Against polygamy
Nothing serious, just some stuff I thought of a while back. Tongue firmly in cheek, okay?
This is an argument against Mormon-style harem polygamy. I think I must have seen an ad for Big Love or something.
Consider the following stipulations:
Each male can take as many wives as he chooses. Women marry one man at most.
Each wife gives a possibility of nookie.
Nookie only takes place between man and wife (because anything else is an abomination, remember?)
There is risk of strife, but only between wives (because if a woman disagrees with the man, she is automatically wrong and will shut her cakehole.) This could irritate the man.
Simple mathematics shows that adding wives beyond one worsens the situation.
Consider:
Adding wives increases the chance of nookie in a linear manner:
Number of wives : ........... 0....1....2....3....4....5....6
Opportunities for nookie :.. 0....1....2....3....4....5....6
But adding wives increases the chance of strife at an increasing rate.
Number of wives : ........... 0....1....2....3....4.....5....6
Chance of strife :............. 0....0....1....3....6....10...15
This is because each additional wife can engage in strife with any one of the existing wives, but can only engage in nookie with the man.
Clearly, no sensible man would add wives beyond one, or maybe two (you know ... one for use, one for pleasure...).
Maths. Proving Mormons wrong yet again. :D
I'm thinking about sending this to the Journal of Chauvinist Pig Studies, so I'd appreciate your feedback.
IIRC Wang Lung noted this when he brought Lotus into his marriage with O-lan.
Classic rookie mistake.
If I disagree, I am automatically wrong.
Therefore I will shut my cakehole.
Is there nothing you can't mathematize?!!! (well played)
Adding wives increases the chance of nookie in a linear manner:
Number of wives : ........... 0....1....2....3....4....5....6
Opportunities for nookie :.. 0....1....2....3....4....5....6
I disagree. One wife knows she has no competition, and thus will only want nookie on her schedule. But if she is aware of wife #2's nookie offerings, she is more likely to increase her own offerings to compete (for approval, for more babies, etc.) Thus the opportunities for nookie are a gestalt proposition: two wives together will likely provide a greater chance of nookie than the sum of each individual wife alone.
It is important to note, however, the law of diminishing returns. The function wives(nookie) is likely a logarithmic scale approaching a limit of around one nookie per day. No point in adding wives beyond that ideal maximum.
I disagree. One wife knows she has no competition, and thus will only want nookie on her schedule. But if she is aware of wife #2's nookie offerings, she is more likely to increase her own offerings to compete (for approval, for more babies, etc.) Thus the opportunities for nookie are a gestalt proposition: two wives together will likely provide a greater chance of nookie than the sum of each individual wife alone.
It is important to note, however, the law of diminishing returns. The function wives(nookie) is likely a logarithmic scale approaching a limit of around one nookie per day. No point in adding wives beyond that ideal maximum.
Hence the fantasy of most men: a threesome with 2 girls.
Hence the fantasy of most men: a threesome with 2 girls.
Isn't that ironic? All
most women are fantasizing about is ONE good (in every sense) man. You say men are content with a hundred crappy women?
But Polygamous Nookie is provided on a serial, not parallel basis. There are no two-for-one specials.
I know this because I do watch Big Love, Sister Wives, and saw several documentaries on Mormon Cults on National Geographic channel yesterday.
From what I know/heard, the founder of the Mormon church was caught committing adultery on his wife, and then told her God came to him as an angel and told him it was legitimate to take multiple wives.
Because in a biological sense, marriage for homo sapiens is and always will be universal. Throughout the globe it has been one husband one wife. This solves the postpartum feeding problem, as the mother stays at home and has the father bound to her through marriage so he can go gather food for his offspring.
No knocking on the religion, but polygamy goes against human evolution/instinct.
It's true. Men never cheat on their wives because that would be unnatural...
It's true. Men never cheat on their wives because that would be unnatural...
:lol:
And all us chicks want to do is breed and feed and hope hubby doesn't run across a sheep or something so he'll come home and bring us food. ;)
I didn't mean cheat, but the union of marriage universally has always been 1:1 and evolved that way for humans because of the postpartum feeding problem.
Fresh are you discounting Japan and most of the Middle East in your calculations? Traditionally in Africa, men would have as many women as they could afford.
And even Europeans Kings routinely had known mistresses. Madame de Pompadour, Nell Gwynn.
