# Evolution, Creation, & Growing Apart in Marriage



## Cochise (May 8, 2014)

Hello everyone, first post here. To put it succinctly, my wife and I have been married barely a year, I feel my beliefs beginning to change and I'm not sure how to discuss them with her.

We dated off and on for a little over 2 years, long distance, before getting married. We are both in our mid 20s. Our worldviews were always a little different, although they grew more and more similar during the 2+ years, but I thought hers were different in a way that would help make me a better person. For instance, she originally wanted to wait until marriage to kiss (she had kissed before) and she believed that Jesus only drank grape juice. These are certainly not huge issues to build a relationship around, or destroy one for disagreement, but I feel like they best give an example of who we were. I consistently asked if we could push our physical boundaries and I convinced her that they drank real wine in the Bible and that it was ok.

Now a year into our marriage I've started becoming curious about evolution. I grew up in a conservative Christian household, so I've read books like "Case for a Creator," "In Six Days," and had my parents read excerpts to me from "Darwin's Black Box" but I never looked at the other side other than the shoddy explanations you get in school. Recently I picked up "The Greatest Show on Earth," by Richard Dawkins, and it makes so much sense. 

Furthermore, for many different reasons over the past 3 years, I feel myself becoming a Democrat. This would shock my family, but not my wife (I have mentioned it) because she is not registered to vote and I'm not sure how much she understands the differences between the 2 parties, politics, etc. This is all part of a larger issue where I feel somewhat disconnected to her because of different levels of education and interests. I'm interested in politics, science, world events etc. while she's not and has stated that she wouldn't understand if she tried.

I'm honestly not sure how to bring this up to my wife. I'm honestly afraid that everything would go to hell if I mentioned that I was starting to believe in evolution and I was doubting the full accuracy of the Bible. Two weeks into our marriage she broke down in tears because I wasn't being the spiritual leader our family needed and wasn't reading the Bible to her every morning. Things were very rocky our first year and have just now started to get healthy and normal between us. I don't want to mess that up, but at the same time I feel like I'm faking it by pretending to be satisfied with things the way they currently are and by not opening up to her about this.


----------



## DoF (Mar 27, 2014)

I think you didn't give it enough time before you got married. 2 years of long distance relationship can be equivalent to month or 2 being together on daily basis......NOT EVEN.

Clearly not enough time. You also didn't even live with her prior to marriage (IMO, that's a mistake).

Anyways, as far as your religious views and political views go. You are in your 20s, you are still figuring yourself out and probably won't actually do it for another 5-10 years (at least).

Does any of this HAS to come out and be stated though? What issues does it cause in your relationships? I don't understand.

You guys are 2 different people, you SHOULD have different views on things.

I don't want to offend you or anything but I think Politics is just whole bunch of BS and religion = magic (and I don't believe in magic). 

Just me though.


----------



## Cochise (May 8, 2014)

You're completely right. I don't have to talk to her about it at all. I could just keep on pretending and hoping everything turns out alright.

In fact, my one quip with Richard Dawkins' book revolves around this very subject. In the book he criticizes the American public over and over for being skeptical of evolution and to a certain extent for believing in God. What he clearly does not understand, or what he conveniently covers up in order to make his argument more salient, is that humans are an incredibly complex social species. Evolution may be true, but if stating you believe in it jeopardizes your social and familial relationships you are going to be much less likely to openly admit it. Would it not be more advantageous to merely go with the flow than to face social ostracism?

On the flip side, however, is the issue of deep interpersonal connection with your spouse. I may sweep my new beliefs under the rug in order to keep my wife happy, but will I really be happy feeling disconnected and unable to talk about my worldview? And by worldview I don't just mean evolution, for that would be merely a slice of the greater pie. 

In regards to living together, I'm still not sure if I would have gone that far, though most of my hesitancy comes from not wanting to upset family. I do agree that we should have spent more time together in person. In fact, whenever we made out, etc. there was never really any chemistry, but we both chalked it up to her feeling guilty about it, so I just went with it. There's still great friendship, companionship, and even possibly a little dependency, but very little physical chemistry.


----------



## GTdad (Aug 15, 2011)

Religious and political agreement is pretty helpful in a marriage, I imagine. I don't know for sure, because I've never had it. 

I'm religious, and if you use the term loosely enough, probably even a Christian. My political views are fairly eclectic, and range from liberal to conservative, populist to libertarian, depending on the topic.

My wife is more of your classic Baptist Republican, and a believer in creationism. I'm an evolutionist, but will grant that maybe God had a hand in said evolution.

And you know what? It doesn't matter. I don't see that the problems which brought me here in the first place has anything to do with divergent religious-political views. We both give each other the right and freedom to believe as we wish, and our disagreements when expressed are respectful. 

I know people on all sides of various debates who can't imagine being with someone with different views. I on the other hand can't imagine being with someone who shares all of mine, in the unlikely event such a person exists.

I guess you have to figure out how important it is to you and your wife to be with someone who has closely-aligned views.


----------



## GTdad (Aug 15, 2011)

I'd add this, however:

Never, ever pretend to be something you're not, or pretend to hold views you don't actually have, to avoid angering, disappointing, or upsetting your partner. No good will come of it. Honesty above everything.


----------



## Cochise (May 8, 2014)

My wife is the type that would probably question my salvation if I told her what I was really thinking.


----------



## over20 (Nov 15, 2013)

The longer you go without talking to your wife about this the more it can damage your relationship. This will be a difficult talk but it needs to be had.

Is there a friend you can share with? One that won't judge you?


----------



## Married but Happy (Aug 13, 2013)

Perhaps this thread would be better in the religion section, but since it's here, I'll give my opinion. I applaud your curiosity and willingness to look at both sides of these issues. Unfortunately, being honest and being yourself will surely create some issues in your marriage, which seems to me to be extraordinarily conservative even for devout Christians - at least on her side of things.

She wants you to be the spiritual leader of the family. Do so. That happens to mean questioning religious assumptions and exposing her to these other ideas. Even the Catholic Church accepts evolution, scientific principles, and the metaphorical nature of the Bible, but no doubt that is not the faith you follow. 

Who knows how she will react to this, though. Your own self-certainty and personal integrity will be the key to getting through this, whatever the outcome.


----------



## GTdad (Aug 15, 2011)

Cochise said:


> My wife is the type that would probably question my salvation if I told her what I was really thinking.


And that, my friend, is her problem to with as she will.

Look at it this way: in a sense you're trying to control her, in that you're trying to manage her perception of you. We all do that to a point, but after that point is reached it starts to become unhealthy. You can't successfully manage her perception of you by pretending to be someone you're not.


----------



## Blossom Leigh (Mar 27, 2014)

This is a simple solution....

It is God who is quite capable of being questioned.

Your relationship with Him is yours alone

You have every right to explore your beliefs

You could even take her to church knowing you are questioning.

Just be up front. I am in the process of exploring my beliefs. I will take you and spend that time with you for you because I love you, just know I am absorbing for my exploration purposes. 

I've seen many non believers through the years show up just to learn, question, explore their own beliefs.

If your wife wanted an already established mature Christian, then from the story it sounds like you were not "put through your paces" to find out if that were you. 

She is not putting her eyes on her own relationship with God. She has an over simplified view of who you should be in your relationship to her and to God. It is way more complex than the little house on the prarie version. Most men I've seen take decades to achieve that authentic maturity and usually have had to walk through hell before they get there. Dying to self is VERY painful. 

It takes time to research, absorb, and critically think your way through all of those issues. Differences in opinion does not have to be a deal breaker in your love relationships because love is a universal language right? 

You can have your voice... just learn some boundaries if she treats you bad when you voice them. Very simple...  just not easy to implement because it takes time to learn. Don't fret too much is what I am trying to say... there are ways to peacefully coexist with different opinions.. let her have her breakdowns.. she'll figure it out. Just love her through it and keep standing in seeking truth..

This coming from a staunch believer in Jesus...


----------



## Cochise (May 8, 2014)

GTdad said:


> And that, my friend, is her problem to with as she will.
> 
> Look at it this way: in a sense you're trying to control her, in that you're trying to manage her perception of you. We all do that to a point, but after that point is reached it starts to become unhealthy. You can't successfully manage her perception of you by pretending to be someone you're not.


Thanks, that's a really good point. Actually pretty much every post on here is really good.

I am going to talk to her about it tonight. If I'm being honest here, there are other issues that have bothered me, and this possibly just seems the easiest to define; and thus it's the one being brought to light. Other issues being intellectual and sexual in nature; and to an extent we have discussed these. I've even read several marriage books and we went to counseling a few times last year. I know my wife is by far the happiest she's been in our marriage to date, but you're right; I can't give her a false impression of me and pretend to be something I'm not just to keep her happy.




Blossom Leigh said:


> If your wife wanted an already established mature Christian, then from the story it sounds like you were not "put through your paces" to find out if that were you.


I have to respectfully disagree. She asked me lots of theological questions while we were dating, and I was often the one to have points that she did not understand. One reason she was attracted to me is that I was able to keep up with her brother, who is an associate pastor, in discussing the Bible. Also, if you take the faith route, then I'll present you with the story that one night she prayed to God that if she was supposed to be ok with a relationship with me I'd talk in depth about my faith that night, which I did. She always tells that story as an example of how she knew. I'm not disagreeing with you about whether I'm a mature Christian or not, I'm just saying she checked me out very thoroughly.


----------



## DoF (Mar 27, 2014)

You two should start watching some George Carlin videos.....on religion and politics......:smthumbup:


----------



## Blossom Leigh (Mar 27, 2014)

Cochise said:


> I have to respectfully disagree. She asked me lots of theological questions while we were dating, and I was often the one to have points that she did not understand. One reason she was attracted to me is that I was able to keep up with her brother, who is an associate pastor, in discussing the Bible. Also, if you take the faith route, then I'll present you with the story that one night she prayed to God that if she was supposed to be ok with a relationship with me I'd talk in depth about my faith that night, which I did. She always tells that story as an example of how she knew. I'm not disagreeing with you about whether I'm a mature Christian or not, I'm just saying she checked me out very thoroughly.


Excellent... then she needs to rest that God knows what he is doing regardless of your quest to explore.... that's on her, not you.


----------



## Blossom Leigh (Mar 27, 2014)

Cochise said:


> I have to respectfully disagree. She asked me lots of theological questions while we were dating, and I was often the one to have points that she did not understand. One reason she was attracted to me is that I was able to keep up with her brother, who is an associate pastor, in discussing the Bible. Also, if you take the faith route, then I'll present you with the story that one night she prayed to God that if she was supposed to be ok with a relationship with me I'd talk in depth about my faith that night, which I did. She always tells that story as an example of how she knew. I'm not disagreeing with you about whether I'm a mature Christian or not, I'm just saying she checked me out very thoroughly.


Excellent... then she needs to rest that God knows what he is doing regardless of your quest to explore.... that's on her, not you.

You examining your own heart with the Lord you claim is on you.


----------



## WolverineFan (Nov 26, 2013)

Thanks for posting your information. Your journey is a little different than mine, in that, I came to God in my late teen years primarily because the idea of evolution was such a hard intellectual pill to swallow. The concept that everything came from nothing and that there is no real purpose in human experience, brought me to the place in my heart where I believed that there had to be a God. This was not the result of any teaching I received at home because we never ever attended church nor did my parents ever discuss anything about God or religion.

Unlike many believers, I am not concerned when someone has legitimate questions and doubts. I do not believe that God is afraid of them either. If we honestly and openly seek truth, I believe that we will always end up with the same conclusion - God IS and He holds all things together. You must be prepared, however, for this revelation to shock your wife and cause her anxiety. If she feels like you are heading down the path of rejecting the faith, then the foundation upon which she thought the two of you were building your lives upon has suddenly become fragile and unstable. You do understand that don't you?

You can help alleviate her fears by assuring her that you are not rejecting the faith just searching to satisfy your own intellectual curiosity. If that is indeed your purpose, then I want to recommend a DVD series titled _The Truth Project_. You can learn more about it by going to this website. There is a large FAQ section there as well as a tool for you to locate a small group in your area that is studying the material. 

I hope something I have said is a help to you. Keep seeking the truth and keep loving your wife. In the end, I believe, everything will turn out fine! My prayers are with you.


----------



## Blossom Leigh (Mar 27, 2014)

WolverineFan said:


> Thanks for posting your information. Your journey is a little different than mine, in that, I came to God in my late teen years primarily because the idea of evolution was such a hard intellectual pill to swallow. The concept that everything came from nothing and that there is no real purpose in human experience, brought me to the place in my heart where I believed that there had to be a God. This was not the result of any teaching I received at home because we never ever attended church nor did my parents ever discuss anything about God or religion.
> 
> Unlike many believers, I am not concerned when someone has legitimate questions and doubts. I do not believe that God is afraid of them either. If we honestly and openly seek truth, I believe that we will always end up with the same conclusion - God IS and He holds all things together. You must be prepared, however, for this revelation to shock your wife and cause her anxiety. If she feels like you are heading down the path of rejecting the faith, then the foundation upon which she thought the two of you were building your lives upon has suddenly become fragile and unstable. You do understand that don't you?
> 
> ...


Excellent Wolverine... 

I too explored a lot, though coming to Christ when I was 9. Not because of my family, but in spite of my abusive family. When I grew older, I explored my beliefs of old and I too gravitated back to Christ making the only sense to me.


----------



## Anonymous07 (Aug 4, 2012)

I think it's great that you are trying to look at both sides. Good for you. 

I love science, but I am also religious. Yes, the two can coexist together easily. You can have a difference of opinion and it doesn't have to be a deal breaker. My husband is very much "by the book" in his views on religion, but respects my beliefs and followings of science. We talk about it and share things to have both of us keep an open mind. Keep the communication open.


----------



## Hicks (Jan 14, 2011)

she sounds a bit nutty to me. Jesus only drank grape juice? I have never heard that one.

Most extremely religious people twist what their religion has to say and use it for selfish purposes.

The problem you have is you have a wife who puts religion ahead of marriage. Your marriage can only be successful if it is more important to her than virtually anything else. Religion defines and supports marriage. It is the thread of marriage. Marriage is a crucial component of religion. But, what you have is a wife who views you as a piece of her religious experience, and that religious experience is her whole life. What you should have is a life where you love your marital partner for who they are, and the marriage itself is central, and your religious beliefs are the basis of it.

The bottom line is, you are afraid of your wife. That is not good. She's calling the shots. She's wearing the pants. Her views are the only views. She even alluded to why this can't work. Even the bible says the man has to be the spiritual leader. Note, it does not say to the man, "ask your wife what her beliefs are, completely agree with them, and then use her beliefs to lead her". It says YOU be the spiritual leader. You define the marriage.

And by the way, political parties are not religions and don't own religions. They use religions to attain votes and power.


----------



## tryingtobebetter (Aug 6, 2012)

I am puzzled why people think that evolution and God are incompatible. I have long seen evolution as the way God created the existing universe.

Likewise, though a devout Christian myself, I do not regard every word in the Bible as divinely inspired. Do we still think we should be stoning adulterers to death (Christ clearly did not think so)? If so, why are we not going out there and doing just that?

Given you both sound to be serious Christians, you have a lot going for you. Remember the commandment 'love one another'. Keep doing that and all will come good.

Dawkins is a brilliant scientist but a pretty duff theologian. I find he has nothing to say about faith that has not been said before. Ultimately, metaphysical questions are not susceptible to the scientific method.

Pray together. Good luck.


----------



## Rowan (Apr 3, 2012)

OP, be prepared for this to cause continuing strife in your marriage as you attempt to navigate this situation with your wife. She has most likely been raised from birth to never question the absolute infallibility of either the Bible itself or of her church's teachings. Her beliefs are not simply a religious faith for her, they are a lifestyle and a worldview. You married an extremely conservative Christian woman from a background that not only didn't foster, but actively repressed, curiosity and open-mindedness in her. The reason she has no intellectual or sexual curiosity is because it's not her place to have those things. This is, at a very deep level, a _cultural_ issue. She may see even mild questioning of the "truths" of her upbringing as sin, and find herself not only in fear for your salvation, but for her own. 

So just be very aware that you will be shaking the very foundations of your marriage and that it may be very hard, even impossible, for her to follow you on this path. In her eyes, you are about to perform a very severe bait-and-switch. Can you find a church leader or elder who might be able to provide guidance and assistance for you and both of you as a couple as you tackle this challenge?


----------



## DoF (Mar 27, 2014)

WolverineFan said:


> . The concept that everything came from nothing and that there is no real purpose in human experience, brought me to the place in my heart where I believed that there had to be a God.


