Message from @Marcus

Discord ID: 601356660262567947


2019-07-18 08:52:47 UTC  

https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/435520935647248414/601335552222167074/unknown.png

2019-07-18 08:54:12 UTC  

Morning all.

2019-07-18 09:20:52 UTC  

Let's have a feels post

https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/435520935647248414/601342615291691018/66800137_199858657671457_2053290771771031552_o.png

2019-07-18 09:21:07 UTC  

F

2019-07-18 09:47:42 UTC  

@alias what’s causing you pain?

2019-07-18 10:06:17 UTC  

How do you justify banning divorce to an atheist?

2019-07-18 10:07:12 UTC  

Actually I don't even know how orthodox see divorce

2019-07-18 10:11:27 UTC  

Still a sin

2019-07-18 10:11:46 UTC  

We just dont tap dance around the issue that people are sinners and make mistakes

2019-07-18 10:11:48 UTC  

Atheists wouldn't give a monkeys about that, though.

2019-07-18 10:12:06 UTC  

You'd need to get them down to agreeing that there is a natural law.

2019-07-18 10:12:09 UTC  

Either way, got to find out what he cares about and play off that

2019-07-18 10:12:11 UTC  

And as such an objective truth.

2019-07-18 10:12:30 UTC  

Therefore banning divorce is a maintenance of the natural law.

2019-07-18 10:12:31 UTC  

Damaged childhood, for instance. Everyone cares about the children

2019-07-18 10:13:41 UTC  

I've a whole resource on that, similar to sodomy, but that's still in draft mode

2019-07-18 10:14:05 UTC  

Lax divorce also leads to promiscuity

2019-07-18 10:14:20 UTC  

Which would lead into the other sources.

2019-07-18 10:15:56 UTC  

Yea, its a comprehensive resource on everything family

2019-07-18 10:16:06 UTC  

Here is what she said:

"I agree with you insofar as I don't think people should be in institutions they fundamentally disagree with. Someone whose concept of marriage is egalitarian shouldn't be in an evangelical marriage; someone who is opposed to the idea of marriage shouldn't get married at all. But I wouldn't go so far as to say that only people interested in lifetime commitment should get married. I think there is room for different types of marriages and that the practice of writing one's own vows and designing one's own wedding (as opposed to all weddings taking place in a church) support that.

Even with the possibility of divorce, marriage is still a commitment. People in dating and cohabiting relationships try to work through their differences and try to maintain closeness despite the fact that their relationship isn't permanent. Some people derive a lot of meaning from the permanent element of marriage, which is fine, but I don't think it's necessary in order for people to be motivated to grow in their relationship. In fact, I think trying to force people who won't or can't work through their issues to stay together can be quite harmful."

2019-07-18 10:16:40 UTC  

After I said "people who don't want a lifelong commitment shouldn't get married"

2019-07-18 10:20:01 UTC  

Remind him that the sole purpose of marriage is to create a strong network for raising children. Not to have fun, not to get a tax write-off.

2019-07-18 10:20:33 UTC  

*her

2019-07-18 10:21:03 UTC  

She is overcomplicating issue by attaching all kinds of baggage to it like "co-habiting", "relationship", etc

2019-07-18 10:21:26 UTC  

Marriage isn't for fun and games. It's a sacrifice.

2019-07-18 10:21:54 UTC  

You leave a part of yourself behind in order to become one with another person and build a future together.

2019-07-18 10:24:48 UTC  

Agreed

2019-07-18 10:25:10 UTC  

Feel like I'm gonna be opening a can of screeching worms once I say marriage is about procreation though

2019-07-18 10:25:23 UTC  

But I guess that's where the fundamental disagreement lies

2019-07-18 10:25:46 UTC  

That is entirely what it's for though.

2019-07-18 10:26:09 UTC  

The idea that marriage is purely a romantic gesture is an idea that was whored out by Hallmark and Disney.

2019-07-18 10:26:10 UTC  

And the whole reason that divorce has risen in the first place; people stopped thinking of marriage as being for children and rather just for warm feelings

2019-07-18 10:27:14 UTC  

Even when you read 17th-19th century literature talking about "love", their very core understanding of what "love" is is an entirely different one to the one we have now.

2019-07-18 10:28:03 UTC  

How so?

2019-07-18 10:29:35 UTC  

In the example above, people courted and experienced "love" in a very short space of time.

Essentially, "love" in such stories was merely physical attraction. However at this point, we didn't have the ideas of contraception and the separation of the sexual act for its intended purpose.

2019-07-18 10:30:27 UTC  

However, the understanding was you were attracted to people and you understood *all* of the ramifications of such attraction. ie. Matrimony, Procreation, the fading of your physique and appearance.

2019-07-18 10:31:01 UTC  

What people today see marriage as is an expression of that love, not as a progression of it.

2019-07-18 10:32:58 UTC  

That's a great point

2019-07-18 10:34:04 UTC  

Even on old movies they are in love and ready to marry after knowing each other in just a short time

2019-07-18 10:36:47 UTC  

It's why so many people get divorced these days, they've got this crazy idea that your marriage must be over when that initial attraction is over.

2019-07-18 10:37:16 UTC  

Basically, we have separated marriage from about 5 or 6 of its constituent (incredibly important) elements.