Adultery is OUT

[WolfGate]

FireDragon76 - We got smacked squarely up the side of the head with something similar at our church. Very diverse congregation across both income and racial lines, including about 10% of the church being from Latin American countries. Which means, quite simple, that some are illegal aliens.

A Latin American couple with children wanted to join the church. When an elder was interviewing them, they honestly told him that while they had a ceremony with a pastor, they were not legally married. There was concern about alien status and they were afraid to fill out the marriage license. So, in a church which had always taken the stance that to be a member you had to be married (which meant legal as the government would say per Romans 13) we were confronted with a brother and sister who had a ceremony before God but had not filled out the paperwork. That will push you out of your neat little box. Ministry is messy at times...

 

[RDKirk]

I mean I think statistics a few years back are like the same 20% of the population were really doing the divorcing they just divorced 5, 6 or 7 times if they ever divorced once . so it wasn't 50 of the population got divorced it was 50% of the marriages ended in divorce. what no one talk about was that it was the same 10 to 20% that had 4-8 divorces.
so maybe 70-80 % of the population has always believed in the morality of marriage.. if the live it or not.

Yes, the stats were interpreted incorrectly. There are half as many total divorces each year as total marriages. The new evaluation of those statistics is that 40% of first marriages end at some point in divorce, 60% go "'till death do you part." That failing second and subsequent marriages make up the bulk of those numbers of divorces each year.

If you further interpolate by other metrics such as economics and education, you find that only 20% of college-educated, middle-class marriages end in divorce (that category also includes "marrying later in life").

 

[RDKirk]

FireDragon76 - We got smacked squarely up the side of the head with something similar at our church. Very diverse congregation across both income and racial lines, including about 10% of the church being from Latin American countries. Which means, quite simple, that some are illegal aliens.

A Latin American couple with children wanted to join the church. When an elder was interviewing them, they honestly told him that while they had a ceremony with a pastor, they were not legally married. There was concern about alien status and they were afraid to fill out the marriage license. So, in a church which had always taken the stance that to be a member you had to be married (which meant legal as the government would say per Romans 13) we were confronted with a brother and sister who had a ceremony before God but had not filled out the paperwork. That will push you out of your neat little box. Ministry is messy at times...

Unless they are in a state where they meet the requirements of common law marriage, and if they've met those requirements in a state that does recognize common law marriages, then every other state will also recognize it.

 

[SuperCloud]

Could you give us the source for that? I've never seen a modern study come up with that kind of statistic, no matter how anonymous the methodology was.

Yeah, me.

 

[Open Heart]

Why do you think people are shacking up like that though? I think it is due to a fear of commitment. And honestly many of them have come from broken homes and they don't have a clue how to not repeat the same mistakes they saw in their own families.

I agree. It's really sad.

 

[Cearbhall]

Yeah, me.

Ah. Well, that's not my experience, so I disagree.

 

[Open Heart]

The majority of married people commit adultery.

I don't believe it for a second.

 

[Open Heart]

Which appears to be an accurate description of reality - particularly in the absence of people being able to demonstrate that their opinions on "right and wrong" are more than their opinions.

We may have differing opinions on what is right and wrong; it doesn't stop there from being an objective right to shoot for.

 

[Cearbhall]

We may have differing opinions on what is right and wrong; it doesn't stop there from being an objective right to shoot for.

Not everyone agrees that this exists, though.

 

[Open Heart]

Not everyone agrees that this exists, though.

Which is why I was complaining about the prevalence of relativistic morality.

 

[Cearbhall]

Which is why I was complaining about the prevalence of relativistic morality.

Ah. I thought you were referring to something different, since you said this:

People have ideas of right and wrong, but they view them as being relativistic. I.e. what is right for me may be wrong for you, for example I can live with my boyfriend while for you fornication is wrong.

But perhaps you were decrying both hypocrisy and moral relativism. Fair enough.

 

[Open Heart]

But perhaps you were decrying both hypocrisy and moral relativism. Fair enough.

I can see where you might think I was decrying hypocrisy, but really it was only the relativism.

 

[Eudaimonist]

Sure some improvements have been made like with racism and molestation. But regressions have been made as well as with fornication and abortion.

Even if you are correct about that, I hope that you understand that this doesn't make people who disagree with you about fornication or abortion moral relativists just because they have a different judgment about these issues.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[grasping the after wind]

Which is why I was complaining about the prevalence of relativistic morality.

You are conflating subjective morality with reltativistic morality they are two very different things. Objective morality is a fantasy that does not exist. Subjective morality is not in any way the same thing as relativistic morality as one can make a universal subjective judgement upon what is intrinsically good and what is intrinsically evil but one can do no such thing when insisting that good and evil are merely relative ideas.

 

[quatona]

We may have differing opinions on what is right and wrong; it doesn't stop there from being an objective right to shoot for.

I have yet to see a working methodology for the task of identifying an "objective right".
As soon as you can present such we can get talking about shooting for them.

 

[quatona]

Which is why I was complaining about the prevalence of relativistic morality.

Well, we wouldn´t be better off if I simply declared your stances objectively wrong.

 

[grasping the after wind]

I have yet to see a working methodology for the task of identifying an "objective right".
As soon as you can present such we can get talking about shooting for them.

I think the minute we agree that morality is in no way objective we can begin to discuss what subjective morality is more reasonable. We certainly will disagree on that but at least we can dispense with the arrogance of contending that our idea of morality is somehow objectively correct and above reproach.

 

[quatona]

I think the minute we agree that morality is in no way objective we can begin to discuss what subjective morality is more reasonable.

Yep - although I don´t even think that we need to make an affirmative statement about it not existing, for that.

 

[grasping the after wind]

Yep - although I don´t even think that we need to make an affirmative statement about it not existing, for that.

I like to state that up front because otherwise someone will insist that their morality is based upon an objective standard.

 

[quatona]

I like to state that up front because otherwise someone will insist that their morality is based upon an objective standard.

I am afraid this will always happen (no matter what you say upfront) and prevent productive discussions.