Men throughout the ages have done whatever and whomever they have been able to get away with. And the more power you had the more you wanted to ensure the succession of your DNA. Houses and Kingdoms have fallen because Kings have been unable to produce offspring.
Because in a biological sense, marriage for homo sapiens is and always will be universal. Throughout the globe it has been one husband one wife. This solves the postpartum feeding problem, as the mother stays at home and has the father bound to her through marriage so he can go gather food for his offspring.
No knocking on the religion, but polygamy goes against human evolution/instinct.
Um. No. Your model is far too simplistic. It may be the "norm" currently but that's in large part a consequence of path dependence and not anything hard-wired.
It's a really complicated issue and I'm not qualified to really tear up your view. For that we would need an anthropologist.
But here is my only-mildly informed, quickly written view.
Polygamy (or monogamy or polyandry) is societal and not against anything inherent to humanness. It is an attempt at establishing paternity, just like monogamy.
Paternity became important when human societies shifted to be primarily agrarian. Wealth could be kept within the family at that point.
To this day there are tribal peoples where mating pairs are informal and children are community assets (i.e., every male has a vested interested in caring for all of them like they were their own). Desirable males will have many mates. They don't even have the concepts of polygamy and monogamy, and are just fine without it.
That said, polygamy can cause societal problems. I read a research summary claiming that some amount of terrorism from Middle Eastern countries is linked to polygamy. It creates an excess of young men without prospect of marriage.
Sister Wives makes me wanna puke.
I can't believe wolf watches it without some serious - uh, mood enhancers.
I didn't mean cheat, but the union of marriage universally has always been 1:1 and evolved that way for humans because of the postpartum feeding problem.
You need to define what you mean by "post-partum feeding problem."
The what?
You need to define what you mean by "post-partum feeding problem."
Yeah.
Maybe by "union of marriage" fresh means it in the very limited modern sense. Marriage between common people has only been an institution for about 2,000 years, and doing so with any formality is an even more recent invention. Even then, that's only sufficient in the Christian west.
That's a pretty small damn universe.
I assume that the post-partum feeding problem can be defined thus:
How does a group of humans ensure that all members are fed, including newborns, which can only ingest liquids?
This is pretty unsatisfactory to me. It doesn't seem to have any cultural implications (marriage and monogamy are most definitely cultural).
(I had a whole rant listing reasons why it's not a problem, but I'll hold onto that...)
You need to define what you mean by "post-partum feeding problem."
Who gets to eat the baby. If there's more than one wife, there will be competition over the devouring of the young.
Who gets to eat the afterbirth?
And how is it cooked?
Hugh Fearnley-Whittingstall recommends cooking with garlic.
Although I thought that was supposed to be avoided by breast feeding mothers?
Channel 4 rapped for serving placenta
Britain's Channel 4 has been severely reprimanded for a programme in which a woman's afterbirth was served up as paté.
The Broadcasting Standards Commission said the episode of TV Dinners, shown in February, breached a taboo and "would have been disagreeable to many".
The presenter, Hugh Fearnley-Whittingstall, devised the recipe with mother Rosie Clear for a party to celebrate the birth of her daughter Indi-Mo Krebbs. The placenta was fried with shallots and garlic, flambéed, puréed and served to 20 relatives and friends as a pate on focaccia bread.
Mrs Clear's husband Lee had 17 helpings but the other guests were less enthusiastic.
Labour MP Kevin McNamara was one of nine viewers who complained to the Independent Television Commission about the show. The ITC passed the comments on to the BSC, which upheld the complaints on the grounds of taste.
The commission accepted it was not illegal to cook or consume afterbirth - in fact it is considered highly nutritious and mothers in many countries are encouraged to eat their own. The programme makers had also sought to treat the subject sensitively and fairly, said the commission. But in its report the commission said the content of the show would have taken many viewers by surprise - despite a vague announcement before it was aired.
Mr McNamara, MP for Hull North, said the programme was "offensive to the public".
Channel 4 said the programme was not a conventional cookery show and was designed to challenge conventional wisdom.
I admit this is from 1998, but many people here still remember it.
It creates an excess of young men without prospect of marriage.
And young men with blue balls can be a terror!
Women want security to "breed and feed", and long ago they got this security by having children with the alpha male. But the alpha male was making babies with as many partners as he wanted to.
Oh, I see. Women want...
Thanks for tellin' me, I forgot what I wanted.
