Interesting Correlation

[Andy T.]

Wrong! Andy, time for your chill pill, and quit with the strawmen. Go ahead and attack your own suppositions.

If I were to make a guess, here is the conclusion I would draw. The southern states are largely at the bottom rankings of education and education funding, as well as economic opportunity. The place that religion would come into play, IMO, is that many Baptists lean toward things like abstinence only education and virginity pledges, which have been shown in recent studies to not be effective. I heard on the radio that kids who take a purity pledge end up sexually active as much as their peers who do not.

Those are my thoughts, I could be wrong. But your biased and sad view of your fellow Baptists is quite offensive. Do not project them onto me or others.

You mock my "strawman" but then you basically repeat what I thought you would say - that those silly abstinence-only programs and purity pledges are worthless at best and counterproductive at worst. So I guess my strawman wasn't too off base after all.

And that is not my view of Baptists - that is yours, as expressed in many of your posts. In fact, I recall that at one point you were leaving this board because you were so disenchanted with us dumb Baptists and our unenlightened thinking. It made sense when you left, because it seems pointless for a practical atheist* to be posting on a Christian forum.

* By "practical atheist" I do not mean that you are an actual atheist who denies the existence of God, but that your worldview and beliefs are rooted in atheistic thinking.

 

[Andy T.]

I find your view of southerners pretty offensive. Can you back them with facts ?

No, he can't. He even admitted at one point that the maps in the OP are inconclusive to make any correlative statements. Yet, he confidently dismissed my speculation above and then trumpets his own biased, bigoted opinion with such support as, "I heard it on the radio..."

 

[Bro. Curtis]

:thumbs::thumbsup:

 

[billwald]

This Is How Evolution Works (?)

1. Since the invention of effective birth control the populations of the countries with the highest standard of living have decreased below replacement value.

2. People emigrate from countries with a low standard of living to countries with a high standard of living.

3. "The Bell Curve" and other sources indicate that "fundamentalist right wing" Protestants tend to have a lower IQ and are less represented in positions of power. (NOTE - Statistical analysis never applies to individuals and should not be insulting to anyone smart enough smart enough to argue religion on line. You do consider yourselves smarter than average, right?)

4. The above described sub set of the American population tends to forbid birth control in any form as demonstrated by this thread.

5. If animosity continues to grow between "real Bible-believing Christians" and the rest of the population and the Righteous separates (voluntairly (SP?) segregates) from the general population a new caste based on religion could develop.

6. This new caste would grow faster than the general population and would become a protected class under civil rights legislation.

7. The new caste would have a lower standard of living but would be better adapted to the environment as evidenced by its growing percentage of the population. People who don't understand evolution might claim that the caste with the lowest standard of living was "more (higher) evolved," particularly if it consumed a larger total of the natural resources.

 

[billwald]

Interesting that Utah is low on the abortion rate chart AND the teen age birth rate chart. <G>

 

[windcatcher]

Wrong! Andy, time for your chill pill, and quit with the strawmen. Go ahead and attack your own suppositions.

If I were to make a guess, here is the conclusion I would draw. The southern states are largely at the bottom rankings of education and education funding, as well as economic opportunity. The place that religion would come into play, IMO, is that many Baptists lean toward things like abstinence only education and virginity pledges, which have been shown in recent studies to not be effective. I heard on the radio that kids who take a purity pledge end up sexually active as much as their peers who do not.

Those are my thoughts, I could be wrong. But your biased and sad view of your fellow Baptists is quite offensive. Do not project them onto me or others.

Well I disagree with you and your conclusions. Nothing presented in these charts indicate econoomic conditions, usage or availablity of contraception, or the general attitude towards parenting and having babies. Unfortunately some, like you, draw conclusions which are unproven and biased regarding education, intelligence, and economics: You have no way of knowing from these charts, the influence of materialism, for example, on the number of children welcomed in a home. You may draw your own conclusions based upon standardized testing or number of people completing high school or going to college...... but these stats often present limited information: Our society has a lot of transient movement for various reasons: military, economics, schools, jobs, cost of living, climate sensitivities and preferences, etc.

It is foolish to draw conclusions related to groups of people living in one area when the data, itself, cannot adjust for the numbers of people moving in and out. Right here in the panhandle of Florida... which is more 'old south' than most other parts of Florida.... the native born are vastly out numbered by those born elsewhere.