So you completely ignore what scientists and evidence tells us but believe in an invisible man in the sky?

That makes sense


----------



## GTdad (Aug 15, 2011)

DoF said:


> So you completely ignore what scientists and evidence tells us but believe in an invisible man in the sky?
> 
> That makes sense


Respectfully, I don't think this is the place for that discussion.


----------



## Cochise (May 8, 2014)

Rowan said:


> OP, be prepared for this to cause continuing strife in your marriage as you attempt to navigate this situation with your wife. She has most likely been raised from birth to never question the absolute infallibility of either the Bible itself or of her church's teachings. Her beliefs are not simply a religious faith for her, they are a lifestyle and a worldview. You married an extremely conservative Christian woman from a background that not only didn't foster, but actively repressed, curiosity and open-mindedness in her. The reason she has no intellectual or sexual curiosity is because it's not her place to have those things. This is, at a very deep level, a _cultural_ issue. She may see even mild questioning of the "truths" of her upbringing as sin, and find herself not only in fear for your salvation, but for her own.
> 
> So just be very aware that you will be shaking the very foundations of your marriage and that it may be very hard, even impossible, for her to follow you on this path. In her eyes, you are about to perform a very severe bait-and-switch. Can you find a church leader or elder who might be able to provide guidance and assistance for you and both of you as a couple as you tackle this challenge?


Two of her siblings don't believe that women should wear pants or that you should listen to any music with a beat. Fortunately my wife doesn't share these views, but that was the type of home she grew up in.

I'm not going to talk to a pastor unless it comes to that after trying to talk to her about it first, and I'm going to give it some time. We saw 2 different pastors in counseling, and my assessment was that it was only marginally helpful.


----------



## DoF (Mar 27, 2014)

Cochise said:


> Two of her siblings don't believe that women should wear pants or that you should listen to any music with a beat. Fortunately my wife doesn't share these views, but that was the type of home she grew up in.


She is going to be around these people and their views will spill onto her and your marriage in some way, shape or form. Clearly they already are.

I would distance myself from anyone like that or their family members......but that's just me. That is not healthy or normal, I don't care what "pretext" it is under (aka "religion").

I don't like anything or anyone telling me what to believe in or how to live my life. I do NOT live my life by the book. 

I'm also very anti herd mentality. Rather than follow, I question.....and my questions don't get logical answers. When everyone goes one way, I seem to wonder off in other direction and question why so many people follow/go the route they go.

This is where I clash with religion......


----------



## Rowan (Apr 3, 2012)

Cochise said:


> Two of her siblings don't believe that women should wear pants or that you should listen to any music with a beat. Fortunately my wife doesn't share these views, but that was the type of home she grew up in.


I knew that when you mentioned the grape juice....


----------



## Ikaika (Apr 23, 2012)

I am one of the rare birds here on TAM, a fully professed atheist. I have no bones about it. However, I see the value in religion based upon who we are as a bipedal primate that would never have survived had it not been for our tribalism.

But more to your point is how these disparate beliefs will affect your marriage and more importantly if they will have any impact on raising children. I think one could potentially have a loving relationship with differing ideas as long as respect for each others differences are appreciated. And, while I am an atheist, I don't assume anyone who chooses to believe lesser, dumber, etc than I am or less enlightened. The issue will no doubt be at the forefront when children are involved and then you present the child with having to decipher the minefield of differences between parent views of the world. On this point, I can see where the tension in marriage may truly exist.


----------



## Blossom Leigh (Mar 27, 2014)

in a word.... acceptance in spite of differences...

ok that was a few words

but it boils down to one concept

emotional agility


----------



## veryconfuzed (Apr 29, 2014)

The problem is not the different beliefs or views in life. The problem is wanting/forcing people with your own beliefs or views in life.

Also close mindedness in not accepting the fact that not everyone has same beliefs or views in life as you.

I know because I was once close minded. When I was a devout Catholic. I was like many devout Catholics like me where in I believe my religion is the ONLY right religion. Every one else's religion is false and they will all go to hell. LOL, typing that just makes me laugh how stupid I was then.

Bottom line - no one REALLY knows what happens when we die. So saying you're right and others are stupid and ignorant is stupidity in itself.

My 'awakening' happened when I debated those atheists in another forum. Again, coz I was close minded, I thought all atheists are immorals, murderers, just plain bad people in general.

In fact, because, I want to 'fit in'. I declare that I maybe questioning my religion. I was a non practicing already when I had those 'debates' with them. I still am a non practicing Catholic. But I never let go completely of my personal relationship with God. Those Catholic 'duties' like going to church, confessions, abstinence, etc. I let go decades ago but NEVER my personal relationship with God. In fact I always say, I would die a Catholic.

You know what I realized though? Like the poster above me said, the atheists' belief that when you die, that's it. That, I can never EVER accept. I was like, then what's the point of life then? Like seriously?

So I just became open minded and not judge anyone just because, they don't have same beliefs as me. It's not that I don't understand evolution. It's just that they say they have 'proof'. But has anyone seen an ACTUAL evolution happen like they 'theorize' how the universe and life evolved?

I always say that to the evolutionists that they bash us that we don't see God but we believe, well then have they seen an actual something 'evolved'? Because I told them if I see something evolved as complex as human evolution then I will believe. But there really is none. In fact it's impossible to witness.

Because the 'proof' of the process of human evolution and beginning of universe supposedly takes billions of years.... So really, I can't see/witness it evolve or anyone else for that matter. 

So I chose to believe I was created because that comforts me. I just feel lost if I let go of my belief in God. I will feel empty.

My husband is an atheist, I really don't mind. He is not a criminal nor a bad person. That's what's more important to me. He also cares about politics. I really don't give a sh-it about politics. My reason is coz the government does not put food on my table, my husband DOES! LOL.

So, OP if you think your marriage is falling apart just coz of difference in belief and views, you better start sorting out your priorities in life.


----------



## jld (Dec 1, 2013)

OP, take care not to get your wife pregnant. If you continue questioning your beliefs, you will likely end up in a far different place religion-wise than you grew up, or where you were when you married your wife two years ago.

Frankly, I think you are going to end up divorced.

Be as honest and open with her as possible. Respect her views, but don't let her limit your own search for truth in any way.

I grew up in a politically conservative, strict Catholic home. By the end of college, I was an agnostic Democrat. Still am. Could not have married the young man I dated in high school. Would have ended up divorced, kids or not. 

To some of us, intellectual freedom for ourselves and unity in politics and religion with our partner is really, really important. You may be this way. 

Just be prepared to have your life rocked the more you read and explore.


----------



## As'laDain (Nov 27, 2011)

personally, i dont believe in evolution. from what i have seen of the fossil record, evolution seems to happen in reverse. i see that things change, but my observations concerning genetics seem to suggest that creatures had a larger genome in the past, and lost genetic material in order to turn into what they are today and became more specialized and less adaptable with that loss in genetic material. 


but seriously, who cares? if someone does agree with me, it makes no difference to me unless they are trying to shove their views down my throat. 

i love it when someone challenges me, but if i come up with a logical explanation based on a logical interpretation of the evidence before me, i expect a logical counter argument. nothing more.


----------



## Lyris (Mar 29, 2012)

I would be equally worried, if not more so, by the lack of sexual chemistry. That's not typically something that improves as you get older. 

I'm an atheist and I could never have married a religious person. But I know others have, so maybe that part will work out okay.


----------



## FormerSelf (Apr 21, 2013)

There are lots of good books that deal with the subject of Christians trying to break free of the heavily-handed influence of the Young-Earth Creation movement. "Biology Through the Eyes of Faith" is probably one of the best texts I read in college...as it breaks down all of the different views in a very unbiased approach...and seeks to help the reader have a more balanced approach between an active faith and science.

My church was heavily influenced by the young-earth movement, so when I studied otherwise years ago...it was a major paradigm shift. The funny thing is that it doesn't require abandoning your faith in order to be more open to modern science...the only things that are at risk are some inflexible interpretations of the Bible. The most important thing to know is the the Bible is not a science text...it is supposed to transmit the character and heart of God. 

Hugh Ross has written several books on the struggle he met in questioning hard-set interpretations that has disastrously and unnecessarily set the church against modern science. While i don't agree with everything he says...it is a good book to start with in terms of discovering what lies beyond the literal/young-earth interpretive bubble. I have also discovered that many Christians are open to new ideas, but others fearfully do not...and it is best not to speak with them about it...especially if their faith hinges on believing that the six days of creation mentioned in Genesis MUST mean six literal days.


----------



## RClawson (Sep 19, 2011)

Cochise said:


> My wife is the type that would probably question my salvation if I told her what I was really thinking.


And your wife would question my salvation because I am a Mormon but who cares? The only individual that knows the real truth about your salvation is God. While I am at it I am quite convinced your salvation has already been taken care of as well as everyone else's but I am Mormon and that is how we roll brother.


----------



## As'laDain (Nov 27, 2011)

Lyris said:


> I would be equally worried, if not more so, by the lack of sexual chemistry. That's not typically something that improves as you get older.
> 
> I'm an atheist and I could never have married a religious person. But I know others have, so maybe that part will work out okay.


probably one of the most relevant posts on this thread...


----------



## jld (Dec 1, 2013)

Lyris said:


> I would be equally worried, if not more so, by the lack of sexual chemistry. That's not typically something that improves as you get older.
> 
> I'm an atheist and I could never have married a religious person. But I know others have, so maybe that part will work out okay.


The sexual chemistry and the difference in intellectual curiosity/education/interests are certainly significant. I think the difference in devotion to conservative religion is significant, too.

We are not talking Methodist v. Presbyterian here. If some women in her family are not wearing pants, that is a very conservative denomination.

And he is from a similar background, though slightly more liberal, and has become a Democrat? That is a big change from what he grew up with. And I think continued change is on the way.

I just don't see it working out.


----------



## ocotillo (Oct 17, 2011)

Cochise said:


> My wife is the type that would probably question my salvation if I told her what I was really thinking.


A lot depends on how cosmopolitan she's willing to be and how respectful you're willing to be. If she belongs to an apocalyptic, premillennialist sect, you're probably screwed though. 

I'm a liberal, agnostic secular humanist. My wife is a conservative, Christian fundamentalist. It can work with mutual respect.


----------



## Lyris (Mar 29, 2012)

If you look through posts on TAM, you'll find that generally the happier marriages are ones where the two people felt a strong sexual attraction to one another from the start.

That's not to say that the sex was always perfect, or couldn't improve. But that the attraction was always there somehow. 

Added to that in your case are religious differences and a feeling of intellectual incompatibility. Why did you marry your wife? What was it that made you fall in love with her? 

And also, I'm going to ask this because it comes up time and again - is there another person you feel is more compatible? Someone else you're attracted to? Could this be why these feelings of dissatisfaction are rising to the surface?


----------



## jld (Dec 1, 2013)

Cochise said:


> On the flip side, however, is *the issue of deep interpersonal connection with your spouse*. I may sweep my new beliefs under the rug in order to keep my wife happy, *but will I really be happy feeling disconnected and unable to talk about my worldview? *And by worldview I don't just mean evolution, for that would be merely a slice of the greater pie.


Ocotillo, did you see the above?

Do you discuss issues with your wife? How does that work? Do you mostly agree to disagree? Does it make you feel deeply interpersonally connected to her? It seems like that is what the OP, a young man in his mid-20s, is going for.


----------



## As'laDain (Nov 27, 2011)

i think the real problem is that the OP feels the need to hide his own views. my own views slam against most peoples views. my views about evolution go against most scientific communities and religious communities alike. 

thing is, i couldn't give a crap. so its a non-issue with me. other peoples views don't bother me a bit.


----------



## Maricha75 (May 8, 2012)

Grape juice? Very modest dress/no pants, only dresses/skirts for women? No music with a rock beat? Yep, very familiar to me... and if I asked about diet, like whether she eats pork and/or other meats that were deemed unclean in the OT, would you say she does not? If so... then this is more than likely the same church I belong to. I am conservative about many things, but not all. I do listen to some secular music, as well as contemporary Christian. My husband and I came from different backgrounds as well. In fact, he was Jewish, but converted. Some things, he is still more "liberal" about, but that is his choice. Just because he and I are not in the exact same place on every single thing doesn't mean we will break up. I pray for him, he prays for me. I think that the marriage would be more likely to break up if they don't communicate, rather than having differing viewpoints. But that's just my experience. My mom was a (non-practicing) Catholic and dad and we girls are Adventists. Dad joined the church about 10 years after they married... and they remained together until separated by mom's death... a total of 40 years, married. It can be done, but it's rough.

So, what is my point? Talk to her. Be honest. Yea, she will likely be worried about your salvation, and will pray for you. Frankly, I think, if you are a Christian, you SHOULD be praying for your spouse. But if you don't communicate, you will not get this resolved.

_Posted via *Topify* on Android_


----------



## As'laDain (Nov 27, 2011)

Maricha75 said:


> So, what is my point? Talk to her. Be honest. Yea, she will likely be worried about your salvation, and will pray for you. Frankly, I think, if you are a Christian, you SHOULD be praying for your spouse. But if you don't communicate, you will not get this resolved.
> 
> _Posted via *Topify* on Android_


yep. :iagree:


----------



## Blossom Leigh (Mar 27, 2014)

Agree, pretending is not an option. You have to be bold enough to say, this is me and she then has the choice of accepting you or not. Your path will always be your own.


----------



## Cochise (May 8, 2014)

Lyris said:


> If you look through posts on TAM, you'll find that generally the happier marriages are ones where the two people felt a strong sexual attraction to one another from the start.
> 
> That's not to say that the sex was always perfect, or couldn't improve. But that the attraction was always there somehow.
> 
> ...


Do I think there is someone out there who is more compatible? Yes. But specifically? No. What I mean by that is that there is no one specifically that I am thinking about, and that I don't talk to other women; but I do fantasize about being single, mostly thinking about bettering myself and then meeting someone who would be crazy over me. I think part of it is that I know I hurt my wife by being too aggressive in the way that I talk, and by going too far physically (for her) before the wedding, and that impacted things. She complained in the past that I wanted a "bad girl" and that it hurt her because that's not who she is. I've learned to be a lot more gentle, which is a huge plus for really anyone.

Last night I read some of the book to her and mentioned how I thought Dawkins had some really good points. She didn't say anything and just went down stairs. I finished it up and am going to find some more literature at the library today. I have 2 other things planned for today. I'm off work early, so I am going to bake her her favorite kind of cookies and I got her her favorite kind of wine. I am going to blindfold her and tease her and feed her cookies haha. A little bit of me (light bondage) a little bit of her (fav food/wine). I am putting forth effort into this. Maybe we will have good sex. The other thing I plan on doing is readressing what I've been thinking lately about my beliefs.

Sex was pretty decent last night. It was in some ways very good, it was in other ways lacking as usual. My wife is good, technically speaking, but I just feel like it lacks soul. Kissing her last night was the best it has been in, I don't remember. Usually I don't care for kissing her; which is weird because with previous gfs I could make out for like an hour and I don't just mean in highschool. There's also very little to no dirty talking and a lack of expression of enthusiasm, despite that my wife, like me is HD and wants sex every day. She has said twice last year that she feels pressure from me for her to be a performer but she doesn't want to be a performer, so I've backed off that. I guess when it comes down to it those are just differences between us. I would rather have sex with someone who was flirty, seductive, and very expressive with lots of effort but kind of clumsy than someone who knew all the positions and knew just how to touch me but never said anything or did anything flirty/witty/seductive.


----------



## Blossom Leigh (Mar 27, 2014)

Just curious... do you watch porn?

I think it would be wise to not seek approval for your exploration... just explore. Seeking her approval could set you up for repeated heart injury that could cost you over time. Just be content exploring for yourself. You are who you are, she is who she is. You are not ok with her trying to change you and you want her acceptance of your path... she wants the same. Why is it not ok for her to want you different but ok for you to want her different, that is double standard. Trust me, if she is HD... there are ways you can cause her to involuntarily "open up" without asking her to be a someone she is not.

You want her to be a bad girl... she wants you to be a good boy... I hear major conflict coming if you two can't learn to love well and accept each other.


----------



## jld (Dec 1, 2013)

Well, what you said in your most recent post confirms my feeling that you two will end up apart. You're not on the same page intellectually, and that is going to affect you religion-wise. You are into at least some light kink, and she does not seem to be at all.

Read some of the stories on this site. A lot of men think they married HD gals, and ended up with LD. And they all want really expressive sex. A year into it, and you already feel the differences.