And to paraphrase Paula Cole: Where Have All the Alpha Males Gone? :lol:
I must be an anthropological oddity. ;)
What I was meaning to say was the origins concept of "marriage" or mutual agreement between a man and a woman and their offspring.
All forms of marriages came about because of the postpartum feeding problem. I took a cultural anthropology class; this is fact. And then culture took over and and variances/differences happened.
BUT marriage and everything related to it happened because of this: as the species homo sapiens produce offspring with very long childhoods and usually only one at a time, the human mother did not collect food/hunt while taking care of this offspring. The father takes the responsibility for being the food provider for his mate and offspring. We are not a mate-and-leave-your-offspring type of species, and because of that marriage has developed universally.
I took a cultural anthropology class; this is fact.
:facepalm:
See what you started, Zen, with your smarty-pants maths?
:lol2:
Laughing way too hard today. You peeps kills me!
I took a cultural anthropology class; this is fact.
transcript or it never happened.
:lol:
jeeze people, stop posting while I'm distracted by the kids. We have a postsnowfromthedrivepartum wiifeedingfrenzy problem
I took a cultural anthropology class; this is fact.
This is the funniest thing I've read in a week. Thanks.
the human mother did not collect food/hunt while taking care of this offspring.
What about women of the Aeta tribe in the Phillipines? They hunted with great success. And a woman that has newly given birth can hunt, she only needs an elder and/or a lactating woman to stay behind to care for the infant.
Also, what would prevent a woman from collecting food while caring for a child, no matter how freshly hatched?
We are not a mate-and-leave-your-offspring type of species, and because of that marriage has developed universally.
I don't see where you're getting that those marriages were 1:1.
Be careful with universalities. There's always a counter-example.
I'm having a post-Pardo feeding problem. I can only eat on Saturday night at 11:30.
The Cellar: We took a cultural anthropology class
Oh come on, you gotta include the punchline!
The Cellar: We took a cultural anthropology class, this is fact.
yeah, I thought I dropped something, I'm such a klutz
You can just sew it back on.
I was probably trying to hunt/gather and nurture at the same time. Always ends in tears.
Sew? Sew? Don't look at me! :bolt:
You can just sew it back on.
I'mm'a use double-sided sticky tape.
Teh Cellar: We don't sew, we velcro
but you sewed the velcro on.
What do you do if you lose a buttonhole?
but you sewed the velcro on.
[COLOR="White"](that was the joke)[/COLOR]
What do you do if you lose a buttonhole?
Poke another one. Any hole's a goal.
Once when Mark Twain was lecturing in Utah, a Mormon acquaintance argued with him on the subject of polygamy. After a long and rather heated debate, the Mormon finally said, “Can you find for me a single passage of Scripture which forbids polygamy?” “Certainly,” replied Twain. “‘No man can serve two masters.’”
THE male portion of my married friends says "Why would I want two of them? This one's more than I can handle!" She just flashes a knowing, sly smile. ;)
[COLOR=#000000][FONT=Times New Roman]
Romaji: Onna sannin yoreba kashimashii
Literally: If three women visit, noisy
Meaning: Wherever three women gather it is noisy
Notes: this is a sort of pun, since the kanji for kashimashii (noisy/boisterous) is made up of three small kanji for woman. Interestingly, the meaning of this kanji in compounds usually implies craftiness or wickedness. Eg: kanjin = villain/scoundrel; kampu = adultress.
yoreba is a conditional form of yoru = to visit/drop in
[/FONT][/COLOR]
My male married friend says "Why would I want two of them? One's more than my parts can handle!"
Okay your joke - I just precis'd.
But I identify with his partner.
I am a whole lotta woman.
Yeah, I don't 'spect a guy would have a whole lot o' energy for another waffle-headed wife, if'n he's got me.
I'm a potato wife: big & common & knobbly & spread wide.
Y'all might only want me once a week. With increasingly exotic toppings. But I'm a staple and men have died from wanting me.
Because in a biological sense, marriage for homo sapiens is and always will be universal. Throughout the globe it has been one husband one wife.
It may be fact that you took cultural anthropology, but it is absolutely not fact that mariage has always been 1:1. That isn't true now, let alone throughout history. Unless you beg the question by saying that anything that isn't 1:1 doesn't count for some reason.
Wow, this thread took some funny turns.
Clod, you made a very interesting point. Imma have to think about that.
Fresh ... WTF are you smokin??? And where was this course, the university of fundamentalist bs? No offence intended, but ... duuude... (or was this more tongue in cheek stuff?)