And if I recall the map of teen births correctly, 'the south' was extended accross the whole lower half of the US, almost to the Ca. border.

The denomination map doesn't break down the denominations into their fractions. Here in this area, there are a lot of independant and/or fundamentalist churches: Because most, if not all of them, practice baptism...... they are counted as Baptist: But the most 'organized' Baptist in this area belong to the SBC. There are a number of black baptist churches, but not all of them affiliate with the SBC. So if your implying religious affiliation with moral codes and outcomes..... I think you need to reconsider your information and first make sure it is measuring what you think it is measuring before drawing your conclusions.

 

[Magnetic Poles]

You mock my "strawman" but then you basically repeat what I thought you would say - that those silly abstinence-only programs and purity pledges are worthless at best and counterproductive at worst. So I guess my strawman wasn't too off base after all.

And that is not my view of Baptists - that is yours, as expressed in many of your posts. In fact, I recall that at one point you were leaving this board because you were so disenchanted with us dumb Baptists and our unenlightened thinking. It made sense when you left, because it seems pointless for a practical atheist* to be posting on a Christian forum.

* By "practical atheist" I do not mean that you are an actual atheist who denies the existence of God, but that your worldview and beliefs are rooted in atheistic thinking.

Andy, you are so off base, but obviously you are in some type of attack mode, so if that makes you feel good, have at it. If you go back and reread my post when I went on hiatus, I never said I was leaving over any disenchantment with anyone one here. And I never called anyone dumb, so you are making up lies to slander me. That ruins any credibility you have and shows your inability to hold a dialog based on facts without resorting to lies and ad hominems. I have never ever said Baptists are dumb. Never. I am still one myself.

And the fact remains, purity pledges and abstinence only programs have been abject failures. They are not Baptist programs, but are supported by many Baptists I know.

So unless you can get off the personal attacks and discuss facts and opinions without getting so emotional, I shall let you take your leave.

 

[Magnetic Poles]

Well I disagree with you and your conclusions. Nothing presented in these charts indicate econoomic conditions, usage or availablity of contraception, or the general attitude towards parenting and having babies. Unfortunately some, like you, draw conclusions which are unproven and biased regarding education, intelligence, and economics: You have no way of knowing from these charts, the influence of materialism, for example, on the number of children welcomed in a home. You may draw your own conclusions based upon standardized testing or number of people completing high school or going to college...... but these stats often present limited information: Our society has a lot of transient movement for various reasons: military, economics, schools, jobs, cost of living, climate sensitivities and preferences, etc.

It is foolish to draw conclusions related to groups of people living in one area when the data, itself, cannot adjust for the numbers of people moving in and out. Right here in the panhandle of Florida... which is more 'old south' than most other parts of Florida.... the native born are vastly out numbered by those born elsewhere.

And if I recall the map of teen births correctly, 'the south' was extended accross the whole lower half of the US, almost to the Ca. border.

The denomination map doesn't break down the denominations into their fractions. Here in this area, there are a lot of independant and/or fundamentalist churches: Because most, if not all of them, practice baptism...... they are counted as Baptist: But the most 'organized' Baptist in this area belong to the SBC. There are a number of black baptist churches, but not all of them affiliate with the SBC. So if your implying religious affiliation with moral codes and outcomes..... I think you need to reconsider your information and first make sure it is measuring what you think it is measuring before drawing your conclusions.

Catcher, we are not far apart on this. I have said that I agree, limited data can lead to conclusions that may not be supported with more and more complete data. My observations are based on what these maps show, and what I have heard on the radio about the purity pledges and abstinence only programs.

You are also correct that this is a predominate religion map, not a breakdown. Therefore if say, Catholics constitute the largest group, that area would be put in their column, even if Methodists came in a close second. Still, you can glean some insight even with limited data. As you also are aware, statistics can be used and misused...however, we should not be so defensive as to deny things that we don't like either.

 

[Marcia]

And the fact remains, purity pledges and abstinence only programs have been abject failures.

Sadly, this is true. A recent study was published on this. I myself just personally thought these pledges would probably not work, partly due to the environment kids are in these days, and the lack of strong morals even in homes.

I still think it's good to teach abstinence and to encourage it, however. I am not big on the pledges.

 

[Andy T.]