Again, watch out for pregnancy. Although, it sounds like your wife may be having some major doubts about you, too, and she could be considering (and maybe even preparing for) the eventual dissolution of the union.

Two young people, mid-20s, no kids, already this far apart, and likely growing farther apart . . . Well, just stay true to yourself. I think nature will take its course, and it will be for the best for both of you.


----------



## ocotillo (Oct 17, 2011)

jld said:


> Ocotillo, did you see the above?
> 
> Do you discuss issues with your wife? How does that work? Do you mostly agree to disagree? Does it make you feel deeply interpersonally connected to her? It seems like that is what the OP, a young man in his mid-20s, is going for.


I think As'laDain and Maricha75 have hit the nail on the head above. It is the need to hide one's views and pretend to be someone else that is detrimental. The OP will have to be honest.

For Christians, I'm sad to say that their acceptance of this level of honesty often comes down to whether they truly love God or whether they are instead, in love with their denomination; its trappings, its group status, spiritual exclusivity, feelings of moral superiority, etc. 

My wife, (Thankfully) falls into the former category and because of that there is a lot we both bring to the table. The Bible is one of the best preserved pieces of ancient literature in existence and the moral lessons therein are no less real when one approaches it from a secular historicist perspective. 

One danger for the OP is that a lot of people upon experiencing a crises of conscience and losing belief in a personal Creator go through a frantic period of learning and from the pinnacle of this new found knowledge, start to look down on their former self and those who believe as their former self did. 

That should be avoided. In the end, it doesn't really matter how we got here. We're here whether we know how it happened or not and have to be the best possible human beings we can while we're here.


----------



## Blossom Leigh (Mar 27, 2014)

Yes big difference in loving God and "trappings," which no matter how holy they look can be well disguised spiritual pride for which Christ reserved his harshest criticism.

Bible says, God is love and I have found His creation responds to love. Makes the most sense to me.


----------



## jld (Dec 1, 2013)

But it is not just on the topic of evolution that he is disagreeing with her. His whole worldview is changing. He is starting to vote differently. Our votes reflect our values, our hearts.

I totally agree that he should be transparent with her. I just think that that transparency is going to show them continuing to be very far apart, not only on issues, but in their hearts. And I am doubtful the gap can be bridged.


----------



## Blossom Leigh (Mar 27, 2014)

Ocotillo is describing love and acceptance in spite of differing world views beautifully... :smthumbup:


----------



## Cochise (May 8, 2014)

Blossom Leigh said:


> Just curious... do you watch porn?


No. It's not that I want every time we have sex to be a show either, but I am definitely into a more verbal form of sex. This can be witty remarks or flirting when you are out and about, etc. The same goes for wearing lingerie from time to time vs never, though I suppose that's different than being verbal although I guess it is about attitude.

*edit*
I do enjoy a good sex scene in a movie, whereas my wife does not. I logged on to IMDB to look at some movies and saw where she had rated a plethora of movies, which I had previously rated or included in a list, as 1 star; all of which had some sort of sex scene or sexual inuendo. If you're not familiar with IMDB you can make lists of movies you want to watch, read reviews, etc. and rate them from 1 (awful) to 10 (great) stars.

Just picked up a book on the origins of Satan and also The Battle for God by Karen Armstrong, about Christianity, Islam, and Judaism in the modern era. Started reading the latter and it's pretty interesting.


----------



## Lyris (Mar 29, 2012)

She's only young though. And coming from her background it's hardly surprising she's going to be fairly modest and conservative. That's kind of on you, frankly, you should have thought of that before you got married.

She also may very well grow in confidence and sexual expressiveness as she gets older. I'm very different sexually as a 41 year old than I was as a 23 year old.


----------



## Nikita2270 (Mar 22, 2014)

> I am one of the rare birds here on TAM, a fully professed atheist. I have no bones about it.


I am a raging Agnostic. I don't discount the slim potential of a creator/creators...I just find it unlikely and doubt we have the ability to figure it out anyway. I certainly don't believe in any mainstream definition of a god...in fact, I find the way they've been defined purely horrific.

I have no issue with anyone who chooses religion on a personal level. My ex was a catholic...the one thing we never argued about was religion...he had his beliefs, I had mine. Every person has a right to form their own set of beliefs that they use to guide them through life.

But that aside...I absolutely agree with this post by another poster:



> I am puzzled why people think that evolution and God are incompatible. I have long seen evolution as the way God created the existing universe.


Denying evolution is senseless...its a fact. The fossil record exists although the mechanism by which it works is still considered a scientific theory much like the mechanism by which the law of gravity works is considered scientific theory. You don't see any Christians jumping off buildings denying that fact though.

My point is that I just don't understand why having differing belief systems has to be a dividing factor rather than bringing a new level of excitement to your marriage. I enjoy debating things with my partner. The things you need to agree on are compatibility issues. Sex, loyalty, interests, money, life goals, etc. Agreeing about everything is kinda boring.

If your wife is too narrow-minded to be able to listen to and appreciate different opinions...then maybe you do have a problem. Its a great shame though.


----------



## Caribbean Man (Jun 3, 2012)

ocotillo said:


> *For Christians, I'm sad to say that their acceptance of this level of honesty often comes down to whether they truly love God or whether they are instead, in love with their denomination; its trappings, its group status, spiritual exclusivity, feelings of moral superiority, etc.
> *


:iagree:

I also think the same can be said of Atheist and people who hold their political as sacrosanct.

My political views are completely different from those of my wife , but it doesn't make a difference, and in the early years of our marriage , I was a political activist for one of our leading political party.

Religious, I like learning and exploring different views, ut I do believe there is a creator / God. She on the other hand was Hindu then converted to Christianity,and is a regular church member.
I haven't been to church in decades, but again, we have absolutely no problem there.

I never had any initial sexual attraction to her when we first met, we were just friends for quite a few years.
My sexual attraction to her began to grow after we started dating each other.

I think the ability of a couple to solve problems in a relationship is directly proportional to their willingness to compromise and meet each other's _real_ needs.


----------



## Cochise (May 8, 2014)

Still working on this. Apparently the 2 books I got out are basically history books. Bummer. Not that I don't like history, but it's not exactly what I was looking for. 

There are a lot of things in life that make me question how we could all evolve out of nothing, or at least without a guiding hand. The complexity of our bodies at a cellular level is amazing. It is a commonly held belief within Christianity that all of creation testifies to the Glory of God. There are some verses that speak to this, such as Psalms 19:1 and Romans 1:20. There's also a lot of things in nature that seem at odds with this statement. Lions and males of other animals will often kill the offspring of all other males (or those not of their siblings e.g. "nephews" in the case of lions), sharks, eagles, and other animals typically eat their siblings after hatching; and female mice often eat their offspring. There's numerous other pretty disgusting examples, but this is all pretty head-scratching. Much of nature is pretty vile and ruthless. Everything seems to testify instead to the concept that animals - even ourselves - are really just acting in the best interests of carrying on our DNA to the next generation, and ensuring its survival. Similarly, there's a lot of issues with the design of the human body that don't make sense to me.

In a sense, I can see how ignorance is bliss. If you don't explore and you're not curious then the world is a much simpler place. Or, maybe it's not. My wife was in tears today because of the possibility of having a virus. She kept saying that it wasn't fair and that she hadn't done anything to deserve this. I did my best to comfort her, but then had to mention that I didn't believe that fairness really existed in life and that bad things aren't typically because you are being punished by God. She was pretty upset by this remark, and it's something that is very different about our world views, but we got past it. We also had a little confrontation over a documentary on prohibition that I was watching. She felt very uncomfortable by the discussion of sex and other things that the historians were talking about. I can get past that, but it's annoying. I guess that's what happens when you're young and married, you're still trying to figure out what you believe and you're trying to figure out what is a serious issue and what isn't. I've mostly been glossing over things in order to keep her happy. We had a pretty good weekend surprisingly, but we still haven't had a flat out conversation on some of my concerns. I've mentioned several times that specific arguments from books that I'm reading make a lot of sense, but she's mostly ignored it.


----------



## ocotillo (Oct 17, 2011)

Cochise said:


> There's numerous other pretty disgusting examples, but this is all pretty head-scratching. Much of nature is pretty vile and ruthless. Everything seems to testify instead to the concept that animals - even ourselves - are really just acting in the best interests of carrying on our DNA to the next generation, and ensuring its survival.


That is something that thinkers throughout the ages have struggled with. In his short essay, _Why I Am Not A Christian_, Bertrand Russell cited predation and the ruthlessness of the natural world as one of his reasons for rejecting a personal God.

Augustine of Hippo in the 4th and 5th centuries came up with an explanation that many Christians do accept today - That original sin in some unspecified way has corrupted the animal kingdom and diverted creatures from their original purpose in harmful ways.




Cochise said:


> I've mentioned several times that specific arguments from books that I'm reading make a lot of sense, but she's mostly ignored it.


There's a phenomenon in the human mind called "Cognitive dissonance." Basically, we all have mental anchor points that keep us sane. The human mind values this stability far more than it values objective reality and will react very strongly to protect itself when any of these anchor points are undermined. 

For people with strong religious beliefs, this often includes being, "...bored or repelled by any train of thought capable of leading in a heretical direction." (-Quoting George Orwell here..)

Try to resist the urge to spontaneously share your newfound knowledge with your wife. Her defenses will go up faster than you can blink. 

Sooner or later, she will eventually ask you what has changed in your worldview and you will get your chance. The goal here is not to convert her to your way of thinking, but to show that you are simply being honest here.


----------



## As'laDain (Nov 27, 2011)

hmmm....

predation has never bothered me a bit. i dont see how earth could be able to continue supporting life without it. 

earths ecosystem is a beautifully complex system that recycles itself incessantly in order to preserve life.


----------



## jld (Dec 1, 2013)

ocotillo said:


> There's a phenomenon in the human mind called "Cognitive dissonance." Basically, we all have mental anchor points that keep us sane. The human mind values this stability far more than it values objective reality and will react very strongly to protect itself when any of these anchor points are undermined.


That is why you can show people facts and logic and reason all you want, but some of us will not be moved. We cannot afford it, mentally and emotionally. Our world would collapse. We are not ready, and may never be.

But you can continue thinking what you like, and mentioning it. Over time, curiosity may override the need to keep things as they are in some of our minds. Some of us will eventually appreciate what you are saying.


----------



## Cochise (May 8, 2014)

Also, I found some things in the browser history that are of concern. Things like google searches for "my husband no longer finds me attractive" and something like "my husband doesn't want to have sex with me." However, this morning all of the history was deleted except lovely by sara haze on youtube. The lyrics are pretty telling - 

I know you want the best
Yeah only good things for me
But you have to realize
I can't be all these things you project on me
Cause I'm beautiful to me
Doesn't that mean a thing
I feel lovely
Just the way that I am
Yes I feel lovely
The way that I am

I need that to be enough for you
Need that to be enough for you
Cause it's enough for me
It's enough for me


I've heard her play this before. Usually when she's upset. We have sex almost every day though, sometimes 2 and occasionally 3x a day, and I initiated it last night. I usually do. I think, again, that this may be difference in how we want sex. I don't want to be harsh, but if I feel like I'm not connecting, or if I feel alone or like she's overbearing or self righteous it doesn't make me want to be intimate with her. I know she has said she feeds off of affection, and I tell her sweet things every day and we cuddle every day. I tell her that she's beautiful every day several times. The irony is that she almost never calls me handsome or hot or cute, maybe once or twice a month, and I've always heard that you love people the way you want to be loved. Anyway, what I am doing may not be enough. She wanted me to visit her over lunch today and bring her some food, but I had already made plans to go to the gym with some friends. It upset her.


----------



## Decorum (Sep 7, 2012)

Cochise said:


> I've always heard that you love people the way you want to be loved.


Hi Cochise,

While I have not read the book it is recommended here from time to time.

The Five Love Languages: How to Express Heartfelt Commitment to Your Mate

The 5LL's are; gifts, quality time, words of affirmation, acts of service, and physical touch.

As I understand it, each person tends to have one of these as the one most meaningful to them.

She may be showing you love in a way that is consistent with her love language.

Perhaps these will help you identify it.

I do wish you well.
Take care!


----------



## ocotillo (Oct 17, 2011)

As'laDain said:


> hmmm....
> 
> predation has never bothered me a bit. i dont see how earth could be able to continue supporting life without it.
> 
> earths ecosystem is a beautifully complex system that recycles itself incessantly in order to preserve life.



The argument was popularized in more modern times by men like Huxley, Spencer and Romanes and goes like this:

"We find teeth and talons whetted for slaughter, hooks and suckers moulded for torment, --everywhere a reign of terror, hunger, sickness, with oozing blood and quivering limbs, with gasping breath and eyes of innocence that dimly close in deaths of cruel torture."​
This was held to be contradictory with the notion of a God of love; the thought being that if we as humans could understand that animals feel pain, then surely God does too and that deliberately inflicting pain upon sentient creatures is by definition, cruelty. We understand, for example, that putting two dogs together and letting them rip each other to shreds is animal cruelty. 

The fact that the earth's ecosystems could not function any other way is not viewed as excuplatory; it's taken as evidence that this cruelty is deliberate inasmuch as it's an intrinsic part of the design.


----------



## BigMrE (Jan 14, 2014)

Another thing that you may want to think about as you develop your own individual belief or non-belief and contemplate whether to stay in this marriage or not is the issue of children. If you and your wife ultimately end up with significantly different religious beliefs and practices how will each of you feel about faith practices of the kids?

I'm a complete non-believer, and for me raising our kids in any religion would be a source of deep disappointment and shame. My wife was raised Catholic but has not been actively religious for years. From the time that we moved in together while dating through the first 3 or 4 years of marriage pre-kids, she went to church maybe once or twice ever. Still, once we had kids, the cultural catholicism kicked in and she wanted to start bringing them to religious ed classes and such. We managed to find our solution, but it was not without a lot of argument, conflict and some still-unresolved hard feelings. 

If she had been strongly religious a) I wouldn't have been with her, but b) the children/ religion issue would probably have been a relationship killer.

I know that there's been a lot of book recommendations but I might suggest Dale McGowan's books and website. His previous books about non-religious parenting are excellent and he has a book about mixed religious/non-religious marriages coming out sometime soon that I think will be great too


----------



## Sunburn (Jul 9, 2012)

jld said:


> But it is not just on the topic of evolution that he is disagreeing with her. His whole worldview is changing. He is starting to vote differently. Our votes reflect our values, our hearts.
> 
> I totally agree that he should be transparent with her. I just think that that transparency is going to show them continuing to be very far apart, not only on issues, but in their hearts. And I am doubtful the gap can be bridged.


This brings up another potential unsurmountable issue ......... intellectual compatibility. In order to subscribe to a religion there is a certain amount of willful ignorance that must be practiced. I'm not trying to offend any religionists but one reason why you don't believe in any other religion is because some or all of the precepts sound absurd...... regardless of there being millions or even a billion subscribers to that religion. So as he continues his education it will probably become increasingly annoying that any conversation about any subject that could possibly be in contradiction with her/their religion will be off limits. People tend to marry their intellectual equivelent but it seems he's off to the races while she will remain happily stuck at athe gate.


----------



## turnera (Jan 22, 2010)

My former Catholic husband believed in creation when we married. It's really hard to argue with science - which is based on FACT - so he had a hard time with it, too, after I explained more about the science. So what he finally came up with is this: who's to say that one 'day' in God's mind is actually 24 hours? And one 'day' on another planet is completely different than 24 hours. And from another universe, it's going to be completely different again. So he believes that God started everything, but God's days could easily translate into millions or billions of years; after all, He's been around for forever.


----------



## ocotillo (Oct 17, 2011)

Sunburn said:


> This brings up another potential unsurmountable issue ......... intellectual compatibility. In order to subscribe to a religion there is a certain amount of willful ignorance that must be practiced...


If you put Ray Comfort's YEC views on one end of the spectrum and the fideism of men like Martin Gardner on the other, there's a hulluva lot of area in between, in which an awful lot of very educated people land.


----------



## Cochise (May 8, 2014)

Intellectually, well education wise I have an MBA and she is a highschool drop out. Sexually we didn't really do much until marriage, and there never really was a spark - we are both HD but the chemistry isn't there (she says "there's no sexy in our marriage) - and I just discounted it because we were trying to wait until marriage.

As for what to teach the kids, I'm not so sure, because I still don't entirely know what I believe. Last night we watched a documentary about Hell, and it interviewed a lot of people who believed that God would give people in hell, or who were judged, a second chance and that eventually everyone would be saved. This is certainly not the view I grew up with, but I do know that there are verses that say that Jesus went to Hell or to the underworld or purgatory (not sure which) after he was crucified and preached there. She hadn't heard of this. She certainly didn't buy into what the documentary was saying, and while I was skeptical of certain things, I am still curious. 

