A defense of marriage

Post Reply New Topic

I learned to think for myself when I became a sceptic.

My worldview is so much bigger than it has ever been before.

Why would I want to be “saved” by descending into the pit of ignorance again?

I can look at the world and universe through the lens of scientific evidence and research without trying to twist whatever the evidence says (or dismiss it entirely) to make it fit. That is true cognitive dissonance for you.

There’s no more support for the Bible than there is for any other belief system (except for one founded on scientific proof).

Your posts are exceedingly long, and I can’t take the time to respond much further, especially since this is way off track from the intention of this thread.

I don’t need to be saved. I’ve already been saved from a belief system that is and was repellent to me - as all belief systems based on such a religious text would be.

I believe in the Historical Jesus....that’s the extent of my “faith.” He wasn’t thrilled with the corruption of his times. Other people didn’t benefit from it, either. They felt alienated. They wanted a change. This guy who seemed to have healing powers carried quite an appeal to them. So they flocked to hear him speak and supposedly perform miracles. That’s how Christianity started.

I defend marriage when it is a good marriage. I don’t when it’s a bad marriage.

I believe at least some - if not most - marriages are worth putting effort into making them as good as possible.
Just like putting an effort into being as good a person as possible is the right thing to do.

I think that when love is present putting forth effort in a relationship (married or not) would almost always be worthwhile.

How do loveless relationships form?
The ones I know of personally were all results of surprise babies that made otherwise unmatched people marry.
I mean loveless because those within the affinity of faulty love I see as worth of at least trying to heal.

I think that people can and do grow apart to the point of being incompatible for a variety of reasons and that’s okay.

Sometimes people marry when they’re too young and don’t really know themselves that much or what they want.

Sometimes it’s hard to tell what someone is really like until after you’ve lived with him or her for awhile.

I believe that relationships should be a source of happiness, and if they aren’t, it’s okay to move on. If you and your partner really love each other, you’ll both want to grow and adapt together, but if that love and desire isn’t there, I don’t believe in forcing it to be. That could lead to some resentment on both sides.

I don’t want to beat a dead horse, but there also are instances of abuse that would make separation and divorce the only healthy option.

Yes, there are instances of abuse where separation/divorce is the best choice.
As for the rest, maybe this is why my culture puts so much stress of knowing each other well before marriage. It typically takes a year or two from proposal to wedding. Catholics don't recognize divorces (religiously, legally divorces are valid) and this may influence our local view on marriage, even among the non-religious people: it's something very serious.

Whatever helps you sleep at night. Say, are you ever gonna explain how those passages you mentioned are misogynistic? Somehow I accidentally put someone else's name as quoting you. It appears I addressed all of those issues, but I'm not satisfied that any of my questions for you were ever sufficiently answered.

I can look at the world and universe through the lens of scientific evidence and research without trying to twist whatever the evidence says (or dismiss it entirely) to make it fit. That is true cognitive dissonance for you.


But you're still trying to resolve conflicting ideas yourself. What is "scientific proof" founded on, for instance? I suspect you are guilty of circular reasoning.

You're also ignorant of scientific reasoning. If something is "proven," it's not science. It's pseudoscience. Science doesn't "prove." It's open-ended. The canon is never closed on science. The "Law of Gravity," I'd say, is fairly self-evident. However, theory of gravitation is still up in the air. We're fairly certain that it has to do with the mass of large objects, but there is still room for doubt. So after further observation/experience, one might propose an alternative that's actually simpler and demonstrates better explanatory power than mass. The theory of gravitation is never "proven," and that's why. Actual "proof" is reserved for math, logic, and the justice system. If you expect me or anyone else to believe the Bible is false, I'm gonna want to see conclusive, incontrovertible evidence to that effect. I'll be waiting.

Meanwhile, logical proofs at least for God abound. My personal fav, though I'm not good at arguing it, is the Kalam argument. It's a tough nut to crack. Actually, I did come across some counterarguments that I almost mistook for being good, but then I realized how flimsy they were. Flimsy, because the way they were presented had physics as we know it going waaaaaay off the rails. The so-called "theories" in question had no relation to the real, observable universe and aren't yet taken that seriously even in the scientific community. It's also difficult to go far down the Kalam argument simply due to how complex the relevant science relating to it is.