Andy, you are so off base, but obviously you are in some type of attack mode, so if that makes you feel good, have at it. If you go back and reread my post when I went on hiatus, I never said I was leaving over any disenchantment with anyone one here. And I never called anyone dumb, so you are making up lies to slander me. That ruins any credibility you have and shows your inability to hold a dialog based on facts without resorting to lies and ad hominems. I have never ever said Baptists are dumb. Never. I am still one myself.

Refresh my memory then and post your hiatus post. I seemed to recall that you were disenchanted by Baptist thinking or something like that. And, no, you've never used the term "dumb Baptist", but your history of condescending posts that mock majority Baptist thinking from beliefs on creation, politics, sex, etc. make it clear what you think of conservative Baptist thinking - you think it is outdated and unenlightened - in a word, dumb.

And the fact remains, purity pledges and abstinence only programs have been abject failures. They are not Baptist programs, but are supported by many Baptists I know.

I'm not here to defend purity pledges, because I think they can be superficial if they do not deal with the heart, but every study I've seen is that they are only marginally successful, not abject failures. But again, I don't care what pledge a kid makes - if his heart ain't right, then it will have no effect. However, I think it is complete nonsense and patently ungodly and unbiblical to throw up our hands and concede the fact that teens will have sex, so we might as well supply them with condoms to make their sinful choices safer. Jesus had something to say about adults who lead children astray, and it wasn't pretty.

 

[Fox]

It's not a Baptist "thing" primarily it more of a Black and white issue.

 

[Magnetic Poles]

Refresh my memory then and post your hiatus post. I seemed to recall that you were disenchanted by Baptist thinking or something like that. And, no, you've never used the term "dumb Baptist", but your history of condescending posts that mock majority Baptist thinking from beliefs on creation, politics, sex, etc. make it clear what you think of conservative Baptist thinking - you think it is outdated and unenlightened - in a word, dumb.

With all those strawmen and false accusations I'd be careful about lighting a match. Those are your thoughts, certainly not mine. And nowhere is there a "Baptist" position on those things. I have a news flash for you...not all Baptists are fundamentalists nor Biblical literalists, despite what you may think about the matter. I have my views on these things, and they likely don't line up with yours, but that is each of our right...to use our minds and come to a conclusion. Baptists come in all political stripes, and a large number of opinions on matters of theology and science.

This wil conclude my discussion with you on the matter. If you wish you may PM me. Now back to your regularly scheduled topic.

 

[Andy T.]

With all those strawmen and false accusations I'd be careful about lighting a match. Those are your thoughts, certainly not mine. And nowhere is there a "Baptist" position on those things. I have a news flash for you...not all Baptists are fundamentalists nor Biblical literalists, despite what you may think about the matter. I have my views on these things, and they likely don't line up with yours, but that is each of our right...to use our minds and come to a conclusion. Baptists come in all political stripes, and a large number of opinions on matters of theology and science.

This wil conclude my discussion with you on the matter. If you wish you may PM me. Now back to your regularly scheduled topic.

Please note that I said "majority Baptist thinking." I realize there are all stripes of Baptists, but I think it is rather obvious that the majority of Baptists are conservative (not necessarily "fundamentalist" but conservative) in their thinking on these various topics, and that majority opinion is evidenced even here on this Board. And you have shown in your posting history to look down upon those conservative ideas as unenlightened and backwards. You have always seemed bold in your posts, so I'm not sure why you are shrinking back from this now.

I also find it interesting that you did not address the second paragraph in my last post.

 

[Magnetic Poles]

Please note that I said "majority Baptist thinking." I realize there are all stripes of Baptists, but I think it is rather obvious that the majority of Baptists are conservative (not necessarily "fundamentalist" but conservative) in their thinking on these various topics, and that majority opinion is evidenced even here on this Board. And you have shown in your posting history to look down upon those conservative ideas as unenlightened and backwards. You have always seemed bold in your posts, so I'm not sure why you are shrinking back from this now.

If I have given you the impression that I believe conservative ideas are "unenlightened" or "backwards", I have not succeeded in effectively conveying my intent. That is not my belief. I do believe some so-called conservative ideas are counter to the fundamentals of our nation and to building a better society for all of us. But it doesn't mean that I believe people who hold those views are any less than I.

I also find it interesting that you did not address the second paragraph in my last post.