I'm also curious about Satan and the idea of Hell because I noticed, through my own reading of the Bible and not because of a book or documentary, that the references in the old testament are to Abaddon and Sheol. Granted, this could be just a different name for Hell, but I'm not so sure, since when I looked into the meaning of these words they didn't really specify Hell. The documentary talked about the development of the idea of Hell, angels, and Satan, from being in captivity to the Persians and their beliefs. We both agreed that there was mention of angels in the Bible before the captivity, but I am definitely curious about the other 2 issues where as my wife wrote those completely off. I already addressed some of my concerns with the concept of Hell in the old testament and how Abaddon and Sheol weren't very clear, even Gehenna in the New Testament is the name of a literal physical place, though I believe that Jesus was probably using this metaphorically as an example of the real spiritual Hell that we think of. My wife didn't know about the physical valley of Gehenna and didn't comment when I mentioned that. In regard to Satan I was searching through the Old Testament last night and noticed he is referred to as the adversary in Job, and just as the serpent in Genesis. I guess it's in the New Testament where it's explained that both these instances refer to Satan as we currently know of him and was taught in the New Testament, but it's kind of weird that he isn't spelled out or defined clearly in the Old Testament if he's indeed that important.

Another issue I have to figure out is the OT Exodus from Egypt. The thing is, I don't find miracles difficult to believe in. If God is well, God, then it should be super easy for him to turn the Nile into blood, or part the Red Sea, or whatever if He wanted to. The thing that trips me up is that at the time of the Exodus Canaan was occupied by Egypt. There were forts built along the Levant and the Caananites paid tribute to the Egyptians. How did the Egyptian forts and their forces along the way not stop them? Egypt's Empire did not stop at the Red Sea or the Sea of Reeds. I'm not ruling out the complete accuracy of the Bible, because I do really want to believe in it, and it could be that the current history about the extent of Egypt's Empire at the time is incorrect, but it definitely deserves to be looked into more deeply. I asked my brother in law about this, who is an associate pastor and he said he'd look into it but hasn't come up with anything yet. Another interesting point is that the development of monotheism in Egypt under Akhenaten took place while the Hebrews were in captivity in Egypt. There are some things in the OT that make me think sometimes that the Israelites believed in other gods, they just believed their God was the one supreme; though I think the Genesis account makes it completely clear that they should at least believe in only 1 God, their God. Perhaps Akhennaten influenced Hebrew understanding of their own religion, or perhaps it was the Hebrews who influenced Akhenatten. Certainly something to think about, and another thing my wife hasn't heard of.


----------



## turnera (Jan 22, 2010)

Cochise, I'll urge you to read some 'history of Christianity' books that were written by people outside the clergy (ie not biased). There's a really good one I read, one of the biggest sellers, that talks about how the religion came about, how the Catholic church got its start, how the Bible was written (big eye opener, and confirmed my doubts in the actual words of the Bible). I'll see if I still have it. It helps to learn this stuff so you can make more logical conclusions for yourself. And share it with your wife; help her broaden her view of things. btw, it in no way denigrates Christianity; it just makes it more clear that there was a lot of human interaction involved in how it came to be.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8 (Feb 15, 2012)

As'laDain said:


> hmmm....
> 
> predation has never bothered me a bit. i dont see how earth could be able to continue supporting life without it.
> 
> earths ecosystem is a beautifully complex system that recycles itself incessantly in order to preserve life.


C.S. Lewis faced a crisis of faith for similar reasons, but beyond predation - as to why God allows evil and pointless suffering to flourish. I think it was best expressed by Epicurus a couple thousand years earlier: "Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then God is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?"

When people reach that crossroad, it comes down to believing whether allowing evil and suffering can be a means to a moral end. Those who can make this rationalization, like CS Lewis, reconcile with their faith. The rest enter a sort of intellectual purgatory where even if they can make the leap to believing God may exist, they see nothing worthy of worship... and it tends to mean they're about 5 minutes from becoming an agnostic.

I hope OP is able to share his intellectual journey with his wife. Such journeys may tear you apart or bring you closer together.


----------



## Sunburn (Jul 9, 2012)

turnera said:


> My former Catholic husband believed in creation when we married. It's really hard to argue with science - which is based on FACT - so he had a hard time with it, too, after I explained more about the science. So what he finally came up with is this: who's to say that one 'day' in God's mind is actually 24 hours? And one 'day' on another planet is completely different than 24 hours. And from another universe, it's going to be completely different again. So he believes that God started everything, but God's days could easily translate into millions or billions of years; after all, He's been around for forever.


The problem with that is the subscribers will say that they can't know their gods ways/power/reasoning/"it works in mysterious ways" etc., etc., then as in your example go on to ascribe some attribute to their god. You can't have it both ways, either you know or you don't and hiding behind a "mystery" when you can't provide an answer is just dishonest.


----------



## Cochise (May 8, 2014)

I like CS Lewis, especially LOTR (of course) and the Screwtape Letters. The Screwtape Letters make good points and are easy to understand while being pretty deep. I recently picked up a copy of God is Not Great by Christopher Hitchens. The first paragraph is appallingly boring and is also a bunch of religion bashing with no real evidence. It's very immature. I got to the meat of the book and there's a lot of interesting things at hand. I'm only about a fifth of the way in. 

We went for a walk at a national park today and my wife turned around and ended up reading some of it in the car. She thought it was pretty hilariously off and childish. In specific instances I agree with her, but I thought her actions and comments were rather ironic considering she was pretty much talking the exact same way that the author was during the first paragraph. 

Our differences have affected my attraction to her since getting married. I did a great deal of business traveling during the 2years we dated, so it was exclusively long distance, and things are much different living together. I love being outside and doing outdoorsy stuff. My wife screams and throws up her hands when any sort of insect comes by. She also tiptoes down dirt roads and paths to avoid poison ivy. The dirt road she turned back on today was exactly that, a flat 2 lane wide dirt road with woods around it. Nothing like the trails up in the mountains I grew up on. If we are going to go camping we are going to have to bring a gun and she is going to have to learn to shoot it first. We are also bringing bearmace and a plethora of bug spray. Those are just a few of her requirements. So, since we currently do not have time for her to go to the shooting range we are not going to go camping for a while. Growing up I used to go backpacking in the mountains with friends for extended weekends. We also did a lot of kayaking and a little mountain climbing (my wife is afraid of heights). 

She's also incredibly thoughtful. One day 2 of my work friends came back to my house with me and my wife had left me a box of doughnuts, chocolate milk (my guilty unmanly pleasure) and a love letter. They said their wives would have never done something like this for them. Score. In regards to the love languages, thanks for pointing that out whoever it was. We overlap on physical touch, though I am primarily or equally words of affirmation and she is primarily quality time. 

It's just, we are very different. She wants to homeschool our children when and if we have kids one day. I am very much against this currently, though I'd be open to it if she made some advances in her education. Still most likely a no, however. Her sister brought up the topic of my wife possibly homeschooling our nephews if we end up living in the same town. The problem with this, that I can see, is that my wife couldn't keep up with their 5th grade homework when we visited last. If you can't do prealgebra and middleschool science then I'm not sure how it would be a good idea for you to teach middle school. 

The intellectual distance between us can make marriage pretty lonely at times, and as I said earlier, worse than that it and other aspects have affected my attraction for her, even though she's the prettiest girl I've ever been with. I love her, and we have fun together, but it often feels like a father daughter dynamic (I haven't quite touched on that). And then of course it doesn't help that sexual chemistry has been off from the start.


----------



## MSP (Feb 9, 2012)

Cochise said:


> I like CS Lewis, especially LOTR . . .






Cochise said:


> I love her, and we have fun together, but it often feels like a father daughter dynamic (I haven't quite touched on that).


A father-daughter dynamic is a far better start than having a mother-son dynamic, like many marriages fall into. Your wife sounds like a lovely person. You should build on what you have. There is no perfect relationship. Make the best of the good things and take the time to understand one another.


----------



## jld (Dec 1, 2013)

MSP said:


> A father-daughter dynamic is a far better start than having a mother-son dynamic, like many marriages fall into. Your wife sounds like a lovely person. You should build on what you have. There is no perfect relationship. Make the best of the good things and take the time to understand one another.


He's mentioned not feeling like he's on the same intellectual level she is, MSP. To me, that is a big problem. You don't think so?

And I agree that many marriages end up with a mother/son dynamic, not because the woman wants that, but because the so-called husband is so irresponsible.


----------



## MSP (Feb 9, 2012)

jld said:


> He's mentioned not feeling like he's on the same intellectual level she is, MSP. To me, that is a big problem. You don't think so?


Well, he married her and she was like this before. I don't think it's a good enough reason for divorce. You can enjoy a relationship without needing to have major philosophical discussions. Honestly, do you think that husbands and wives down the ages were having major philosophical discussions? The OP can meet with friends for such discussions. It's not something that needs to create the sort of division that it's creating. 

People will always have their opinions and sometimes their opinions will differ to yours. And education level has nothing to do with whether or not you'll be able to discuss these topics easily or even rationally. Ever discussed a differing political opinion with someone who has a degree in political science? 



jld said:


> And I agree that many marriages end up with a mother/son dynamic, not because the woman wants that, but because the so-called husband is so irresponsible.


Nah, it's because of feminism.


----------



## jld (Dec 1, 2013)

MSP said:


> Well, he married her and she was like this before. I don't think it's a good enough reason for divorce.
> 
> But they're mid-20s, MSP. They are so young. And he is developing intellectually, and wants a partner in that. She has no such inclinations.
> 
> Nah, it's because of feminism.


I think some men were immature and irresponsible long before feminism came along. Feminism gave women some rights and the ability to live independently of those immature, irresponsible men.


----------



## MSP (Feb 9, 2012)

jld said:


> But they're mid-20s, MSP. They are so young. And he is developing intellectually, and wants a partner in that. She has no such inclinations.
> 
> I think some men were immature and irresponsible long before feminism came along. Feminism gave women some rights and the ability to live independently of those immature, irresponsible men.


I'm not arguing about feminism. 

However, I edited my post to add a bit more of my thoughts on the other matter.


----------



## jld (Dec 1, 2013)

If the OP were saying that he did not care about a partner at his intellectual level, fine. But he wants someone who will grow along with him.

I do think educational level makes a difference. Or at least whether or not a person is a reader. Much can be self-taught. 

But there must be curiosity and an open mind. We are not going to learn anything if we are not curious enough to seek out knowledge and contrary views, and then turn them over and over in our minds.


----------



## Cochise (May 8, 2014)

I think there's a bit of a misunderstanding here. Intellectual compatibility is not just about discussing your thoughts on ancient cultures. My world view is changing, or at the very least I'm becoming skeptical of my old one. My wife isn't curious and doesn't understand. She is growing more conservative e.g. wanting to homeschool, turning the tv off during sex scenes, rating down R rated movies on IMDB, turning the tv off during sex related jokes on That 70s Show, etc. I am growing more liberal.

Similarly, having different levels of education and knowledge about things in life also leads to differences which I did not see prior to getting married.


----------



## MSP (Feb 9, 2012)

Cochise said:


> I think there's a bit of a misunderstanding here. Intellectual compatibility is not just about discussing your thoughts on ancient cultures. My world view is changing, or at the very least I'm becoming skeptical of my old one. My wife isn't curious and doesn't understand. She is growing more conservative e.g. wanting to homeschool, turning the tv off during sex scenes, rating down R rated movies on IMDB, turning the tv off during sex related jokes on That 70s Show, etc. I am growing more liberal.


She thought you would be a stable force in your marriage and now she is scared and is trying to work it out on her own this way. She feels threatened by your new direction and is trying to compensate. She's overdoing it, because she wasn't prepared to have to go down this path. You can make things better by helping her to feel safe.


----------



## jld (Dec 1, 2013)

Cochise said:


> I think there's a bit of a misunderstanding here. Intellectual compatibility is not just about discussing your thoughts on ancient cultures. My world view is changing, or at the very least I'm becoming skeptical of my old one. My wife isn't curious and doesn't understand. She is growing more conservative e.g. wanting to homeschool, turning the tv off during sex scenes, rating down R rated movies on IMDB, turning the tv off during sex related jokes on That 70s Show, etc. I am growing more liberal.
> 
> Similarly, having different levels of education and knowledge about things in life also leads to differences which I did not see prior to getting married.


MSP, this is what I have been trying to say. They are growing apart. Neither is going to be happy. 

They are young and married before they really knew who they were, individually and as a couple. It's a mismatch.


----------



## Lyris (Mar 29, 2012)

Why did you marry her? Why did you fall in love with her?

I think you're looking for an out personally. You are not-so-subtly disparaging your wife (she's childish, she can't manage fifth grade homework, she's a drop-out) and throwing around vague reasons like 'lack of chemistry'. It sounds like you married her without much thought, or even knowing her that well and now you're disillusioned and want to leave.

So you're looking for reasons. Plenty of couples manage to get along even if they have differing beliefs. So that's not a particularly convincing reason. 

Basically you want to do a sh*tty thing without people thinking you're a sh*t. It's a sh*tty thing to do, to marry a conservative, Christian girl, one who presumably didn't hide the fact that she didn't finished high school, and then decide, sorry, you're too dumb, plus you're not sexy enough, so I'm leaving.

Grow up please. No one forced you to get married.


----------



## Cochise (May 8, 2014)

MSP said:


> She thought you would be a stable force in your marriage and now she is scared and is trying to work it out on her own this way. She feels threatened by your new direction and is trying to compensate. She's overdoing it, because she wasn't prepared to have to go down this path. You can make things better by helping her to feel safe.


She started doing this before I started looking into things. I think she's just getting back to her roots.




Lyris said:


> Grow up please. No one forced you to get married.


Because, obviously I'm looking to divorce her. That's exactly why I planned to surprise her after work with a bottle of wine and some of her favorite cookies that I stayed home from work to bake. That's exactly why we went on a date as soon as we got off work and spent the evening together instead of apart, because what I'm trying to do here is break this marriage apart, and not try to figure it out. You're either intimidated that someone would question something in a marriage like this or intimidated that someone would be looking into scientific explanations and or theological answers for issues that have come up.

When you date long distance there is a lot you don't find out about a person until you move in together. That's just how it goes. It's easy to disagree on religion and politics when what you're arguing about is something like whether you believe in flat taxes or progressive taxes, but when your world view starts changing and you begin differing on how you live and how you want to raise your children, that's another matter. In the meantime, I found a few contradictions in scripture than I'm looking to investigate, and I'm planning on going to a local agnostic and atheist group this next week.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8 (Feb 15, 2012)

Lyris said:


> Grow up please. No one forced you to get married.


Wow Lyris? People can't legitimately change and grow apart after getting married?

From what I gather, they married young. Did you know all the important things about yourself when you were young, much less those of another person? What's more, when you're young, you tend to not even know what it is that you don't know.

This is why I always advise people to wait until they're at least in their late 20s to marry. Before then, you don't know who you really are, much less who someone else really is.

Its all unfair to her no doubt... but nobody said life is fair. Things change and some people would be better off over a lifetime (both of them) by finding better matches than trying to make a square peg fit in a round hole for the rest of their lives. I don't gather he's at that point - he's still in the learning phase - but he's recognized the dissatisfaction and is working through it. Do you mean to say someone should stay in a marriage they are dissatisfied with? And that not doing so is childish?


----------



## jld (Dec 1, 2013)

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Wow Lyris? People can't legitimately change and grow apart after getting married?
> 
> From what I gather, they married young. Did you know all the important things about yourself when you were young, much less those of another person? What's more, when you're young, you tend to not even know what it is that you don't know.
> 
> ...


Yep, they were/are young, and he is still growing. He is trying to make the marriage work, but something in him knows it is probably not going to work out. But it is a big step to admit that, not only to himself, not only to her, but to all their family and friends, and church community.

I do think it will come to that, though. How many committed evangelicals do you see attending an agnostic/atheist meeting out of a sense of likemindedness?


----------



## DvlsAdvc8 (Feb 15, 2012)

I agree, and that's the thing... I know plenty of married people who disagree on religion - my ex and I disagreed too. But one or the other is always sort of "meh". An evangelical married to an indifferent irreligious person works. An indifferent believer married to a stout atheist works. I don't know that an evangelical married to a stout atheist works. They appear to be moving toward opposite poles. The sh*t will really hit the fan when they have kids.

