I think I understand what he's trying to say, but it's circular logic. I think he's saying that Satan concentrates all his energy on encouraging Christians to sin because he's already won in the case of an atheist couple. He is therefore concluding that this is why the Christian divorce rate is higher, but that it would be higher still if they didn't have the connection to God. How can he know that it would be higher, though (aka that the connection to God is helping at all), when there's no way to test that? There's no control sample.
I suppose he's saying that if side BC of a triangle moves closer to point A, then points B and C will get closer together while also getting closer to point A. I think it's a fair metaphor, albeit rather infantile.
That's a highly original explanation.
Yes, you´d use any statistics to make any point you want to make.
...and once he has them, they start conducting themselves - by Christian standards - better than Christians? That doesn´t make much sense, does it?
Yes, you´d use any statistics to make any point you want to make.
But kudos for the creative thought!
However, your line of reasoning suggests that Christians (who are the better people) can be expected to - on average - misbehave more often than non-Christians (who are the worse people).
...and once he has them, they start conducting themselves - by Christian standards - better than Christians? That doesn´t make much sense, does it?
Would you be going so far to say that a person whose behaviour is very close to Christian principles is more likely a non-Christian, while a person who violates Christian rules is more likely a Christian?
I am familiar with the idea that the misbehaviour of a person can/must be explained by the fact that Satan has her. Now you present the contrary idea that good behaviour can/must be explained by the fact that Satan has this person.
Whatever - I hope you don´t use those two lines of reasoning simultaneously.
Yes, you´d use any statistics to make any point you want to make.
But kudos for the creative thought!
However, your line of reasoning suggests that Christians (who are the better people) can be expected to - on average - misbehave more often than non-Christians (who are the worse people).
...and once he has them, they start conducting themselves - by Christian standards - better than Christians? That doesn´t make much sense, does it?
Would you be going so far to say that a person whose behaviour is very close to Christian principles is more likely a non-Christian, while a person who violates Christian rules is more likely a Christian?
I am familiar with the idea that the misbehaviour of a person can/must be explained by the fact that Satan has her. Now you present the contrary idea that good behaviour can/must be explained by the fact that Satan has this person.
Whatever - I hope you don´t use those two lines of reasoning simultaneously.
LOL -- this is just getting worse, isn't it?
And now we've gone from "influencing" to "guiding with an invisible hand" to "controlling us."
Let's not make any more of this than what I said, okay?