The flaw in the Kalam argument is the same as most others, despite how well it closes holes in similar arguments. It starts with accepting the anti-theist premise and proceeding to prove God exists. Where apologists have succeeded with Kalam is by not accepting that premise and forcing their opponents to deny everything that is supposedly "known" about the origins of the universe. You'd be forced to deny principles such as cause-and-effect, which largely breaks down the scientific method as a whole. That would back you into a corner on origins theories rendering, say, "Big Bang" absurd. Evidence regarding the origins of the universe would immediately "prove" you (in the logical sense) wrong. Kalam is the bad-boy of theistic proofs. But I lack a thorough-enough knowledge of physics to go round-after-round on that one. If I ever whip that one out as a defense, I don't normally hang with it very long. I mean...the "best" counterarguments end up using events that are impossible to have ever been observed as evidence, which puts the anti-theist in the position of ignoring the null hypothesis requirement. This is not a problem for Christians believers, but it is a HUGE problem for empiricists. They end up on the losing side when confronted with Kalam, as they do in reality with most things.

For me, though, there are better "arguments" that I find even more compelling than that. Note the scare quotes. Again, since God is sovereign, He doesn't need our defense. We're not required to "prove" anything. So there's really no argument. The arguments I find most compelling aren't really arguments, but rather statements of fact. Christians have no issue with knowing for themselves that there is God and that Jesus is the Way of salvation. It's actually pretty obvious to us that God is transcendent. So the question of whether someone actually BELIEVES in God or not is a matter of one's presuppositions.

You've also neatly "proven" my point. You're making assumptions regarding support for the Bible and "scientific proof" based on your personal biases. If you held your regard for "Biblical support" to the same standard as "scientific proof," you wouldn't think that way. However, you hold "Biblical support" to an unreasonably higher or unreasonably different standard than your own "scientific proof." That's "goalpost moving" and might be seen by some as hypocritical.

@hurtloam: notice what I said there about "goalpost moving." This is another reason why engaging in these discussions is pointless. Baseless assertions about lack of "Biblical support" are intended to force Christians on the defensive and scramble around to find evidence, which is a waste of time designed to frustrate the apologist. You can't fall for that trick. It's not that evidence is lacking. It's that we have no NEED to "prove" anything to anybody. These kinds of statements are designed to force the Christian to argue from a position of assuming there is no God/Bible/Jesus/whatever and THEN build a case from there. Immediately the anti-theist has you trapped because no matter what you say, the anti-theist will "debunk" the evidence because she's in control of the framework. What's easier to do here? Allow yourself to be kept running around in endless circles? Or attack the anti-theist's assumptions?




I don't see my "belief system" as based on a religious text. I see the religious text as based on the belief system. As to "proof," it has to do with a standard of evidence. If you were to convince a jury that a crime had been committed, you would provide the evidence. Let's suppose a gun had been used to commit homicide, i.e. murder. You produce the gun. It was registered to the defendant, it has his fingerprints/DNA on it, multiple witness attest to the gun being in his possession, and multiple witnesses saw him murder the victim. You're not going to mount a successful defense by questioning whether the gun is actually a gun or not. The gun is there and impossible to deny. You won't last long in the courtroom trying to convince everyone who already knows for themselves it's a gun that it isn't. You aren't required to provide evidence that a gun is a gun, in other words. And the same applies to the Bible in that it partially serves as a collection of evidence to substantiate one's own faith and one's teaching within the church. Just like it's POSSIBLE jurors might have to seriously rethink whether the alleged weapon really is or was a weapon, one must also choose to accept or reject the Bible as collected evidence. Most people, IMO are just in denial and deluding themselves, and the denial and goalpost moving that goes on over the Bible is an excellent example of irrationality on the part of the anti-theist.

Honestly, you sound pretty condescending.

It’s interesting that the rudest comments on this thread have been from theists. I don’t entirely reject the possibility of there being a God. I just can’t stand when religion attempts to justify inequality (whether it’s based on gender, race, or sexual identity).

I can’t even efficiently respond to any of the craziness because I don’t have a computer. I’m just using my phone, so it’s hard to format quotes.

There’s really no point, anyway, and it’s a massive waste of time on both sides.

After reading some of the apologetics in this thread ( ), I’d almost have to write a novel to respond effectively to it.

I’ve put forth strong evidence to support my claims, and there’s nothing else I can do.