But even besides religion, this early resentment he feels about her lack of intellectualism is absolutely going to grow.


----------



## jld (Dec 1, 2013)

Yep. I have made 5 or 6 posts on this thread, and they say those very same things. 

I think this young man may be a budding intellectual, who wants an equal partner. I don't think his wife is it. 

And at some point, before there are any children, I hope he will take the action that will ultimately need to be taken.


----------



## Blossom Leigh (Mar 27, 2014)

Darlin' here is the thing.... this boils down to something very simple... either accept her or not.

Please know... people change through the years... A LOT

Who is to say that somewhere down the road something affects her and she decides to get a college education, maybe even to MBA level. Her first husband leaving her could start those wheels turning to not ever rely on a man to support her. Especially if she is caught in that situation of with child and realizes she will have to support herself. Human development never stops and you are trying to justify the day of leaving her before it is here. You are already building the story in your head justifying that action and if you focus on it long enough it will BE the story. You need to relax, do your exploring, find MALE friends to banter these things with, LOVE YOUR WIFE the way she is ... she will change and you will learn to love her all over again when she does. Life is not static only change is constant. If you are locked in on this liberal versus conservatism... come on down to the south and witness some healthy Alabama Auburn marriages.... where people either choose to make it war or choose to LOVE anyway. Quit worrying and relax.... Its good you are being loving to her outwardly, but your inward story about her is seriously lacking and she is picking up on it. If you can't chill and relax, you will wreck this marriage. If you are that smart then the larger responsibility rests on YOUR shoulders to do this right. Right now you are scraping away at her trust of you. And I swear everytime I read this thread the thought pops into my head... "there is a woman who is not his wife in this picture on some level.." tread carefully... I may be totally wrong, but it screams at me when I read your words... could even be a friends spouse that caught your attention because she is less conservative ... I don't know who she is, or if you guys even have on going conversations YET, but I smell it a mile away... "I wish my wife was like xyz name" Even Jesus said Adultery starts as a thought FIRST... (Sermon on the Mount) I see you dancing all over it Doll..... and the only reason I am not mincing words is that it is a wretchedly painful path to tread, so just fair warning... hope that isn't the path chosen... Take care not to be a wrecking ball... All the best to you... 

It's ok to accept her as she is... she will change... trust me.


----------



## Sunburn (Jul 9, 2012)

jld said:


> But there must be curiosity and an open mind. We are not going to learn anything if we are not curious enough to seek out knowledge and contrary views, and then turn them over and over in our minds.


This is a deal breaker for me. I dated a woman for about a year that was simply not interested in anything other than the Hallmark Channel and the town she grew up in. She had never been out of the state and was not even interested in going to the state museum. Visits with her family were excruciating as I found that the same lack of curiosity permeated the whole bunch. I'm not the most educated or ready for Jeopardy but if you can't even try nasi goreng because it sounds foreign then enjoy your Happy Meal.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8 (Feb 15, 2012)

:rofl: Re: Alabama-Auburn marriages. So true.


----------



## Rowan (Apr 3, 2012)

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Wow Lyris? People can't legitimately change and grow apart after getting married?


They've been married barely a year, his "awakening" has been going on for 3 years. He married his wife a decent amount of time after beginning to realize that his beliefs were shifting hard. People grow apart after marriage, but not usually to this extent in what should still be very much the honeymoon phase. They were already growing apart when they married, but he chose to marry anyway. In retrospect, that was probably a bad call, as was marrying someone with whom he had only had a long-distance relationship. So, yeah, I think some of the current issues were entirely foreseeable and I think he does bear some responsibility for what must seem to his wife like a huge bait-and-switch.

I think it's also troubling that he married an extremely conservative Christian woman and is now put off by the very qualities inherent in that description - religious, moral, political, intellectual and sexual conservatism as well as submissiveness and an unquestioning attitude. He married what he said he wanted, now he's decided he wants her to be something else. And he can't figure out why she's not on-board and is frustrated with her being who she is. While not uncommon, it's also not a good way to go about remaining married. He doesn't seem to respect his wife for the very traits he apparently selected her for. That's a problem.


----------



## jld (Dec 1, 2013)

Had to look up nasi goreng . . .  

I think intellectual compatibility is essential. There is no way I could imagine a lifetime union with a man less intelligent/curious/openminded than myself. I would not respect him.


----------



## Blossom Leigh (Mar 27, 2014)

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> :rofl: Re: Alabama-Auburn marriages. So true.



YES!! very much so! I have some very dear friends of mine who have been married a long time. He is Alabama and she is Auburn.... we used to go to their house during the games for the LIVELY banter between the two of them because she was a pistol and hilarious! Well over time... guess what... she became an Alabama fan, but what transcended any differences was their love for each other. She is now a two time cancer survivor who almost ended up with a permanent colostomy bag at the age of 45, but had it reversed after six months because she was healed. She also only has one boob from a single mastectomy... and you know what, her husband would die for her. HE ADORES HER... and I've watched them differ for 22 years. LOVE is a choice... plain and simple. He chose to love her according to their vows and it has been a BEAUTIFUL testimony to ALL who have watched them. So, I have a question for ya Cochise... when your wife's body is wracked with cancer instead of conservatism.... what will you do then? Will you be a MAN and stand by her through sickness and in health or will you choose to leave because good times have turned into bad.... I hope you can handle tough questions because you asked her to trust you with her life... Your choice matters.

I say this with your best interests and that of your wifes in mind... I think you may need to visit some nursing homes and talk to some elderly people about their marriages and how they made it so many years together and what they over came to get there... There IS a way to stay with your bride AND explore your beliefs... and navigate that... "I know we don't agree on everything, but I love and adore you anyway." is a start...

But if all of this is because you are LOOKING for a way out... you will


----------



## jld (Dec 1, 2013)

Rowan, he's young. Maybe he should have known, but he did not. 

Releasing her now, before they have children, would allow her to find someone who can truly appreciate her just the way she is. And he could go on to find someone he can grow with.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8 (Feb 15, 2012)

Rowan said:


> They've been married barely a year, his "awakening" has been going on for 3 years. He married his wife a decent amount of time after beginning to realize that his beliefs were shifting hard. People grow apart after marriage, but not usually to this extent in what should still be very much the honeymoon phase. They were already growing apart when they married, but he chose to marry anyway. In retrospect, that was probably a bad call, as was marrying someone with whom he had only had a long-distance relationship. So, yeah, I think some of the current issues were entirely foreseeable and I think he does bear some responsibility for what must seem to his wife like a huge bait-and-switch.
> 
> I think it's also troubling that he married an extremely conservative Christian woman and is now put off by the very qualities inherent in that description - religious, moral, political, intellectual and sexual conservatism as well as submissiveness and an unquestioning attitude. He married what he said he wanted, now he's decided he wants her to be something else. And he can't figure out why she's not on-board and is frustrated with her being who she is. While not uncommon, it's also not a good way to go about remaining married. He doesn't seem to respect his wife for the very traits he apparently selected her for. That's a problem.


Ah, I follow you. I admit, I read the thread very quickly to get caught up. 

I got the vibe that they started in roughly the same very traditional place, got married, and he's gradually started rejecting his former traditional beliefs and restrictions in all directions - religious, sexual, social, economic, political. Without intent to be disparaging to traditionalists, I've always thought of this process as sort of "stepping out of the box" of homogenous thinking that a traditional small town upbringing tends to put you in. Seems to me he recognizes that when they married, they were both "in the box". Not that he chose to marry a woman who he was clearly going in a different direction.

If he did marry her knowing he was already disheartened by the traditional conservative stuff... then yeah, he clearly made a mistake. I have a hard time believing it to be willful deception or wrong doing. But regardless, the current situation is what it is.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8 (Feb 15, 2012)

Blossom Leigh said:


> LOVE is a choice... plain and simple. He chose to love her according to their vows and it has been a BEAUTIFUL testimony to ALL who have watched them.


I'm curious as to whether you believe that if these two views are irreconcilable and have the affect of making both parties unhappy for the rest of their lives, would you still advocate sticking it out because of a choice you made when you were 21 and didn't know squat?


----------



## Blossom Leigh (Mar 27, 2014)

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> I'm curious as to whether you believe that if these two views are irreconcilable and have the affect of making both parties unhappy for the rest of their lives, would you still advocate sticking it out because of a choice you made when you were 21 and didn't know squat?


I believe marriage is what you make of it and it can reveal your intestinal fortitude, your creativity, determination, love, grace, mercy, etc... all the lessons that matter in life.

My Dad who is a pastor and politically conservative, married my step mother who is also Christian, but politically liberal.

Myself... in my second marriage... married a non Christian who is being baptized Sunday by his own choice. 

So, it "can" make both parties unhappy for the rest of their lives if THEY "let it." It is all about perspective and choices.


----------



## Blossom Leigh (Mar 27, 2014)

A story of two horses.... 

I bought my first horse who seemed quiet, and docile... but the sellers lied to me and after coming out of his stupor he was extremely unsafe because of past abuse.

Six months later, I bought my second horse KNOWING that he had drug five grown men across a pasture when they unloaded him out of the trailer. 

Would it have been wrong to get rid of these horses? They are long term commitment since most domesticated horses live to their mid to late 20's.

Most would have sold both.. their owners before them did.

both almost ended up at the slaughter house... 

Because I chose not to I learned ...

Skills that are hard to define
Patience
Timing 
Boundaries
Awareness
Intention
Perseverance
Calm under fire
Assertiveness
Communication at levels that shocks the people around me
Responsibility at higher levels
Focus
Determination
Belief
Critical thinking
Developmental standards
Behavioral development in me and them


Honestly I believe if you choose to traverse this one your blessings will be bigger than your losses. Adversity reveals character of the unteachable and builds character in those who ARE teachable.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8 (Feb 15, 2012)

Perhaps I think too much like an investor. I can take short term losses if I have evidence that can reasonably suggest long term growth potential. But at some point, lacking such evidence, I'm going to cut my losses and sell a bad investment in order to avoid continued losses.

Just swap out the money for happiness. I don't think it wise to continuing investing in that which you have good reason to believe you are unlikely to ever be happy with.

I totally get what you're saying though, and its a tough call. Confucius say "Gotta know when to hold 'em, when to fold 'em, and when to walk away"... and that's probably going to be different for everyone. Okay... maybe Confucius didn't say that. But Kenny Rogers did.


----------



## Blossom Leigh (Mar 27, 2014)

LOL.. yes and with humans that can be a tough call... in this case in my humble opinion he is looking for his way out WAY too early and for reasons that aren't solidly justifiable. He could EASILY abandon this exploration path and return to conservative Christianity, see it all the time and she could loosen up some, see that one all the time too and leave them more like minded a little later. She needs some exposure to all walks of life and he needs exposure to men who loved anyway and who would call him on b.s. when they hear it. I just don't see this relationship as a dead end unless he chooses to end it. It also will not be just her he affects when he walks. This early in the relationship will damage his own reputation... imagine him meeting the next girlfriend... "how long were you married" "Oh, nine months." "why did you leave" "she wasn't what I wanted" .. "huh?" Doesn't play well not to mention the relatives now that will question his ability to make future decisions regarding wives. Just doesn't ring well for me.... but you know.. I'm just a good ole southern gal with grass between her toes who is a Jesus believer... what do I know.


----------



## MSP (Feb 9, 2012)

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Confucius say "Gotta know when to hold 'em, when to fold 'em, and when to walk away"... and that's probably going to be different for everyone. Okay... maybe Confucius didn't say that. But Kenny Rogers did.


Hasn't he had, like, five different wives?


----------



## DvlsAdvc8 (Feb 15, 2012)

MSP said:


> Hasn't he had, like, five different wives?


So? Maybe he got a lot of bad hands.


----------



## Blossom Leigh (Mar 27, 2014)

MSP said:


> Hasn't he had, like, five different wives?


:rofl:

that's funny... I didn't see that one coming, but you are so right...


he has


----------



## Sunburn (Jul 9, 2012)

Blossom Leigh said:


> Darlin' here is the thing.... this boils down to something very simple... either accept her or not.
> 
> Please know... people change through the years... A LOT
> 
> ...


This sounds no different than ignoring your needs and just grabbing some random person off the street, marrying them and "hoping" for a lifetime of marital bliss. 

Most parents don't spend much or any time coaching their children on how to choose a spouse. Most kids just figure that they had a previous relationship, that they lived in a home for 18years or so with a married couple so how hard can marriage be. What they don't know is that they will be a much different person at 30 than when they were 20 and they will be much, much more aware of their needs. The OP's diliema is about lack of experience and self-awareness. If teens and 20 somethings figure out a couple years after they're married that they made a huge mistake so be it, chalk it up to experience and make an educated choice next time.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8 (Feb 15, 2012)

Blossom Leigh said:


> This early in the relationship will damage his own reputation... imagine him meeting the next girlfriend... "how long were you married" "Oh, nine months." "why did you leave" "she wasn't what I wanted" .. "huh?"


Agree, but to be fair... is he really at that point? Or is he really just doing a lot of legitimate questioning that itself will take a good deal of time to work out?

Dunno, I'm probably biased. I happen to know a lot of women who married young, to good, nice, traditional men, and then caught fire... deciding they hated the confines and judgment of more traditional lifestyles.


----------



## ocotillo (Oct 17, 2011)

jld said:


> How many committed evangelicals do you see attending an agnostic/atheist meeting out of a sense of likemindedness?


My wife attends botanical lectures with me that require a good basic knowledge of evolutionary theory to follow. --Topics like molecular phylogenetics of Pereskia, which wouldn't interest anybody (Even a botanist...) except for the fact that the Pereskia genus is believed to be the progenitor of all modern cactus. I don't know how much of it she accepts, but probably more than she's willing to admit.

I suspect you may be correct here though. It's disheartening to hear that the OP's wife is self-censoring every little thing she finds offensive.


----------



## Blossom Leigh (Mar 27, 2014)

Agree... she has to accept him and loosen her grip. But, I think he will have to lead that charge...


----------



## Blossom Leigh (Mar 27, 2014)

Sunburn said:


> This sounds no different than ignoring your needs and just grabbing some random person off the street, marrying them and "hoping" for a lifetime of marital bliss.
> 
> Most parents don't spend much or any time coaching their children on how to choose a spouse. Most kids just figure that they had a previous relationship, that they lived in a home for 18years or so with a married couple so how hard can marriage be. What they don't know is that they will be a much different person at 30 than when they were 20 and they will be much, much more aware of their needs. The OP's diliema is about lack of experience and self-awareness. If teens and 20 somethings figure out a couple years after they're married that they made a huge mistake so be it, chalk it up to experience and make an educated choice next time.


Everyone is different than who they were at 20, which makes my point... at some point along the way emotional agility, adaptation and maturity has to come into play. Life does nothing but throw changes at you and there isn't a one of us who are where they thought they would be today. 

He has every right to question... my challenge to him is to question for the best reasons, with the intention of expanding his own mind and deciding what he does believe about faith, not with the intent of eventually leaving his wife, which is the impression I'm getting. 

Correct me if I am wrong... he isn't coming on here and asking for help how to over come and stay.... he is asking if his thoughts of it never working out are justified. If I am reading that wrong... I will totally own that... I see him nitpicking her just as much as he says she is nitpicking him. Focusing on differences isn't going to serve either of them. 

He didn't pick someone at random, and he says they put a lot of thought into it, yet less than a year later he's renigging... just doesn't add up, its why I suspect someone has caught his fancy (just a hunch). You are right, many parents are not coaching their kids to choose well, nor are they coaching them how to love well, take responsibility, make mature decisions, stick with things, etc... that list is long. 

What if this had been a child... had this child for a year and then decide...oops, I really didn't want children. These life decisions carry so much weight and should be handled with great care. I see it a lot in the horse world... buy a horse, horse runs off with you, sell it buy another one, oh man it runs off with you too, sell it buy another one... dang it what is it with all these horses running off with me, sell it buy the fourth one and realize OHHHHH.... it was me, wish I had realized that with my first horse... I really loved that horse, THEN they start working on themselves which was the issue all along, but by then its too late and SOMEONE ELSE has that horse and is quite content and has decided to keep it for life... sorry, not for sale.... 


See what I'm getting at... explore all you want to, find out who you are, decide what you believe all while loving this woman you took to be your bride. Live with grace, love, respect. Find ways to have fun and minimize conflict over things that can be resolved whenever. Learning to love well flows somewhere in that balance between her needs and his needs. if you are wanting to overcome this issue with this woman, change your questions to "how can I overcome." Many people have to do this when life throws them curveballs... You aren't even to that point yet... She hasn't been in a severe car wreck yet that tore half her face off, knocked all her teeth out, that took years to rebuild her jaw enough to even hold teeth and left her with a permanent limp (former bosses wife) took years of recovery and they are still together today. I'm just not hearing fortitude here... I'm hearing "I don't like the horse *I picked for myself*"... hmmm wonder if I should sell her...