I'm a potato wife: big & common & knobbly & spread wide.
Y'all might only want me once a week. With increasingly exotic toppings. But I'm a staple and men have died from wanting me.
Do you know how brilliant you are? :)
Delicious!
I'm a potato wife: big & common & knobbly & spread wide.
Y'all might only want me once a week. With increasingly exotic toppings. But I'm a staple and men have died from wanting me.
You know what you don't find in the US? Baked potatoes covered in curry.
You know what you don't find in the US? Baked potatoes covered in curry.
I love both those things and it never occurred to me to mix them.
Do you know how brilliant you are? :)
Delicious!
Isn't she? No one paints a picture with words the way Sundae does. :)
My cockles? Consider them warmed.
What a lovely tribute to come back to!
Here is some strong evidence about human polygamy (technically polygyny) based on DNA analysis. It links to the original article if you want it all nerded up.
In a strictly monogamous population, one would expect to have an equal number of breeding females and males and, therefore, a breeding sex ratio of one female to one male. In a population where males tend to have more than one female mate, more females than males contribute to reproduction; for this reason the breeding ratio exceeds one. The authors of this study estimate that the breeding ratio varies between 1.1 and 1.4 according to population: 1.1 in Asia, 1.3 in Europe and 1.4 in Africa.
Modern man or Homo sapiens would, therefore, usually have been monogamous while exhibiting tendencies toward polygamy over the course of evolutionary history. These findings are consistent with studies in evolutionary psychology and anthropology that depict contemporary human populations.
ETA: I'm curious about many things - where in Africa (tribal or Muslim or Christian areas, eg) these samples were taken, and how long the time scale is, i.e. 1,000 years or 100,000.
I also wonder if this method properly allows for the possibility of serial harem-polygyny, i.e. each male gets to breed with all the females in the group for a year or two before being ousted by the next male. That could create the genetic appearance of breeding parity, while still preserving polygyny.
So I did some digging.
The original article is
here.
We really need Pie back to cope with this kind of maths, it is WAAAAAY beyond me.
BUT! There was a link to a criticial reply,
here.
They pointed out that the original paper had double-corrected for some factor and the true ratio is somewhat higher - where the original gives 1.1, 1.3 and 1.4, the correct figures should be 1.3, 2.2 and 2.6! Thus leading to the conclusion of:
a female effective population size roughly twice that of males.
i.e females were rougly twice as likely to breed as males.
I should declare that the original authors then reply
here with a bunch of stuff I cannot fathom, but they acknowledge and agree with the reply about double correcting. Either way, there is pretty good genetic evidence for widespread polygynous polygamy in human history.
Given that many societies and individuals
have been monogamous, the remainder must have been definitely polygamous to make the averages work out like this.
It still does not address the serial polygyny question, though.
It still does not address the serial polygyny question, though.
Is that like when you have multiple vaginas? :eek:
i.e females were rougly twice as likely to breed as males.
Before you get all pouty about how unfair it must have been, keep in mind that 1.) male babies are physiologically weaker than females, and the infant mortality disparity would be even higher prior to modern medicine, and 2.) boys oftentimes like to go off and kill each other in wars, leading to even better ratios for the ones smart enough to survive.
Life back then could have been like being a straight male flight attendant, for all we know.
.
Life back then could have been like being a straight male flight attendant, for all we know.
?
?
?
I'm missing some point of reference.
One guy surrounded by women, that's all.
Pouty about unfair?
:3some: :jagoff:
I'd be too busy [strike]beatin my baloney[/strike] making love to my beautiful harem.
:D
Life back then could have been like being a straight male flight attendant, for all we know.
You mean rushing around at everyone's beck and call and really having nowhere near as much fun as you'd hoped...?
I heard Jack Thompson interviewed once (by my favourite interviewer :D) and he was asked about his marriage to two women. His response was:
"You know how difficult it is to live with the woman that you're married to, well, double that."....oops...whose side am I on?
Excerpt from Andrew Denton's interview with Jack Thompson
http://www.abc.net.au/tv/enoughrope/transcripts/s1379785.htm
ANDREW DENTON: The Bohemian part of your life for which you are best known was in the seventies and into the eighties when you had a relationship with the sisters, Leona and Bunkie, which was a talking point for many years in Australia. How does that relationship work with two women?
JACK THOMPSON: It doesn't.
ANDREW DENTON: It did for 15 years.