Calling us rude, and then calling us crazy, all in the same post. Reminds me of the hypocrisy of the atheists who once trolled my husband and told him to break up with me because I was "stupid theist."

But you are right about one thing, twilightprincess -- this discussion will change no one's mind. It's been a waste of time for all of us. It's best we all keep each other on block.

Objectivity is often mistaken for rudeness. So-called intellectuals and skeptics are often guilty of the same. I've just learned to roll with it.

Good to know you aren't an anti-theist.


Gender/identity issues are off-limits up to a point. If you're going to be critical of Christianity, you have to be prepared for your own views being held under scrutiny.

Ok, so you mentioned inequality in the Bible. Can you provide evidence from the Gospels that Jesus intended male/female gender inequality? You didn't address that earlier. You mentioned Paul, you mentioned some OT issues.

Wrt OT inequality--where is the inequality coming from? Is the story of Adam and Eve a matter of God directly punishing wrongdoing, or was "greatly multiply" a prophecy reflecting what was going to happen as a consequence of living in a fallen world? How do you know with any certainty which it is? If it is a prophecy of cause/effect, does it not make sense that men WOULD come to oppress women at some point? Or that women would be at odds with men on their own initiative? And if it follows that inequality is due to human-caused sexual warfare, does it not also follow that theocratic legal systems in the ancient world would attempt to make unjust institutions livable until a culture or society could agree to fix the problem? Historical evidence suggests Egyptian women enjoyed a wide range of freedom, therefore directives regarding the treatment of women must have come from how the Israelites were treated as a whole under Egyptian control. Ancient Hebrew law appears to have been an attempt to protect women and abolish slavery (following legal code regarding slaves and women could be made easier if cultural norms avoided the issue altogether, making slavery and protection of women irrelevant. You can't regulate slavery if there are no slaves. And we haven't even touched extra-Biblical "hedge laws" that we know were a part of Hebrew life.

It's also known that women outranked men in the home. God even told Abraham once that Sarah was right and to do what she said.

So when I read the Bible, I don't see that men and women are unequal in God's mind or in His intentions. I do think we are naturally better suited to certain roles; men are physically incapable of giving birth. Women have less potential muscle mass. That's not discrimination. That's simple biology. So rather than blame the Bible for inequality, why not ask Bronze Age men what they were doing that necessitated a nation writing protection of women into their legal code?


I just use a text editor and copy/paste when I get done if I'm on my phone. It's pain trying to do all that on the website.


You would make a mistake and some inconsistency would show up. There's not really any effective response.


No, you really haven't. You don't actually believe the Bible, which you've already said. So when you provide evidence FROM the Bible, which you don't actually believe, to support misogyny, which you can't even make a case for actually being in there (the question of whether misogyny is cause/effect or institutionalized) one cancels out the other and your "evidence" is absurd.

You're basically stuck between arguing that the Bible is a work of fiction or agreeing with it. If it's a work of fiction, there's no misogyny, at least no more than a paperback romance novel or any given episode of Game of Thrones. It's a made up story about made up people dealing with made up rape. If the Bible isn't fiction, then you have to resolve how it is that the Bible makes a tremendous effort to protect women from mistreatment. You can't have it both ways. Either the Bible is real or it's not. Either it's misogynistic or it isn't. To even ATTEMPT to argue misogyny, you have to accept the Bible as a real, historic document. There's no logical, objective way around it.

@AngelRho I've asked mods to close this one down.

At the end of the day, I'm in a successful marriage with a non-theist, and no insults from any angry parties can change that.

Personal attacks are rude. Lots of the arguments and apologetics I’ve seen were crazy. I didn’t say that you were crazy. There’s a distinction there.

I didn’t come anywhere close to when you said that I was just being a victim to “manipulate men.” That was hurtful and untrue.

The Bible is a work of fiction that people believe to be true, just like the Qu’ran. Both books have caused a lot of harm to a lot of women because people believe these works are from God and should be followed. The books reflect the misogyny of the time period and shouldn’t be held as a standard for us to follow.

That makes no logical sense whatsoever. Another attempt to manipulate yourself out of taking any blame whatsoever for your behavior.

I see you still have no explanation for why I can have a successful marriage with an unbeliever. For a "crazy" person who is also regarded as "stupid" by atheists, it's quite the feat, isn't it?