The invocation said in unison by the entire congregation at the UU church I attend is this.
May love be the spirit of this church.
May the quest for truth be its sacrament,
And service be its prayer.
To dwell together in peace,
To seek knowledge in freedom,
And to help one another in fellowship,
This is our aspiration.
I offer this as an example of what Him is talking about above, about a "religious" institution which is not all about being parental with the "thou shalts" and "thou shalt nots". This is a gathering place for all to come and be welcome.
Maybe someone already said this, but here goes.
The purpose of dating is to see if you are compatible for long term - marriage or living together long term. It seems that she knew from the outset that you were not marriage material (by her terms.) She should have told you this at the beginning so that you could both be on your way to finding people who meet your own terms. Instead, she let you get invested in her, under false pretenses.
Dump her. There is no reason to stay together if you have no future together. Tell her to be honest with men up front in the future.
Yes, there are moral women out there who are not religious. People can be moral, and do the right thing, just because it is the right thing to do. Not because some higher being is telling them to do it.
Eclectic pagan here (obviously).
I would agree with CrazyCatLady-dump her. If she's acting like this now think of what will happen should you get married. And what if you had kids? And she's probably using this as an excuse to let you go gently with no blame to her.
My BIL did the same thing. He was with a girl for 6 years, lived together, knew she was a hard-core atheist from the get-go but didn't have the balls to break up with her. Instead he tried to convert her and when she refused to join his church he said they "weren't religiously compatible" and it was all her fault. Made this big production of it, drug her through the mud, insulted her in front of his family and hers (she's a witch, ruining his life, blah-blah-blah) and finally moved out. It was disgusting.
His brother (my hubby) is Christian but knew what I was from the beginning. He accepted me as I am and we haven't had any religious issues because we find compromises. It can be done, you just have to find someone who doesn't demand you be EXACTLY like them. Or you find someone exactly like you.
I agree with others. Dump her or at least tell her there can not be a marriage because of the differences. Then step back and see just how religious she is. Very religious means your history.
Him, if the what you keep writing is any evidence, you are way more emotionally involved in this than I am. The only reason I'm replying right now is because I'm check the deer photos from the game camera.
I address three things. One was to the OP. If nothing else our arguments is a testament to his question.
The other two was simply to clarify a couple of things people were saying. That religions are inherently anti-science, especially anti-evolution. (Fundamentalist maybe) Not necessarily true as a whole. I know the Church isn't and i myself am not anti-science. Your claiming [QUOTE]The church was holding ideas based on observation of the natural world to a standard that the church would not accept for ideas based on the teachings of the church, and there isn't a good reason for that double standard[/QUOTE] is based upon what given this [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_and_science]Catholic Church and science - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/url] or this [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Roman_Catholic_scientist-clerics]List of Roman Catholic cleric[/url] or those quoted links I gave up above? With all that, including your arguments, in context where does truth lay? The other was the ethics comments relative to a materialistic framework which most atheist hold to.
You want to say I'm more emotionally invested when you write this? [QUOTE]And, "She wouldn't have been raped if she'd just gone with it and consented."[/QUOTE] with regards to a quote from Counter Balance's: [QUOTE][that the whole conflict] could have been avoided if Galileo himself had been a bit less arrogant[/QUOTE]. And you accuse me of a non sequitur?
Seems to me it's disingenuous to hold a technological immature culture, such as the middle ages, to an equivalent modern standard in light of the advancements in experiences, discoveries, and information the modern observer has.
PB, a libertarian could make a similar "parental" argument about the US government institution. We all live by thou shalts. For example, since it's a "declaration" the [url=http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/index.shtml]The Universal Declaration of Human Rights[/url] is a "thou shalt" and "thou shalt not" dogma/tenet based upon faith.
[QUOTE=Scott F;1021838]Him, if the what you keep writing is any evidence, you are way more emotionally involved in this than I am. The only reason I'm replying right now is because I'm check the deer photos from the game camera. [/quote]
Let me try another tack then.