Y'all forgive me if I'm hearing that wrong... it's just quite loud to me on this thread for some reason. My total apologies if I'm reading that wrong...


----------



## Cochise (May 8, 2014)

To be clear I'm not looking for a reason to get a divorce right now. If it comes to that down the road then so be it if it's better off for us. 

Blossom, I think your question is a bit presumptuous. I already mentioned in this thread that my wife was the prettiest girl I've ever been with. Beauty and physical chemistry are 2 different things and even if they were one in the same I never mentioned leaving my wife over lack of a physical spark. The idea of divorcing someone over having cancer is pretty disgusting. My mom is currently going through a second battle with cancer and I love her and she's as beautiful to me as she ever was. I've also already mentioned that I cut off all friendships with women who weren't relatives of mine prior to the wedding and that I'm not interested in anyone else. What I'm seeing here is a tendency to overlook a lot of what I already said to make up your own conclusions because I am "nitpicking". And this is all terribly ironic because you are already divorced once and you are trying to tell me that I should stick with it when I never said I wasn't because marriage is supposed to last forever. I spent a good amount of time in the south and love my family and some old friends there, but you definitely come across as the small town southern hypocritical church going gossip that preaches love and acceptance but is all too ready to point the finger and who is proud of their "southern hospitality" but is all too quick to shut the door on someone else who has different beliefs.

Anyway. Forgive me for not previously stating that I'm interested in your advice and or your listening to/reading your experiences. If you want to share your experiences about why you're agnostic or how you and your spouse cope with differences of opinion I can dig it. I might have come across as a bit negative (concerned would be the more appropriate adjective) but I'm actually really excited about exploring these new possibilities. Yes, the marriage is not what I expected it to be, and some of that is my fault; but a lot of it is just differences that hopefully can be resolved. Note I never once said that anything my wife did or has done or believes is "wrong" just different.





DvlsAdvc8 said:


> I totally get what you're saying though, and its a tough call. Confucius say "Gotta know when to hold 'em, when to fold 'em, and when to walk away"... and that's probably going to be different for everyone. Okay... maybe Confucius didn't say that. But Kenny Rogers did.


Kenny Rogers is the ****** man.


----------



## Blossom Leigh (Mar 27, 2014)

Not small town, Doll. Trying to warn from a voice of experience. Big difference. I've walked the pain of divorce and affairs on both sides of them that start from the very thinking being described here. There is huge fall out from it that stretches beyond just the two of you, so take it into consideration if you ever get to that point. Who else is best at warning a future addict not to walk the painful road of addiction, but the addict who has already walked it. You may not be there now, and that is great, just be aware some of the positions you are sharing can lead that direction. I am not small town, back woods nor unintelligent by any means. Quite the opposite. I was not saying you had mentioned possibly leaving her for physical reasons, my point was, you havent gotten to the tough stuff with her yet and you are already opening the door to leaving even if you arent meaning to. I have friends from all walks of life, all belief systems and shut the door on no one... So you are speaking to someone who is authentic in her hospitality who decided to ask you the tough questions about your intent. There is a difference. You yourself explained fantasies of being single and swooning over the idea of ending up with someone else, so its not a stretch to think its what you want though you say you dont only when someone challenges you on it. If you need to put me in a certain "camp" so it makes it easier to ignore the warning made in good faith, water off a ducks back.


----------



## Blossom Leigh (Mar 27, 2014)

Cochise said:


> Anyway. Forgive me for not previously stating that I'm interested in your advice and or your listening to/reading your experiences. If you want to share your experiences about why you're agnostic or how you and your spouse cope with differences of opinion I can dig it. I might have come across as a bit negative (concerned would be the more appropriate adjective) but I'm actually really excited about exploring these new possibilities. Yes, the marriage is not what I expected it to be, and some of that is my fault; but a lot of it is just differences that hopefully can be resolved. Note I never once said that anything my wife did or has done or believes is "wrong" just different.


This is clearer intent... Protect your marriage from fantasies of leaving would be my first advice. Be more patient the changes will come, my greatest weakness because I am too patient in some areas and not patient enough in others. And adaptability... Just when you think your marriage hits a sweet spot it can turn on a dime as well as dark clouds lift all of a sudden on hard times, so adaptibility, emotional agility are important. My H and I have accepted that his path is his path and mine is mine. That one shift reduced conflict tremendously, and ours was bad. 

And just to be clear.. my ex and I were together 17 years... So I put a LOT into that relationship before walking.


----------



## Lyris (Mar 29, 2012)

Cochise said:


> She started doing this before I started looking into things. I think she's just getting back to her roots.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Oh cut the defensive nonsense please. Intimidated? By you? Some random man on a message board? Yeah, no.

I'm an atheist, as I said in my first post. I have a science degree. I'm hardly going to be OMGterrified by someone considering that what I think is indisputable fact might be true. And I've been married for 11 years to a man I've adored and been adored by for more than 20. So I can't say anything about your self-created situation resonates on a personal level at all. 

You are dissatisfied with your wife for being exactly who she said she was. You're refusing to take responsibility for marrying someone you didn't know well. That's not just some random occurrence, you *chose * to get married. Why? 

Yes I think you're looking for an out. I think you've married someone you now consider beneath you intellectually, and you are looking for more palatable reasons to end it than, oh, I changed my mind, and I was stupid to get married in the first place. You want assurances that yes, it's the right thing to do, that you'll be better off and that * she'll* be better off. 

I don't see why I should give them. I would imagine your wife would be devastated and traumatised by a divorce. She may never get over it, who knows. But maybe that doesn't matter all that much to you. Nowhere in any of your posts do you convincingly say you love your wife. You seem concerned overwhelmingly with yourself and how you feel. 

Again, why did you get married in the first place?


----------



## Blossom Leigh (Mar 27, 2014)

And now that an intelligent athiest has echoed my thoughts, the heaven forbid Southern Christian gossip (something I loathe by the way)what camp are you going to put her in to elevate yourself above her tough stance?


----------



## Happyfamily (Apr 15, 2014)

She knows you don't love her. You saw the evidence of that on her web searches. All the things you have said here will be spoken in your actions, no matter how kind you are to her. That ends up being interpreted as pity when the love isn't there.

Communication is everything.


----------



## Blossom Leigh (Mar 27, 2014)

Happyfamily said:


> She knows you don't love her. You saw the evidence of that on her web searches. All the things you have said here will be spoken in your actions, no matter how kind you are to her. That ends up being interpreted as pity when the love isn't there.
> 
> Communication is everything.


So is intent...


----------



## Cochise (May 8, 2014)

Lyris said:


> You are dissatisfied with your wife for being exactly who she said she was. You're refusing to take responsibility for marrying someone you didn't know well. That's not just some random occurrence, you *chose * to get married. Why?
> 
> 
> Again, why did you get married in the first place?



Actually if you look back I said marriage hasn't been what I thought it would be and I know a lot of this is on me so I have no idea why you're saying I'm not accepting responsibility. I decided to get married just as anyone else would, we believed we were right for each other. We loved each other, had a lot of fun together, we had similar world views, my family loved her, she's great with children, we understood each other on a very deep level like no one else, I liked how deep her faith was, and how sweet she was. At the same time I would say there was a certain amount of naivety on both sides and people definitely grow and change after moving out from family, moving in with someone else, and or just with time. Things are not "exactly as advertised," people change with time. She is becoming more like her family than when we dated, I am going the other way. 

Blossom you're insinuating that it's better to just stick around and put your all into it for 17 years than to cut early. I definitely admire your work ethic and commitment, but I think that sometimes it may be best to cut your losses before you have kids. This is, however, not something I'm looking at right now; just an outside thought.

Again, I have no idea why I'm even discussing why I'm talking about why I got married and why I'm not getting a divorce, because that wasn't the point of this, you're just jumping to conclusions.


Anyway, I think what happened this morning is a good example of some of the differences developing. Last night she was having some mild pain in her side (she rated it as a 2 out of 10) and prayed that God would show her whether or not she should go into the hospital for it. She woke up around 4 AM to go to the bathroom and felt extremely dizzy standing back up and she started "feeling the room closing in on" her. She woke me up to take her to the hospital, which I was glad to do, because I love my wife and wanted to make sure she was ok. This was her "sign from God." When we got to the hospital she was having difficulty breathing and standing up, so I got a wheelchair for her. They ran all the tests they could at the ER and couldn't find anything wrong. Once they started doing the testwork she was able to breathe again. The nurse told her that it was most likely just a panic attack but they would take a urine sample and do some more tests anyway. My wife thought the nurse was trying to mess up her test results by not giving her a hygienic wipe (I have no idea if this would actually influence the results) so she could just say there was noting wrong with her. She was also terribly upset that the doctor couldn't find anything wrong and was hurt when he said it was just a panic attack. I was relieved because I was glad she was ok. When we got home she called her sister and then started talking about dying and about how the hospital was "the worst experience of" her "life" and was questioning how could God tell her that she needed to go to the hospital if it was just a panic attack, which she swears it wasn't, so she must be dying. She said that if she died it would be better because she would be with God and there wouldn't be as many people being mean to her.

Anyway, before you start commenting on how I just told that story to put down my wife understand that I am super glad that she is ok and that I rushed out the door without a shirt or shoes to drive her to the hospital. I never told her that her sign wasn't real, I held her when I could and prayed with her and told her everything was going to be alright. But of course, I don't believe that was a sign of God. Things like this have happened with other parts of our relationship. One of them was deciding to be together where she prayed for a sign - that I would talk about my faith that day if we were supposed to be together - which I did. 

Yesterday we went out on another date and spent the evening together. We are going to try to do something special together this weekend. I wanted to try to put together a list of verses that contradicted each other that I had a problem with to see if maybe we could work them out together but I think after what happened this morning it's best to just take it slow right now and have some fun together. Blossom what you said about not creating leaving fantasies is very true. Like I said, I don't have friendships with other women, but I think to prevent the fantasies about being single it's just best to spend some time together affirming each other and what we like about each other right now.


----------



## ocotillo (Oct 17, 2011)

Cochise said:


> I wanted to try to put together a list of verses that contradicted each other that I had a problem with to see if maybe we could work them out together...


What is your goal here, Cochise? Is it coexistence or is it debate?

If it is the former, then how is this likely to play out? Isn't your wife simply going to go a Christian apologetics website or perhaps even obtain a book on the subject and parrot the answers back to you?

Where will it go from there?


----------



## Blossom Leigh (Mar 27, 2014)

Cochise said:


> Actually if you look back I said marriage hasn't been what I thought it would be and I know a lot of this is on me so I have no idea why you're saying I'm not accepting responsibility. I decided to get married just as anyone else would, we believed we were right for each other. We loved each other, had a lot of fun together, we had similar world views, my family loved her, she's great with children, we understood each other on a very deep level like no one else, I liked how deep her faith was, and how sweet she was. At the same time I would say there was a certain amount of naivety on both sides and people definitely grow and change after moving out from family, moving in with someone else, and or just with time. Things are not "exactly as advertised," people change with time. She is becoming more like her family than when we dated, I am going the other way.
> 
> Blossom you're insinuating that it's better to just stick around and put your all into it for 17 years than to cut early. I definitely admire your work ethic and commitment, but I think that sometimes it may be best to cut your losses before you have kids. This is, however, not something I'm looking at right now; just an outside thought.
> 
> ...


I think only certain circumstances like infidelity and abuse are reasons to cut early. Changing your brides mind is far less difficult that it feels right now, so your inclination to take it slow and wrap her in love is spot on. She has way more years ahead of her than behind her and her sheltering will break open at some point. Your science thoughts will balance her out... But exploring the tightest logic in faith and science is your best path. Know both well... And work on this before children. There is a lot about her that you love... Dive into that deep, enjoy it, bring the thinking along gradually, focus on her fear... Her best learning will happen when she is calm, not upset. Time spent and affirmation is a great thought. You are going to do well. She is not solid in her faith, she is rehearsing what she was raise in. She is young and needs to do that work eventually. It cannot be underestimated her being loved by your family and being great with kids. That is the good stuff of life. I think if you explore but assure her of your solid feel by her side she will be more open to it. Safety and adoring are very important to women. Best of everything to you. As you build your life together remember that construction zones are messy and accept that it will be so, like this morning and your stress will benefit from that perspective. Also, dont approach her by contradictory scriptures to undermine her faith. You will add volatility to your picture. It is a foundation for her, instead point her to the most accurate sources in the Christian world because THAT is where the persons are who tend to resolve faith and science in the best ways to explore. It will take you time to bring her along to that bridge, but it is a bridge to allow yall to bounce ideas and explore together. You need to know the material well yourself first, so be patient. Yall are very young... Dont fret too hard.. its going to be ok..I have thoughts about her faith if you want to pm me.


----------



## tryingtobebetter (Aug 6, 2012)

OP

Have you read up much on marriage? If not, I think you might find it helpful to read His Needs Her Needs and the Five Love Languages.

I think there are two issues at work in you here.

One is that you have yet to have the experience of many years of married life. Those of who have that experience know that there are ups and downs. Perseverence is, in my opinion, an under-rated virtue in modern society. I have been married 37 years now and realise that DW and I have created something beautiful (more credit to her than me) though I certainly did not realise that much of the time. Which is perhaps a long-winded way of saying you are only starting to experience what married life can be like but marriage is worth working at.

Secondly, you are clearly on your own intellectual journey. Maybe your wife will follow you in due course, but that is up to her. Who knows? Do not assume that you know now the destinations your journey will lead to. Life has many surprises in store for all of us. Some nice, some unpleasant. 

Ultimately I think religious faith is based on personal experience (mine is) rather than intellectual argument. There is evidence but all of it can be challenged. People of first class intellect are to be found on both sides of the debate.

By the way, your wife sounds like a nice young woman with important positive qualities who maybe feels a bit threatened at present. Love her. That is what you promised to do when you took your vows.

Good luck.


----------



## turnera (Jan 22, 2010)

It sounds to me that what's missing is honest discussion. She doesn't seem aware that you're on this journey and that you're questioning hers.

The thing about the hospital is a little worrying, though.


----------



## Blossom Leigh (Mar 27, 2014)

"People of first class intellect are to be found on both sides of the debate."

VERY important point to remember as you explore. So true!!

Loved your whole post tryingtobebetter


----------



## As'laDain (Nov 27, 2011)

OP, i could be completely wrong here, but consider this...

your wife was raised conservative christian, and raised with the idea that in order to be close to God, she has to continuously talk to him about everything. this means constant prayer, an idea that is supported by Thessalonians 5:17. "pray without ceasing."

i have seen a lot of christians do this, they continuously pray about every little thing, asking God for direction. when i read it the first time, i saw it a bit different. i thought i was supposed to be PRAISING him and rejoicing constantly. indeed, when i actually do this, i am pretty darn happy. 

if you look at Thessalonians 5:16 "Rejoice always" and 5:18 "in everything give thanks; for this is God's will for you in Christ Jesus"
you start to get an idea of what it is that verse meant. 

another is Colossians 4:2 "Devote yourselves to prayer, keeping alert in it with an attitude of thanksgiving"

i see a lot of christians worrying way too much about little stuff. they miss the part where they are supposed to be happy. 

or how about Romans 12:12 "rejoicing in hope, persevering in tribulation, devoted to prayer"


perhaps you should, instead of trying to find conflicts in the scripture, use the scripture itself to teach your wife how to be happy. 

if she was having a panic attack, i would think that she would benefit from spending a little time to rejoice first, before she starts looking for signs from God. 


she probably sees you slipping away and has no idea what to do about it. so, she goes back to the one thing she knows. she has probably been raised to believe that if we have trials in our lives, and hard times, then there is something wrong with us and we arent praying hard enough. that or God intended us to hurt.

sounds like she is Co-dependent... but on God. if that makes any sense. 

you might find verses to encourage her to take control of her own actions, instead of looking for all of her guidance through immediate revelation. 

for instance, Proverbs 31: 10-31. 
it describes a wife that does not wait around, but goes out and makes herself useful and productive.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8 (Feb 15, 2012)

Lyris said:


> Again, why did you get married in the first place?


Does that actually matter much as far as whether he should remain married or not?


