Polygamy justification?

[Babs]

Lol. You would still call yourself a Mormon.

yes, I realize that. To me it looks like less than 10% truly change religions. But that's all a matter of semantics.

[Babs]

It also helped with the Lightening effects when God's voice "booms down from the heavens".

we did that a couple of weeks ago with the kids and Moses and the bush. scared the snot out of them.

[Jarid in Cedar]

we did that a couple of weeks ago with the kids and Moses and the bush. scared the snot out of them.

There is nothing better than scaring kids with the wrath of God. Keeps them in line.

[Babs]

There is nothing better than scaring kids with the wrath of God. Keeps them in line.

I figure from now on they'll keep a safe distance from brushpiles, too.

[SeattleUte]

I was going to leave SU's claims alone, but since you want to address them, I'll just put in some facts here. His gut feeling or intuition or whatever is completely off. According to the latest Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life study, 44% of religious adults do not belong to the faith of their childhood. You can read about it here. LAUte posted about this a month or two ago, but the thread didn't get a whole lot of attention. Anyway, SU's thought on this is totally off base.

Just wanted to let you know that you are not alone, Gidget. A good portion of the U.S. religious population has swapped faith.

"Do not belong to the faith of their childhood..." probably means they're atheists or agnostics in most cases. In any event, that statemet standing alone does not support your thesis. On the contrary.

In "The God Delusion" Richard Dawkins has some data (not anecdotes) supporting what I'm saying.

How could anyone deny that in most cases where there is religious conviction that conviction is an accident of birth?

[I.J. Reilly]

"Do not belong to the faith of their childhood..." probably means they're atheists or agnostics in most cases. In any event, that statemet standing alone does not support your thesis. On the contrary.

In "The God Delusion" Richard Dawkins has some data (not anecdotes) supporting what I'm saying.

Oh, goodness. You didn't read the link, did you? Please do that, and then if you think that your conclusion still stands then come back and let me know.

[SeattleUte]

Oh, goodness. You didn't read the link, did you? Please do that, and then if you think that your conclusion still stands then come back and let me know.

How could anyone deny that in most cases where there is religious conviction that conviction is an accident of birth?

Is there a religion that you feel or the data shows is more successful at turning people with conviction to its faith?

[I.J. Reilly]

How could anyone deny that in most cases where there is religious conviction that conviction is an accident of birth?

Is there a religion that you feel or the data shows is more successful at turning people with conviction to its faith?

I wasn't attacking your whole thesis. I was talking about this specific part:

I wonder what percentage of devotees to any particular religion were once devoted to another religion? Of the miniscule percentage that you could say yes about in respese to that question, I wonder how many converted not because they were following a spouse's faith? Subtract from the remainder any mentally unstable people and I wonder what percentage remains. Ultimately, devotion to a faith seems to be an accident of birth subject to only exceptional circumstances. I know I baptized a lot of people on my mission; they were all rootless in terms of religion. I always found the active Catholics or Evangelists or JV's to be inaccessible.

I don't have a problem with the thought that most people who are religious probably are by virture of birth but there is evidence to show that people move around within the sphere of religion. Christian to Buddhist is probably a bigger jump but one sect to another within Christianity is not as rare as you would suggest.

[Babs]

Christian to Buddhist is probably a bigger jump but one sect to another within Christianity is not as rare as you would suggest.

I think that's the confusion. He's not suggesting anything about intradenominational movement.

[SeattleUte]

I wasn't attacking your whole thesis. I was talking about this specific part:



I don't have a problem with the thought that most people who are religious probably are by virture of birth but there is evidence to show that people move around within the sphere of religion. Christian to Buddhist is probably a bigger jump but one sect to another within Christianity is not as rare as you would suggest.

Buddhism. That's really kind of funny. No disrespect to Buddhism, but did you kow that Sam Harris concluded his first tome on the virtues of atheism with a plug for Buddhism? Yes, I forgot about all those new agers on the coasts and in places like Santa Fe. Buddhism is popular in the blue states.

[Babs]

Buddhism. That's really kind of funny. No disrespect to Buddhism, but did you kow that Sam Harris concluded his first tome on the virtues of atheism with a plug for Buddhism? Yes, I forgot about all those new agers on the coasts and in places like Santa Fe. Buddhism is popular in the blue states.

I love Sam. He's so unintentionally funny. And so full of himself. Seems to be awfully common among secularists.

[SeattleUte]

I love Sam. He's so unintentionally funny. And so full of himself. Seems to be awfully common among secularists.

I'll have you know, ma'am, my humor is ALWAYS intended.

[SeattleUte]

Seattle... hope it's OK if I ask a personal question: How do you approach God?

Through family, service, great books and and music other art, nature, "argument among friends" (David Hume), physical exertion, and reflection. Don't hold me to that list. There may be other ways.

[Babs]

I'll have you know, ma'am, my humor is ALWAYS intended.

I said funny. We all know how hard you try on the humor front. It's the accidental comedy that gets me every time.

[Jarid in Cedar]

Well all that and he is an asshole.

Well, so are we.

It's a prerequisite for posting.