, and don't realize the many problems that will crop up to take their place. I think for all the problems that a divorce solves, more problems are created, and the kids are the ones that are typically hit the hardest. But that's a long and complex subject, and rather off-topic...

It is a long and complex subject, and I'll be happy to take it to an existing thread, if there is one, or I'll start a new one.

But in terms of being married to someone who discovers they're gay...
That's momentous, and not the sort of thing people are likely to do on a whim. I seriously doubt anyone says, "Well, we never have resolved that "cap on the toothpaste" thing...better change my sexual preference, that'll solve it!" So, if it comes to that, you can already exclude the action being taken to make lightweight problems go away. It's action taken to deal with a big, and legitimate, problem.

When, in a marriage, you have a "big and legitimate problem", your first task is to see to the welfare of the children. And part of the welfare of the children must be to see adults model appropriate problem solving behavior.

Most adults stink at that, imo. They have no real problem solving skills, and their kids are stuck with whatever leftover dysfunction the family does. That's true in daily problems, and it's true exponentially in the biggies. But with faith, and a true concentration on the impact on the children, they may rise to the occasion.

Gay people have families. They have parents, and grandparents, and siblings, and cousins, and many of them have children, even without adoption. You can't talk about "family" and exclude "gay", so you need to find a way to support, if you're going to support "children", the children of "gay families", which is quite a lot of families.

[Lotesse]

Originally Posted by elven dragonrider

I don't think I am god!
Why do you say that "non-religious" people "think homosexuality is OK" because "they think that is how god wants it to be"? First, they don't believe in god, and second, they don't think that is how god would want it to be, because they don't believe in him, and they don't really care if there are homosexuals. I mean, what if you were one? (Not you in specific, just giving examples) If "you" were drawn to the same sex, ehat would you do? There are guys that are married and have kids and then they leave their wives telling them that they have always been drawn to men more than women. They are probably physco, but just an example.

Thank you baby, what a cool post this was!! You said it, bella. And never mind the grammar Nazis and so forth around here; it's the content of what you are expressing that is important, and valuable, not whether or not you dot your i's and cross your t's the "right" way.

Never mind the bollocks, baby, and keep on posting, 'cause I love what you've got to say, and please, never be intimidated or feel "shamed" by these old-dog controversial-topic arguers around here.

Listen, some of these people have been arguing this very same exhausted old topic, right here on Entmoot, for over 3 years now, they are old hands at it, and you crossed swords with a couple of the oldest dogs, so don't let it discourage you, young Elven Dragonrider! Don't let some of these sugary-forceful arguers around here intimidate you, and try not to ever apologise for what you have to say. Never, never tell 'em you're "sorry," 'cause you're not sorry, babe, you've got valid and heartfelt points to make, and there's nothing sorry at all about that, 'specially when it comes straight from the heart and not some dogmatised, hypnotised "loving" fake place. Never let the turkeys get you down.

Rock on, Elven Dragonrider!

That is all...

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

I'm sorry for my inaccurate use of "Christians" in the square brackets - it wasn't intentionally misleading, it was a honest mistake - it was just an effort to give the quote some context, and I didn't quote the other paragraph because the phrase I was interested in was only in the second paragraph.

No biggie. That's why I put the in. You did say you like .

I just wanted to make it clear that I don't categorize groups such as christians or non-christians as all holding the same beliefs.

But, I stand by my point that on some things, like abortion and homosexual marriage, there are some christians who oppose it for biblical reasons and biblical reasons alone.

In fact, in some ways, I find it easier to understand those who take their stand purely on scriptural grounds than those who try continuously to fabricate shakey non-scriptural logic to justify their positions (which is particularly apparent in the homosexual debate where some will accept civil unions, but reject "marriage", but can be seen as well in the abortion debate, and definitely in the contraception debate).

[Rían]

Originally Posted by elven dragonrider

Okay, that makes sense, I think I can handle that.

great - yeah, I should have explained a little what I meant by that statement

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally Posted by sisterandcousinandaunt

What does it mean?