----------



## Machiavelli (Feb 25, 2012)

Lyris said:


> I think you've married someone you now consider beneath you intellectually, and you are looking for more palatable reasons to end it than, oh, I changed my mind, and I was stupid to get married in the first place. You want assurances that yes, it's the right thing to do, that you'll be better off and that * she'll* be better off.


I'm not sure how a guy who is dazzled by Dawkins could rate much higher than a chimp, intellectually speaking, but I agree with your assessment.

Chochise, how did your wife respond to the swinging idea when you brought it up?


----------



## DvlsAdvc8 (Feb 15, 2012)

Machiavelli said:


> I'm not sure how a guy who is dazzled by Dawkins could rate much higher than a chimp, intellectually speaking


Uhm... Dawkins topped Prospect magazines top 100 list of public British intellectuals, both by vote of readership and expert panel. He's won awards for his concise and accessible presentation of scientific knowledge. He's received quite a bit of praise across the scientific community, even having a genus named after him by ichthyologists.

Your attack on the man is baffling. His books convey often complicated science in a way even the most science-illiterate can understand. For that, he should be commended.


----------



## Machiavelli (Feb 25, 2012)

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Uhm... Dawkins topped Prospect magazines top 100 list of public British intellectuals, both by vote of readership and expert panel. He's won awards for his concise and accessible presentation of scientific knowledge. He's received quite a bit of praise across the scientific community, even having a genus named after him by ichthyologists.
> 
> Your attack on the man is baffling. His books convey often complicated science in a way even the most science-illiterate can understand. For that, he should be commended.


I didn't attack Dawkins.


----------



## Lyris (Mar 29, 2012)

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Does that actually matter much as far as whether he should remain married or not?


Of course it does. Did he love his wife? Did they have fun together and share things they didn't share with anyone else? Were they in love, did they wet their knickers for each other? 

Or did he marry her because he liked her and thought she'd make a good long term partner. Did he marry her to satisfy other people's expectations. Was he pressured into it.

If it's the first situation, then maybe they can get that back. If the second, probably not.


----------



## jorgegene (May 26, 2012)

Cochise said:


> Still working on this. Apparently the 2 books I got out are basically history books. Bummer. Not that I don't like history, but it's not exactly what I was looking for.
> 
> There are a lot of things in life that make me question how we could all evolve out of nothing, or at least without a guiding hand. The complexity of our bodies at a cellular level is amazing. It is a commonly held belief within Christianity that all of creation testifies to the Glory of God. There are some verses that speak to this, such as Psalms 19:1 and Romans 1:20. There's also a lot of things in nature that seem at odds with this statement. Lions and males of other animals will often kill the offspring of all other males (or those not of their siblings e.g. "nephews" in the case of lions), sharks, eagles, and other animals typically eat their siblings after hatching; and female mice often eat their offspring. There's numerous other pretty disgusting examples, but this is all pretty head-scratching. Much of nature is pretty vile and ruthless. Everything seems to testify instead to the concept that animals - even ourselves - are really just acting in the best interests of carrying on our DNA to the next generation, and ensuring its survival. Similarly, there's a lot of issues with the design of the human body that don't make sense to me.
> 
> In a sense, I can see how ignorance is bliss. If you don't explore and you're not curious then the world is a much simpler place. Or, maybe it's not. My wife was in tears today because of the possibility of having a virus. She kept saying that it wasn't fair and that she hadn't done anything to deserve this. I did my best to comfort her, but then had to mention that I didn't believe that fairness really existed in life and that bad things aren't typically because you are being punished by God. She was pretty upset by this remark, and it's something that is very different about our world views, but we got past it. We also had a little confrontation over a documentary on prohibition that I was watching. She felt very uncomfortable by the discussion of sex and other things that the historians were talking about. I can get past that, but it's annoying. I guess that's what happens when you're young and married, you're still trying to figure out what you believe and you're trying to figure out what is a serious issue and what isn't. I've mostly been glossing over things in order to keep her happy. We had a pretty good weekend surprisingly, but we still haven't had a flat out conversation on some of my concerns. I've mentioned several times that specific arguments from books that I'm reading make a lot of sense, but she's mostly ignored it.


read 'darwins black box' by professor of biochemistry at lehigh university. since you are interested in celullar biology. in great detail he approaches the subject of our cellular machines and how they are irreducibly complex and could not have evolved.

the matter of evolution by the way is NOT fact. micro-evolution is undoubtable. macro-evolution is the most plausible theory that is faith based due to the large gaps in fossil records and and other huge gaps in our present knowledge.


----------



## turnera (Jan 22, 2010)

> Fact is often used by scientists to refer to experimental or empirical data or objective verifiable observations. "Fact" is also used in a wider sense to mean any theory for which there is overwhelming evidence.
> 
> A fact is a hypothesis that is so firmly supported by evidence that we assume it is true, and act as if it were true. —Douglas Futuyma
> 
> ...


Evolution as fact and theory - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## jorgegene (May 26, 2012)

Very nice! (and i'm not being facetious)

However, you are quoting from the high priests of scientific materialism and of course they are going to defend their religion.

I have a degree in biology and was well indoctrinated in evolution, and while I accept that evolution does, has and will happen, there are way too many holes and in evolutionary continuity to objectively call macro-evolution 'fact' IMO.

I am an evolutionist, but a skeptic. I know for example how scientists cover the gaps in knowledge; for example using the term 'saltation' which is nothing but a big leap forward between evolutionary forms which cannot be otherwise explained. Many Lay people have no idea and just accept what 'scientists' say.

It is the arrogance of science which grates me. If I was finally convinced of the truth of evolution, my day would go on without a blip, and I'd just say to myself: "Ah Ha! So that was it!" 

There are many other examples like saltation. 

nevertheless.....continue on


----------



## ocotillo (Oct 17, 2011)

jorgegene said:


> I have a degree in biology....


Okay. Macroevolution is defined in biology as, "....variation of allele frequencies at or above the level of a species" which is not terribly spectacular when viewed in apposition to creationist definitions of the term. 

Surely you're aware that providing examples of speciation is not a difficult challenge in botany.


----------



## ocotillo (Oct 17, 2011)

Well I seem to have killed this thread. I wasn't trying to hijack it into an evolution/creation debate. I was only trying to show that respectful dialogue requires that we understand terms as the other person uses them.

I've read Denton and Behe and understand the concepts of saltational types and Denton's distinction between general and special theories. The term, macroevolution is used more broadly than that and that is where discussions often get derailed.


----------



## As'laDain (Nov 27, 2011)

ocotillo said:


> Well I seem to have killed this thread. I wasn't trying to hijack it into an evolution/creation debate. I was only trying to show that respectful dialogue requires that we understand terms as the other person uses them.
> 
> I've read Denton and Behe and understand the concepts of saltational types and Denton's distinction between general and special theories. The term, macroevolution is used more broadly than that and that is where discussions often get derailed.


i dont think you killed it. i think it was already dead. 

we could go on and on about evolution, but it wont help the OP. OP has to figure it out. not us. 

personally, it seems to me that evolution happens in reverse. take a chicken, repair some of its genetics, and it can grow teeth like a dinosaur. the more specialized a species is, the less able it is to adapt. at least, that makes more sense than our current model of evolution. 

i gotta admit though, i had my doubts about evolution long before i ever became a christian. mathematically, it just doesn't make any sense.


----------



## jorgegene (May 26, 2012)

ocotillo said:


> Okay. Macroevolution is defined in biology as, "....variation of allele frequencies at or above the level of a species" which is not terribly spectacular when viewed in apposition to creationist definitions of the term.
> 
> Surely you're aware that providing examples of speciation is not a difficult challenge in botany.


Your point is very well taken that 'macroevolution' is defined as significant genetic variation at or above the species level.

Your point the next response is valid too that the term is used in the broader sense of 'connecting the dots' from life origins to today's complex species.

The latter is how i'm using the term, but it certainly doesn't need to distract from the discussion.

My main point is that even by the most ardent proponents of 'macroevolution' there are significant gaps in the fossil records and in knowledge of biochemical machinery and other mechanisms of evolution.

There is a faith that is required to bridge those gaps. Scientists hate that word. A proponent of macroevolution might say: "yes, but the evidence is overwhelming!"

Is it? Perhaps. That is the matter of debate. I personally do not close the books on macroevolution as fact, I think there is way too much gaps in knowledge for the books to be closed.
But again that is a matter of debate which is actively being played out there by people already mentioned far smarter and more educated than me.

But. To believe that natural selection and genetic mutations led from primordial proteins to humans requires faith to bridge the gaps. Faith that science will bridge those gaps. Faith in science. Faith in God, Allah. It's still faith.
I object to the view that 'scientists' have a monopoly on logic.
Some of these debates out there (I've been to many of them),
our engaged by brilliant informed men on both sides of the aisle.

That's what I object to. That Scientists (not really 'scientists', but scientific materialists) have created there own religion of a closed material system with no possibility of dimensions beyond our own and are every bit as arrogant and intolerant as the worst religious biggots.

Let science stand on it's own and let the evidence lead where it may. 99.99% of science does not depend on evolution or the scientific materialism that is passed off as fact.

If 'macroevolution' were disproved tomorrow (which I highly doubt) science would continue without a blip and go on just as before with very minor adjustment. Only the dogmatic scientists would be left out.

Like wise, if it we discovered tomorrow ALL the 'missing links', religion would likewise go on just as before. Only the young earther's and a few others would have to stick their head in the sand.

Whatever we are, we should be truth seekers.

Let the truth unravel where it may.............

(we need to move this thread to the 'social spot'. Doesn't belong here)>


----------



## DvlsAdvc8 (Feb 15, 2012)

Irreducible uncertainty is an omnipresent fact of science Jorge. At some point however, it is reasonable to recognize where all the available evidence points and make a leap of reason, not faith. Faith by definition is belief without evidence. The gaps you believe filled by faith, are rather examples of inductive reasoning - which is necessarily based on evidentiary experience.

The word faith is fuzzy and can be used to convey somewhat different things. In one sense, science frowns on faith. Science thrives and progresses on the back of skepticism and doubt. More fundamentally, or perhaps philosophically however, science requires a faith in observation and logic. In this sense, you necessarily have faith even in your experience and memory. Science requires a faith in the consistent and knowable nature of the universe. That given the exact same conditions, something tested 1,000 times, will still have the same result when tested the 1,001st time. At its heart, this is faith, but this is the basis of evidentiary reasoning - that the universe is not random and unknowable. The universe is governed by consistent knowable laws.

Science has created no religion. Science is only a method. It is purposefully restricted. It necessarily excludes a God, and unknowable, unobservable thing, as an explanation. If you allow for completely non-evidentiary explanations like God, which are far beyond the reasonable inductions of evolution, you've completely undone the usefulness of science. If you can't work out at the very least pieces of the mechanisms to explain observation, then you have nothing at all; to allow supernatural explanations is to effectively attribute everything you don't know to God. The Gods cause lightning. The Gods move the heavens. The drought is the result of angry Gods. God created life. God created the universe. You actually learn... nothing.

Science exists solely for the reason that people have recognized this problem. Its not arrogance or intolerance. Its reason.


----------



## As'laDain (Nov 27, 2011)

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Irreducible uncertainty is an omnipresent fact of science Jorge. At some point however, it is reasonable to recognize where all the available evidence points and make a leap of reason, not faith. Faith by definition is belief without evidence. The gaps you believe filled by faith, are rather examples of inductive reasoning - which is necessarily based on evidentiary experience.
> 
> The word faith is fuzzy and can be used to convey somewhat different things. In one sense, science frowns on faith. Science thrives and progresses on the back of skepticism and doubt. More fundamentally, or perhaps philosophically however, science requires a faith in observation and logic. In this sense, you necessarily have faith even in your experience and memory. Science requires a faith in the consistent and knowable nature of the universe. That given the exact same conditions, something tested 1,000 times, will still have the same result when tested the 1,001st time. At its heart, this is faith, but this is the basis of evidentiary reasoning - that the universe is not random and unknowable. The universe is governed by consistent knowable laws.
> 
> ...


i would say that is exactly what Steven Hawking did when he suggested that their may be alternate universes that we will never be able to observe, by their very nature, which allowed for our universe to come into existence. 

and yet, this theory is entertained as more plausible than "God did it". 

makes no sense to me.


----------



## ocotillo (Oct 17, 2011)

jorgegene said:


> Whatever we are, we should be truth seekers.
> 
> Let the truth unravel where it may.............
> 
> (we need to move this thread to the 'social spot'. Doesn't belong here)


Well even if Cochise has left the building, I think the thread still speaks to the fact that it should not automatically spell the end of a marriage when one partner or the other loses their belief in a personal creator. 

In this respect I think Denton is a valuable read even if you don't agree with him. He's open and honest that Darwin was not the anti-cleric that people make him out to be. Darwin was actually in an idealogically divided marriage himself. Denton also freely acknowledges that speciation occurs and even gives some of the classic examples from biology textbooks. 

For the average advocate of creation, this would have been unthinkable just forty years ago. So I think the two sides can be a little closer together today.


----------



## jorgegene (May 26, 2012)

Scientific materialism HAS created a religion in that it excludes what is beyond it's limits to define. It ventures beyond it's present knowledge base to exclude and even attack any competing world views. In doing so it has become dogmatic rather than inquisitory and has created it's own icons complete with high priesthood (Phd's). Opposing theory's or qualified proponents of competing theory's are appropriately marginalized. 

This is the pretense of scientific materialism: that it postures as though it is based purely on logic alone without any propositional assumptions.

Remember here though we are discussing (at least I am) only the outer limits of the evolutionary theory, not 'science'.

"Science is only a method." If science actually stuck to this, there would be no problem.


----------



## As'laDain (Nov 27, 2011)

jorgegene said:


> "Science is only a method." If science actually stuck to this, there would be no problem.


exactly. remember when they found soft tissue preserved in T. rex bones? the paleontologist who announced that find was immediately blasted because, according to our understanding of chemistry and physics, it couldn't be possible that those complex proteins could still exist after 65 million years. and yet they do. its been repeated over and over again. 

but who wants to lose their career? in the end, they basically just said there is a way the proteins were preserved that we dont know about. so now, thats where the effort is being pointed out, since that is the only possible explanation. 

if they find it, great. in the mean time, anyone who looks at the problem with the other assumption, that they arent as old as we think, lose their funding and are ridiculed until the world ignores them. 

i can only imagine the level of understanding we could have achieved by now if both sides would stop ignoring the observations of the other.

we need to theorize less and observe more.


----------



## jorgegene (May 26, 2012)

ocotillo said:


> Well even if Cochise has left the building, I think the thread still speaks to the fact that it should not automatically spell the end of a marriage when one partner or the other loses their belief in a personal creator.
> 
> In this respect I think Denton is a valuable read even if you don't agree with him. He's open and honest that Darwin was not the anti-cleric that people make him out to be. Darwin was actually in an idealogically divided marriage himself. Denton also freely acknowledges that speciation occurs and even gives some of the classic examples from biology textbooks.
> 
> For the average advocate of creation, this would have been unthinkable just forty years ago. So I think the two sides can be a little closer together today.


excellent


----------



## SurpriseMyself (Nov 14, 2009)

It's up to both of them to be honest with each other. Being someone you think the other person wants you to be will spell trouble. Where it goes from there... Only they can determine.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## DvlsAdvc8 (Feb 15, 2012)

As'laDain said:


> i would say that is exactly what Steven Hawking did when he suggested that their may be alternate universes that we will never be able to observe, by their very nature, which allowed for our universe to come into existence.
> 
> and yet, this theory is entertained as more plausible than "God did it".
> 
> makes no sense to me.


Note: My apologies for writing you a book... and its not entirely appropriate to this forum, but this is a sort of thing I discuss often on some other forums; some of this stuff just takes a long time to explain... and I'm still not sure I've done it justice. 

I'd say you're making two mistakes here. First, is the understanding of theoretical physics as entirely imagination based. Most of the time, physics predicts something before we're able to find it - the Higgs-Boson for example. Some things are reached by inductive reasoning, others by mathematical proof... but most have some basis in reality - all however, must explain the mechanisms by which they act. Darwin, for example, wasn't the first to suggest evolution. He was the first to propose how it works - natural selection. The second mistake I think, is the notion that a multiverse is more plausible than "God did it". By what measure of plausibility? Most people believe in God. I however find a multiverse much more plausible, particularly with the history of Gods and mythology taken into account. I'm pleased however, that "God did it" as an explanation didn't appeal to everyone in the past - and that some inquiring mind wanted better answers. I see no reason to believe the questions of today, or of the future, will be satisfactorily answered by "God did it" any more than the questions of the past were.