JACK THOMPSON: But what happened in this relationship was what happens in a lot of relationships. Particularly when you are very young, you fall in love with someone and then you meet someone else and you kind of fall in love with them, too. How can you give all your love to someone and fall in love with someone else? My answer at the time was it's qualitative, not quantitative. My love isn't something you can get a bucketful of and that's it. It's a qualitative thing. You can love more than one person in your life. And what happens with most people is that they make the other relationship a secret and keep it hidden. When this relationship became apparent to the three of us, we all three sat there with tears and "how could you" and all of that over a period of an afternoon. We agreed that we would attempt to go on living the truth of this without ever lying about it for as long as it was tolerable.
ANDREW DENTON: Tell the truth: you must have walked away from that afternoon meeting of tears and just gone quietly somewhere, "Yeah!"
JACK THOMPSON: Well, that is the perceived truth, Andrew, but it's not necessarily. As I said to people later, you know how difficult it is to live with the woman you live with. Twice that. Twice as much joy maybe. But certainly the same amount of joy. Because it was always an individual, because it was always monogamous in that sense, because it was always one on one, it was always just that love for each other. I used to say, "Try coming home late and drunk. There is one at the front door and one at the back. So you don't get any room." They would gang up.
ANDREW DENTON: Of course. Let's put the boot on the other foot, though. If you had been in a relationship two guys to one woman, would you have been comfortable with that?
JACK THOMPSON: Yes.
ANDREW DENTON: Yes?
JACK THOMPSON: Yes, at that stage of my life, yes.
ANDREW DENTON: You are still with Leona after I think 15 years. Bunkie left.
JACK THOMPSON: Yes.
ANDREW DENTON: I can only imagine that was difficult for all three of you, her leaving?
JACK THOMPSON: It was. It was difficult but it was made less difficult because it was a relationship that over the last five years simply unravelled, so when the final parting came it wasn't as dramatic as it might have been.
You mean rushing around at everyone's beck and call and really having nowhere near as much fun as you'd hoped...?
Or other people thought you were having.
Interesting discussion.
I am half way through reading Under the Banner of Heaven.
If you are really interested in this subject and how the Mormon religion began this is the place to start. The subject of plural marriage is a dominant part of the book.
It will shock you how this started and in comparison to where Mormonism is today it is remarkable that they came this far.
As in all religions, plural marriage is actually on the fringe of mainstream Mormonism today. But the story on how they got to that point is a pure fairy tale.
I am interested, Merc, and I'll be looking for it second hand.
If your copy will be going begging after you finish it, I'd be more than happy to send you the postage..?
Completely understand if not though.
I am interested, Merc, and I'll be looking for it second hand.
If your copy will be going begging after you finish it, I'd be more than happy to send you the postage..?
Completely understand if not though.
I would be happy to post it to you if you would like. Drop me a PM with the info and I will send it to you no cost to you. It would be my pleasure.
I must say that given the modern fairy tale start that Mormonism has and I can look past their core beliefs, they are some of the nicest people I have met and do some really good work in their mission jobs in third world countries. It is just to bad that they have to sell the fable and you have to believe to be equally respected. But I find the majority of religions to be no different.
I'll PM you, Merc. Thanks for the generous offer.
I became interested in Mormonism thanks to an (intelligent and non-judgemental) article in one of our broadsheets.* It was a factual piece about Mormon suicides in Europe, and how young Americans - young men in this case - were sent to protelyse in Europe.
They had no experience outside of their own religion, being home-schooled or faith schooled.
They also came from the USA where the Christian faith is the norm and is revered, even being a political force.
Coming to England, where there is a state church, and the Queen is head of it, they were unable to deal with widespread and honest atheism, and/ or a reluntant attitude to organised religion.
The MAJORITY of Christians in this country do not complain about not being able to wear crosses (nurses and teachers for example, where health and safety is an issue), not being able to say "God bless" when working etc.
On the flip side there are public displays of religion paid for by the state.
And not only the state religion, in one part of the UK or another there pretty much every faith is represented.
So the poor teens/ early twenties sent over here are baffled. Succumb to some temptations. Question both the precepts of The Land of the Free and their own religious world view. And some of them think it's best to meet their maker while they still can with a clean sheet. Literally.
* the words and slant are all mine, and probably not unbiased
You can't say God Bless, there?
Most Christians I have met, here, view Mormons much differently than other Christians. Some of the more fundamentalist Christians view Mormonism as not even related to Christianity. (IME, of course.)
the few Mormons I have known were kind, honest type people.