You could define it as those who do not practice any particular religion, or more specifically as those who do not believe in any particular religion; neither of those necessarily negates theism, however.

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

You could define it as those who do not practice any particular religion, or more specifically as those who do not believe in any particular religion; neither of those necessarily negates theism, however.

Why does your definition of agnostic exclude agnostic theists?

[Lief Erikson]

The two ways I heard "agnostic" defined by an agnostic English professor of mine were:

1) Being unreligious because of not knowing whether or not God exists.

2) Being unreligious because of not believing anyone can know whether or not God exists.

[brownjenkins]

Lifted from wiki...

Strong agnosticism (also called hard agnosticism, closed agnosticism, strict agnosticism, absolute agnosticism)—the view that the question of the existence or nonexistence of god(s) is unknowable by nature or that human beings are ill-equipped to judge the evidence.

Weak agnosticism (also called soft agnosticism, open agnosticism, empirical agnosticism, temporal agnosticism)—the view that the existence or nonexistence of God(s) is currently unknown but is not necessarily unknowable, therefore one will withhold judgment until/if more evidence is available.

Apathetic agnosticism—the view that there is no proof of either the existence or nonexistence of God(s), but since any God(s) that may exist appear unconcerned for the universe or the welfare of its inhabitants, the question is largely academic anyway.

Ignosticism—the view that the concept of God(s) as a being is meaningless because it has no verifiable consequences, therefore it cannot be usefully discussed as having existence or nonexistence.

Model agnosticism—the view that philosophical and metaphysical questions are not ultimately verifiable but that a model of malleable assumption should be built upon rational thought. This branch of agnosticism does not focus on a deity's existence.

Agnostic theism (also called religious agnosticism)—the view of those who do not claim to know existence of God(s), but still believe in such an existence.

Agnostic atheism—the view of those who do not know of the existence or nonexistence of god(s), and do not believe in god(s).

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally Posted by sis

Why does your definition of agnostic exclude agnostic theists?

That was my definition of non-religious, not of agnostic.

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

That was my definition of non-religious, not of agnostic.

"Non religious does not equal atheist/agnostic."

would mean

"The set of non-religious is greater or lesser than the set of people who are covered by the terms atheist or agnostic" Yes?

So, my question is, "What group could be added to the set of people who are atheist and agnostic, who would make it equal to the set of people who are non-religious?"

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally Posted by sisterandcousinandaunt

"Non religious does not equal atheist/agnostic."

would mean

"The set of non-religious is greater or lesser than the set of people who are covered by the terms atheist or agnostic" Yes?

Heh. Well, I wasn't exactly thinking of mathematical terms...

Non-religous > atheist/agnostic.

But no, all I meant was that "non-religious" and "atheist/agnostic" are not convertible terms.

So, my question is, "What group could be added to the set of people who are atheist and agnostic, who would make it equal to the set of people who are non-religious?"

People who believe that God exists (and perhaps believe that they know that God exists), but do not hold to any particular denominational teaching of God, or do not affiliate with any religious group. Deism comes to mind as a prime candidate (though of course some deists are religious).
But of course, you also have to drop the theistic agnostics from the non-religious group, and bring them down to the level of the religious.

But I'm not really sure I approve of trying to attain some sort of equivalency. To my mind, religion and theism are two different things, and I don't see why one would want to make them equal one another. It almost seems like trying to make the number of people with brown hair equal the number of people who are six feet tall.

[Rían]

Hooray for Missouri!

Finally, a step towards licensing abortion clinics. Right now, there's usually more regulations for manicurists than abortion providers.

linky-link (note - the link is from USA-Today, hardly a "religious" magazine)

[brownjenkins]

I'm pretty sure most states already require all doctors to be licensed, so it might be kind of redundant. The bigger question is whether they will actually be inspected. Licensing is a common method for states to regulate, but all too often the licensing is never followed up on after it is acquired.