Not Stephen Hawking, nor any other scientist has said there ARE alternate universes. Having a conception of something does not mean it exists - ie God. What we have an example universe with specific laws. As a logical matter however, there's no more reason to believe its the only one than there is to believe it is one of many. The induction that whatever process which begat this universe surely could have begat others. Science must still hypothesize and conceptualize. Science must have an imagination, otherwise you don't even have a conceptual framework in which to test.

Concepts of a multiverse are mostly derived from incarnations of string theory, and subsequently m-theory; attempts to mathematically unify the forces of nature into a cohesive equation - a theory of everything. One of the biggest conundrums in physics is linking General Relativity (governing high mass large objects) with Quantum Mechanics (governing low mass particles). These two theories cover the rules of the big and small and are amazingly different. In their own domains (the big or the small), they are consistently correct, but they are also incompatible mathematically and logically cannot both be correct. In string theory, theoretical physicists have extrapolated from the dimensions we're all aware of, and postulated the existence of additional dimensions and additional subatomic behaviors of particles in pursuit of a theory of everything. M-theory comes along, with logical and mathematical cases for 11 different dimensions and branes as conceptual holders. By now you've reached a level of abstraction we non-physicists generally can't handle. M-theory is regarded by most as quite promising, as a number of predictions it pointed to have been born out in experimentation and it appears to explain a number of existing questions in theoretical physics. In short, it is the closest we've gotten to a theory of everything that predicts the observed universe at large and small scale. So you have a promising theory in an area of active research... that also happens to allow for possible variability in the fundamental forces of nature, false vacuums, bubble universes and potentially, an entire string theory landscape... or a multiverse, giving rise . A ton of theoretical physics and mathematics, but still based on physics explaining and predicting observable phenomenon in search for a theory of everything -- there's just a few logical concepts that come with it. It allows for eternal inflation, and a variety of crazy things... logic and imagination run wild, but we can still formulate means of testing and verification. 

Such as this: "Studies of the low-temperature glow left from the Big Bang suggest that "bubble universes" may have left marks on our own."
BBC News - 'Multiverse' theory suggested by microwave background

Its by no means an open and shut case - last I heard even this study was undergoing significant scrutiny (as it should)... but science isn't done once one has imagined up some random thing. That thing has to conceptualize and explain the mechanisms behind it. The math has to work, and it has to work on what we can observe and can test. With m-theory, its mostly does, and it brings along a whole bunch of more difficult, even untestable implications. But at its heart, it is based in explaining the mechanisms behind observed phenomenon.

The important difference between the use of imagination in science - theoretical physics, versus the conception of God, is that theoretical physics is most often supported by mathematics and must explain how mechanisms and concepts work - which may offer clues as to what experiments can be performed to ascertain its validity. 

A God theory equivalent would have to explain the mechanisms behind what he was conceived of to explain. Otherwise, God just means, "don't know". While its already well known that prayer fails scientific scrutiny, a theory of God for example, would have to propose how God eliminates an illness. How was the virus destroyed, what was the carrier for this godly force and how might it be detected and measured. What is the difference between normal immune response and divine intervention?

Of course, there is no conception of testing God. By definition he cannot be known, which is quite a bit more than saying he is beyond our physical ability to detect. M-theory, eternal inflation, multiverses... are conceivable answers to the cosmological and teleological arguments for the existence of God; and while both ideas are full of supposition, M-theory would seem to more closely uphold Occam's Razor. Multiple universes being true would be eternal, and elegant process with no questions remaining but the philosophical. If the existence of God were true however, a whole host of questions immediately come to mind. What is God and by what mechanisms does his power work? Who created God? What exactly was he doing in that infinity before us, talking to himself? (All sorts of infinity problems come up too) Are there other Gods? By what mechanism does omnipresence and omnipotence work? Or even, why bother at all? If you exist beyond time and are omnipotent, you already know the outcomes.

You see, the ultimate problem is that a God theory doesn't actually explain much at all. It just gives a name to what we don't know - just as it always has. It leave us no concept to test, even in thought experiments. If we're willing to defer to God as a suitable explanation for the creation of the universe, why not life? Why not the weather? Why not our health? Fortunately, some people weren't satisfied with that answer and kept looking and organizing a better approach. Why should we assume the answers to the bigger questions are any different?


----------



## As'laDain (Nov 27, 2011)

i dont think that theoretical physics is based on imagination. i dont think creationists base their theories on imagination either. 

it seems you circumvented my point. 


both sides disregard the OBSERVATIONS of the other. 
both sides are willing to come up with wildly complex and illogical explanations to explain what they themselves see. the observations of "the other side", however, are largely ignored. 

stupid waste of human experience if you ask me. who cares what the proponent is seeking? shouldn't we explore their observations first before we discount them?


----------



## DvlsAdvc8 (Feb 15, 2012)

What exactly are the observations of God? There has to be an observation, in order to discount it. Please understand, scientific observation is quite different than the layman meaning.


----------



## As'laDain (Nov 27, 2011)

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> What exactly are the observations of God? There has to be an observation, in order to discount it. Please understand, scientific observation is quite different than the layman meaning.


it doesnt matter. if a scientist who openly believes there is a god makes an observation, the rest of the scientific community ignores him. if a scientist who is an athiest makes an observation, the creationists ignore him. 

i still think your missing the point. i never talked about observations about God. im talking about people discrediting each other through an age old form of prejudice.


----------



## turnera (Jan 22, 2010)

As'laDain said:


> exactly. remember when they found soft tissue preserved in T. rex bones? the paleontologist who announced that find was immediately blasted because, according to our understanding of chemistry and physics, it couldn't be possible that those complex proteins could still exist after 65 million years. and yet they do. its been repeated over and over again.





> Schweitzer, one of the first scientists to use the tools of modern cell biology to study dinosaurs, has upended the conventional wisdom by showing that some rock-hard fossils tens of millions of years old may have remnants of soft tissues hidden away in their interiors. “The reason it hasn’t been discovered before is no right-thinking paleontologist would do what Mary did with her specimens. We don’t go to all this effort to dig this stuff out of the ground to then destroy it in acid,” says dinosaur paleontologist Thomas Holtz Jr., of the University of Maryland. “It’s great science.” The observations could shed new light on how dinosaurs evolved and how their muscles and blood vessels worked. And the new findings might help settle a long-running debate about whether dinosaurs were warmblooded, coldblooded—or both.
> 
> Meanwhile, Schweitzer’s research has been hijacked by “young earth” creationists, who insist that dinosaur soft tissue couldn’t possibly survive millions of years. They claim her discoveries support their belief, based on their interpretation of Genesis, that the earth is only a few thousand years old. Of course, it’s not unusual for a paleontologist to differ with creationists. But when creationists misrepresent Schweitzer’s data, she takes it personally: she describes herself as “a complete and total Christian.” On a shelf in her office is a plaque bearing an Old Testament verse: “For I know the plans I have for you,” declares the Lord, “plans to prosper you and not to harm you, plans to give you hope and a future.”
> 
> What she found instead was evidence of heme in the bones—additional support for the idea that they were red blood cells. Heme is a part of hemoglobin, the protein that carries oxygen in the blood and gives red blood cells their color. “It got me real curious as to exceptional preservation,” she says. If particles of that one dinosaur were able to hang around for 65 million years, maybe the textbooks were wrong about fossilization.


Read more: History, Travel, Arts, Science, People, Places | Smithsonian

It didn't cause a debate about creationism, just about what we know about dinosaurs and fossilization.


----------



## ocotillo (Oct 17, 2011)

As'laDain said:


> i dont think that theoretical physics is based on imagination. i dont think creationists base their theories on imagination either.


I guess it depends to some extent on what is meant by the term, "Creationist."

There are people like Michael Denton, and the late Martin Gardner, etc. who do believe in a Creator but are only mildly theistic. 

However there are also people who publish books like this:


----------



## tryingtobebetter (Aug 6, 2012)

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Science has created no religion. Science is only a method. It is purposefully restricted. It necessarily excludes a God, and unknowable, unobservable thing, as an explanation. If you allow for completely non-evidentiary explanations like God, which are far beyond the reasonable inductions of evolution, you've completely undone the usefulness of science.


You make many intelligent points but you leave me wondering why a distinguished physicist like Polkinghorne appears to disagree with you as he apparently has no difficulty being both religious and a scientist.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8 (Feb 15, 2012)

No matter if science determined everything about everything, there is still one thing some people will cling to Gods for: purpose.


----------



## As'laDain (Nov 27, 2011)

turnera said:


> Read more: History, Travel, Arts, Science, People, Places | Smithsonian
> 
> It didn't cause a debate about creationism,* just about what we know about dinosaurs and fossilization*.


exactly, but the fact that creationists jumped on with their own interpretation of the facts caused a HUGE controversy. many prominent scientists were willing to make asses out of themselves and claim that her findings had to be bogus before they even bothered to look into it themselves.


----------



## NobodySpecial (Nov 22, 2013)

As'laDain said:


> i dont think that theoretical physics is based on imagination. i dont think creationists base their theories on imagination either.
> 
> it seems you circumvented my point.
> 
> ...


One side is observing the world. The other a source unknown work of fiction. Whose observations are more likely to reveal objective truth?


----------



## NobodySpecial (Nov 22, 2013)

tryingtobebetter said:


> You make many intelligent points but you leave me wondering why a distinguished physicist like Polkinghorne appears to disagree with you as he apparently has no difficulty being both religious and a scientist.


I don't know the person to whom you refer. But there is a big difference between being a creationist and being religious. The Catholic religion is full of scholars who view their stories as moral allegory not literal fact.


----------



## As'laDain (Nov 27, 2011)

NobodySpecial said:


> One side is observing the world. The other a source unknown work of fiction. Whose observations are more likely to reveal objective truth?


whichever side decides to reproduce experiments to validate observations. 

whichever side allows for the understanding that an unmeasurable presupposition is only a hypothetical place from which we guide our search for more knowledge and to observe more. 

your question assumes that one side always objectively views the world and the other one never does, but this has never been the case.


----------



## turnera (Jan 22, 2010)

As'laDain said:


> exactly, but the fact that creationists jumped on with their own interpretation of the facts caused a HUGE controversy. many prominent scientists were willing to make asses out of themselves and claim that her findings had to be bogus before they even bothered to look into it themselves.


That's what makes scientists so worth following. They WANT, even enjoy - making asses out of themselves as they are busy testing hypotheses, and are more than willing to accept a new direction when a hypothesis is proven wrong. That's the beauty of science - that they don't stand stagnant and listen to words handed down to them, but rather question EVERYTHING, and let the research and the scientific results speak for themselves.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8 (Feb 15, 2012)

As'laDain said:


> your question assumes that one side always objectively views the world and the other one never does, but this has never been the case.


If that were so, then every theist would actually be an agnostic. You know as well as I do this isn't so. If faith is your primary driver, no amount of evidence will sway you. You'll find a way to believe. You'll continually back off positions that used to be owned by God. "Ok, so maybe God doesn't do that, but God created the things that allowed that to happen." Its a endless backing up until you realize a concept of God doesn't actually answer any material question, only metaphysical questions, like "why?" and then it might even strike you that you're no worse off giving meaning to things yourself, which, arguably mankind has always done through Gods.

The wonderful, beautiful thing about science is that its always probationary. Its never the final word. Its what we know, or think we know, until we discover differently. As such, it is always advancing. If this is a new religion, well... its a substantial upgrade over claiming to know by individual divine revelation - which if actually divine, must be the final word and absolute truth.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## turnera (Jan 22, 2010)

its = possessive pronoun

it's = contraction for "it is"

Sorry, pet peeve of mine.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8 (Feb 15, 2012)

turnera said:


> its = possessive pronoun
> 
> it's = contraction for "it is"
> 
> Sorry, pet peeve of mine.





DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Posted via Mobile Device


I know the difference, but thank you anyway. While this is a case of posting from my phone, where an apostrophe is another tap away and edits are a pita, I generally don't care. However, you'll notice plenty of my posts have edits. Usually, these are a result of my re-reading after posting and correcting such a mistake.

Just to cover your bases for the future: I also comma splice like a mofo, abuse ellipses, screw up "a vs an" as a result of rewording, use nauseous when I should use nauseated, and use lay or lie according to little more than random chance.

... and that's just getting started.


----------



## As'laDain (Nov 27, 2011)

i never really care too much about grammar as long as the message gets across correctly. 

especially with english. too many english grammar rules just scream to be broken.


----------



## turnera (Jan 22, 2010)

I'm happy for you. For others, that is not the case.


----------



## Blossom Leigh (Mar 27, 2014)

Sometimes my Southern slang gets the best of me. Told someone off using "hick" speak today... Lol.. it was to season the story.


----------



## As'laDain (Nov 27, 2011)

i speak three languages, and each of them have a completely different grammar structure. 

keeping track of them can be a headache sometimes.


----------



## turnera (Jan 22, 2010)

*shrug*

But you're here on an English forum. I've been to forums where you aren't even allowed to use words like 'um'. 

You're free to use bad grammar here. I'm free to point out that it irritates me. ESPECIALLY when you KNOW the grammar and just won't be bothered.


----------



## As'laDain (Nov 27, 2011)

turnera said:


> *shrug*
> 
> But you're here on an English forum. I've been to forums where you aren't even allowed to use words like 'um'.
> 
> You're free to use bad grammar here. I'm free to point out that it irritates me. ESPECIALLY when you KNOW the grammar and just won't be bothered.


i like you. your real, honest. 


english is all F'ed up in its grammar. it breaks all of its own rules all over the place. Arabic is extremely specific, if its modern standard arabic. Vescon(my second language) is similar to russian where the verbal emphasis denotes who did what and who received an action, and is incredibly fluid. there are several ways you can say the same thing, grammatically, while using the same basic words.


i can read sixteen languages and understand them. its not that im a genius, i just learned three totally different languages, so, anything close to those languages, i can probably understand if i see them written(most of them are quite similar). grammar doesnt bother me because i know how fluid it is. even in the same language, the grammar rules differ. just look at the difference between the south and the north in america. 

you can call out grammar mistakes all you want, but in the end, the only thing that matters is the content. if the content is conveyed the way it is supposed to be conveyed, then the language is appropriate. 

thats just how i view it though. i have never been one for following grammar rules. personally, i think a preposition is a fine thing to end a sentence with.


----------



## Blossom Leigh (Mar 27, 2014)

Totally agree about Turnera being real and honest.. very appreciated over here.

Yay! I can stop worrying about my sentences ending with prepositons!! How cool is that? :smthumbup:


----------



## turnera (Jan 22, 2010)

Languages are always evolving. Even editors allow sentences to end with prepositions now. It's just the biggest ones that grate on me, when what should be a pronoun is used as a verb, especially when the writer KNOWS there should be a verb there. Rules may change, but verbs are VERY unlikely to 'turn into' pronouns and vice versa. I work with lots of ESL writers who have such a hard time figuring out what we're saying and the texting slang just makes it even harder. So...whatever. Agree to disagree.


----------



## tryingtobebetter (Aug 6, 2012)

As'laDain said:


> you can call out grammar mistakes all you want, but in the end, the only thing that matters is the content. if the content is conveyed the way it is supposed to be conveyed, then the language is appropriate.
> 
> thats just how i view it though. i have never been one for following grammar rules. personally, i think a preposition is a fine thing to end a sentence with.


There is such a thing as beautiful writing, though. I am just re-reading some Conrad. He wrote really beautiful English (his third language). It is a joy to read.


----------



## ocotillo (Oct 17, 2011)

Blossom Leigh said:


> Yay! I can stop worrying about my sentences ending with prepositons!! How cool is that? :smthumbup:


Actually, when a preposition is functioning as an adverb, it is perfectly acceptable as a sentence ending in English.


----------



## Blossom Leigh (Mar 27, 2014)

ocotillo said:


> Actually, when a preposition is functioning as an adverb, it is perfectly acceptable as a sentence ending in English.


And there ya have it :smthumbup:


----------



## As'laDain (Nov 27, 2011)

ocotillo said:


> Actually, when a preposition is functioning as an adverb, it is perfectly acceptable as a sentence ending in English.


i made that point to my english teachers in high school. it fell on deaf ears until i got into AP english. i remember asking my ninth grade english teacher for an example of a first person imperative in english. i told her i wanted to use the english equivalent of some words i knew in a different language. 

it took her a week before she realized it was a joke.


----------



## Fun_One (May 28, 2014)

You all killed a good thread. Cochise, what's the latest with you and your wife? 

Having been married for 21 years, one thing I have learned and no one else has provided: You can't force your wife to change. Step back and let her be her own person.


----------