Okay, if you are genuinely interested, here is my position: I believe abstinence as the best policy for young folks. So let's be clear about that. However, I also believe they deserve to have all the facts. Not every teen will make the best choice in regard to chastity. That being the case, do I withhold data that would at least give some modicum of protection from disease and pregnancy? Of course not. I don't believe disease and pregnancy are just punishment for such activity simply because you send a hormone-laden teen out without a full understanding of both the need for controlling one's natural urges, as well as how to best protect themself if they should slip. It isn't condoning, it is arming a person with all the facts.

You probably don't agree, but you asked, so there you go. :thumbs:

 

[Andy T.]

I don't believe disease and pregnancy are just punishment for such activity

This is atheistic, secular thinking that discounts or even contradicts what God has created as certain consequences of sexual activity outside of marriage. Essentially, you have said that God is not just.

 

[Magnetic Poles]

This is atheistic, secular thinking that discounts or even contradicts what God has created as certain consequences of sexual activity outside of marriage. Essentially, you have said that God is not just.

So in other words, "That hussy had the audacity to succumb to temptation. Let's make sure she gets pregnant and has AIDS. Serves her right, even if she could have prevented it" Truly a sad comment. So I guess God hates people who act on the libido he gave them, albeit in less than optimal circumstances, that he wants them to get AIDS, and children to have children? I believe God gave us a brain to use, but people need the facts. So you propose don't tell kids how to protect themselves. That is like sending a hungry man out with only a sandwich full of rat poison and telling him, don't eat it. Ignorance benefits no one. People need facts, and withholding them isn't fulfilling the "will of God".

Also, your constant cry of "atheist" is ridiculous. I disagree with you, but that doesn't make me an atheist.

 

[Magnetic Poles]

As you have derailed this thread, I suggest if you want to discuss pros and cons of education, you should start a new thread.

 

[Andy T.]

So in other words, "That hussy had the audacity to succumb to temptation. Let's make sure she gets pregnant and has AIDS. Serves her right, even if she could have prevented it" Truly a sad comment. So I guess God hates people who act on the libido he gave them, albeit in less than optimal circumstances, that he wants them to get AIDS, and children to have children?

Hates people? No. Hates sin? Yes. Has He decreed certain consequences for certain sins? Yes.

I hate to see bad things happen to anyone, but there are consequences for partaking in certain behaviors. I have a close friend who got pregnant while not married (in her early 20's). Although it was a tough situation and she will continue to face difficulties because of it, she is much better off now than if she would have just kept on having sex "safely" outside of marriage. Her Christian walk is now much more solid. Frankly, God has used her tough situation (caused by her own sin) to bring her closer to Him. Had she continued to make sinful choices in a "safer" way, she would be much, much worse off than she is now, even without a baby to care for.

I believe God gave us a brain to use, but people need the facts. So you propose don't tell kids how to protect themselves. That is like sending a hungry man out with only a sandwich full of rat poison and telling him, don't eat it.

What an awful analogy. If someone doesn't eat, they will eventually die. People can live just fine without sex. We are not animals with no self-control.

When you talk of "education" - if parents want to educate their children in these areas and encourage them to make their sinful choices more "safe," that is fine, but the school system or any other government agency should not be in that business at all.

Also, your constant cry of "atheist" is ridiculous. I disagree with you, but that doesn't make me an atheist.

Your thinking is atheistic in many respects. I realize you are not an actual atheist.

 

[targus]

I don't believe disease and pregnancy are just punishment for such activity simply because you send a hormone-laden teen out without a full understanding of both the need for controlling one's natural urges, as well as how to best protect themself if they should slip.

...as well as how to best protect themself if they should slip.

"Protecting" oneself in the situation which you describe requires forethought.

With forethought is it no longer a "slip" but a conscious decision.

Equipping our children to compound sin by the additional sin necessary to engage in the primary sin without worldly consequence may not be the best idea.

Leaves me wondering if abortion to avoid the "punishment" is also in your paradigm.

 

[Magnetic Poles]

Leaves me wondering if abortion to avoid the "punishment" is also in your paradigm.

It's a far cry from teaching a person how to prevent getting pregnant (or making one pregnant) and abortion. I would wager if more teens knew how their own bodies function and what measures are available, there would be far, far fewer abortions. This is where there is a major disconnect...don't tell 'em how to use contraceptives, but this is one thing that could save many abortions from ever being considered in the first place.