In my experience most Christians, not just the fundamentalists, do not view Mormonism as related to Christianity in any way, shape, or form.
Which is interesting, since the formal name for the Mormon religion is "The Church Of Jesus Christ Of Latter Day Saints".
Do they have their own personal jesus?
Yup. And a ladder of de saints.
You can't say God Bless, there?
It's very rare outside of a church/ Christian group.
It's very rare outside of a church/ Christian group.
I don't hear it here either.
Strange. What about when people sneeze?
Gesunheit/Bless You are about equal here, but never God Bless
Strange. What about when people sneeze?
I say "Blow your nose, snot head!" :D
"Bless you" here.
Never Gesundheit; although many adults would recognise that from American TV/ films/ books it would be seen as pretentious. Like saying gasoline instead of petrol.
"Bless you" here.
Never Gesundheit; although many adults would recognise that from American TV/ films/ books it would be seen as pretentious. Like saying gasoline instead of petrol.
Was fairly common among my family/social group. Maybe I'm pretentious?
Must be regional then.
I have honestly only heard it once. And that guy was a pretentious prick.
So that might have coloured my view.
The only people I've known who say Gesundheit were deliberately choosing it as an atheist alternative to "bless you."
Now they've taken to ending phone calls with "Have a gesundheited day!"
Now they've taken to ending phone calls with "Have a gesundheited day!"
:D
Have a Noodly Day.
The only people I've known who say Gesundheit were deliberately choosing it as an atheist alternative to "bless you."
Yes, that's why I use it, but it was around plenty for me to see it as a reasonable option.
Someday when I'm in a way better mood, I'm going to use that (Noodly Day) on a student.
TIL gesundheit does not translate as "bless you".
TIL?
Thanks In L'advance?
It means good health doesn't it? I don't want to click on the link in case I find out I've been wrong all these years! :lol:
Gesund = healthy
+heit = suffix that makes an adjective a noun
Gesundheit = health
In my experience most Christians, not just the fundamentalists, do not view Mormonism as related to Christianity in any way, shape, or form.
Most Christians see Mormonism (and the Jehovah's Witnesses) as a cult.
I have seen some of that, but not across the board.
Most Christians see Mormonism (and the Jehovah's Witnesses) as a cult.
I was raised Catholic and I view Christianity as a radical branch (originally a cult) of Judaism.
So Mormonism is a cult off-shoot of a cult off-shoot of a cult off-shoot of a cult...
er no offense...
Does that make it multicultural?
There's culture in Utah?
I kid.
And we're back to the Mormons!!! Drift, my thread, drift!
And we're back to the Mormons!!! Drift, my thread, drift!
So I read all the way through this with my serious face on because it was terribly interesting... then I read your post and laughed so hard I choked on my own spit. I missed you ZenGum!
I was raised Catholic and I view Christianity as a radical branch (originally a cult) of Judaism.
No doubt I'm about to open a can of worms here and I'll be very glad (and so will everyone else) that my opportunities to post are currently so limited...
That's bizarre...seems like it all depends on what you were surrounded with as a kid. I was raised Anglican (Protestant)/went to a Lutheran high school and
the line peddled throughout my childhood/teenage years is that the Catholics are an antiquated branch of Protestantism (because really why shouldn't be able to speak directly to God and what kind of stupid idea is it that you can mitigate your sins by confessing and doing penance, particularly if you have no intention of reforming your behaviour) and as mentioned previously the Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses have absolutely nothing to do with any genuine form of Christianity. Catholics, Protestants and Jews are somewhat similar in that they all believe in the same God even if it is a slightly different form.
Last time I went to church was Christmas Eve, 1996 when I remember thinking "why am I here?" Having been forced to go to church every Sunday until I was 17 and attend "devotion" at high school every day except Tuesdays for 5 years, I figured I had enough exposure to make up my mind on the issue.
What it really comes down to though can be summed up by Joe Simpson-the mountaineer who when asked if he ever felt God when he was close to death on a mountain, he said "no" and that if he had, he wouldn't have had the motivation to get himself back to the basecamp.
I will now go off and hide behind a rock just in case.
So I read all the way through this with my serious face on because it was terribly interesting... then I read your post and laughed so hard I choked on my own spit. I missed you ZenGum!
Zen hasn't been anywhere, has he? It's Razz who's been away....???
Just read Razz's thread...ignore this comment.