What is the declaration that I am "emotionally involved"? Does it refute my argument? Does it change the underlying logic of the discussion? Or is it an attempt to avoid addressing my point by instead addressing your arguments to me as a person, ad hominem (or perhaps Himinem in this case) if you want to get technical.
So, what is it that makes this subject so important to you that you would do that? That you would forfeit the argument to try to claim your point?
Personally, I'm fine with the idea of emotional investment/involvement. If you can't work up some feeling for one of the biggest problems the human race will ever face - itself - there just might be something wrong with your priorities.
The other two was simply to clarify a couple of things people were saying. That religions are inherently anti-science, especially anti-evolution. (Fundamentalist maybe) Not necessarily true as a whole. I know the Church isn't and i myself am not anti-science. [/quote]
Nobody had actually claimed that religions, categorically, are inherently anti-science though. Someone may have said that they left their church because it was anti-science, or not, but nobody said, "Scott F is anti-science," or even that your church is.
My own claim, in answer to your post, was that the history of the relationship between science and religion is full of examples of religions being anti-science up to the current day. That's a fact which you have not refuted.
You want to say I'm more emotionally invested when you write this? with regards to a quote from Counter Balance's: . And you accuse me of a non sequitur?[/quote]
Oh, is that your cue? Use of emotionally loaded arguments is not a sign of emotional investment. Almost the opposite.
As for non sequitur, that wasn't one. You (your sources) were doing something called blaming the victim. I gave the classic example of blaming the victim. It was a reductio ad absurdum...a demonstration that using the same idea (yeah, Galileo was persecuted, but it was only because he was arrogant/yeah, she was raped, but only because she was provocatively dressed) leads to obviously unacceptable results, therefore the idea is not suitable for use.
Seems to me it's disingenuous to hold a technological immature culture, such as the middle ages, to an equivalent modern standard in light of the advancements in experiences, discoveries, and information the modern observer has. [/quote]
And that's your non sequitur. Nobody in this conversation is doing that. Your saying that would be like me saying, in reply to your game camera comment, "Seems to me it's wrong to hunt without a license." You never said your game camera was in place to help you hunt or that you don't have a license, so it's a total non sequitur, but it implies that you are a poacher, a claim which of course I'm sure you deny.
It is a gambit, it works on most people, it is useful but not good.
PB, a libertarian could make a similar "parental" argument about the US government institution. [/QUOTE]
Sure. I'm one of Them too. Genuine Gary Johnson voting libertarian. Actually "Classical Liberal" is the term I prefer but it's all the same.
Dump her eh? She's too pretty! haha well I understand where you guys are coming from and it does make sense, BUUTT you don't know her. I'm stepping back and letting her have some time to herself. We'll see how it plays out. If I have to get rid of her I will. I'm not going to fight a pointless battle. I've started reading some buddhist philosophy since starting this thread and I really like it. Here is a link that gave me some peace: [url=http://www.shambhalasun.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=3273&Itemid=0]Shambhala Sun - Love & Relationships: What the Buddhists Teach[/url]
Thanks for all of the support! Good people you are!
I was christian-y when my husband met me, and i totally changed.
I don't even celebrate christmas. nuts, right? neither does my husband. my poor kid, eh?
[QUOTE=zoebird;1022254]I was christian-y when my husband met me, and i totally changed.
I don't even celebrate christmas. nuts, right? neither does my husband. my poor kid, eh?[/QUOTE]
No, you must celebrate. We do not celebrate Christmas, we celebrate the Winter Soltice. Remember, the Christians stole this day to keep others from celebrating none Christian events.
[QUOTE=mark h;1022339]No, you must celebrate. We do not celebrate Christmas, we celebrate the Winter Soltice. Remember, the Christians stole this day to keep others from celebrating none Christian events.[/QUOTE]
I actually agree...
Though I'm atheist and don't "worship" anything I like to participate culturally this time of year, so I participate in a bit of "taking it back". Christians don't have sole ownership on the winter festivities dammit!
That bit of American-ism irks me... The more I know someone is anti "Happy Holidays" the bigger I smile when I say it. ;)
Celebrating the winter solstice can be for anyone... I'm certainly ready for LONGER days! Love me some sunshine! :cool: