I know I can Succeed with the Help of Jesus Christ

[Gandyy]

---

Members don't see this ad.

I only spend about an hour a day on SDN, if that. It just seems like I'm here a lot more because I type fast.

Do you type at 767 Words per second?

 

[Mad Jack]

Do you type at 767 Words per second?

130 wpm, roughly.

 

[ZedsDed]

130 wpm, roughly.

I'm the same way. I just vomit whatever's rattling around in my brain onto my keyboard.

 

[Mad Jack]

I'm the same way. I just vomit whatever's rattling around in my brain onto my keyboard.

Same. Gets me in trouble sometimes, because I don't edit and I just kind of speak my mind. Also makes me come off as exactly as crazy as I actually am, which leaves people doing double-takes in some threads.

 

[StudyLater]

How in the world do you study properly for med school, and spend this much time on SDN?

Lol was wondering the same thing. I assumed @MadJack was one of those guys that just ditches class and watches lectures on 2x speed to save a significant amount of time.

1- Oh god no, I'm not military material. I've got what one would call a serious problem with authority, precisely because the authority of another human being is in no way superior to my own, so I have trouble dealing with taking orders. Smart and driven people don't need a higher authority under which to operate, but the majority of people do. I really wish I could dig up the paper I read on this once- basically, it was a great social psychology paper that made the argument that most people do not want to lead, but rather defer to leadership to minimize the mental strain inherent in making decisions, because brains are lazy and they don't want to do a damn thing they don't have to (hence the very interesting memory issues people are starting to have care of the internet and modern technology- people are forgetting how to navigate because they defer to Google, forgetting how to spell due to reliance on autocorrect, etc). It's pretty safe to say that most everyone on this forum is smart and capable enough to not need to defer to an authority, hence why we're all looking to become the top of the food chain in health care (physicians). But we're the exception, not the rule.

Ah ****. Leave it to SDN to give me the outliers. You are in the top 10% of people, so I should have figured you'd be an exception.

I agree with all of this. I guess it's become more and more astounding to me over time, as I actually became a "thinking person," just how sheepish most people are. But then I look back at my old perspective, and it actually makes perfect sense -- why would they waste the time when they could just have someone else do the job? Sure, leading has its benefits, but mannnn personally I think the costs of taking on that responsibility far outweigh them. Nevertheless I like the idea of being a leader a little too much, plus the fact I'm half masochistic and don't care about the costs, so it works out ok for me.

2- We can't really do the West versus East debate. I suppose that one could argue that with strong enough social control/rules and a lack of individualism, you can create a culture in which working for the collective good is possible. But that's kind of incompatible with what many, if not most, Americans would find to be a satisfying way of life. I never said that doing good for others was impossible without religion, just that it was less likely, as most people are not motivated to do good for good's sake. There's actually a whole body of research that shows that the more likely one is to have received or believe they will need to receive charitable services in the future, the more likely they are to be charitable and the higher a percentage of income they give. People work for the common good because they believe it will ultimately or potentially benefit themselves, not out of some need to do good for good's sake, at least most of the time.

Who knows. Cultures can change. All it takes is proper socialization of the younger generations and you can have a totally different population of people coming up with totally different views (sounds like....well, us right now).

I also am actually of the same opinion as you on this point - humans help others for what can be traced back to selfish reasons. Even what seems like complete altruism with no strings attached (jumping in front of a bullet for someone and ending up dead) might be done for selfish reasons (i.e. wanting to be glorified/immortalized as a hero).

I tend to do good things for the hell of it, but that's because I enjoy the chaos inherent in random acts of kindness.

Same. But it's still selfish then. And also even for the person that does it for the sake of "doing good" probably does it to bolster their own sense of purpose etc. So we're agreed on this point.

I was mainly saying human beings don't always tend toward evil. But yeah they could tend toward good for evil reasons - sure. They're still doing good, however, which means one could describe them so (at least in that moment). This goes with the fact that your statements actually suggest "good" is a fabrication - an unreachable idea that human beings can only aspire to but never achieve. So if it's not real in the first place, and we still describe some people as "good," perhaps the definition we're using there, when describing others, is something different from what we think of as a universal, lasting goodness of the person. Maybe it's mainly just describing the act itself and its consequences. It could never fully describe the person, though, I think, unless that act of goodness is the only thing one has to describe the person (e.g. a single encounter with a stranger is all you have to describe that stranger; if he did something good in that moment, you could only describe him as good).

3- It's an oversimplification, but it's generally true, however often that self interest is manifest in other ways than directly, such as with the charitable giving example above. They might sacrifice for their family, or their community, or their friends, or even their country, but generally only if some abstract benefit is presented as coming to them from it. The Chinese, for instance, work together to build a better China because they believe their children and grandchildren will benefit from their efforts, and that they might even prosper in the process. That's not altruism or working for the common good for the sake of goodness itself.

Yeah. We're agreed. But if all human action operates on this principle, again, I think we are taking that into account when describing what is good. Say all humans do things for selfish reasons, and take that as a baseline -- then describe goodness on the basis of the acts performed by the individual. The reasons don't necessarily have to matter, provided the individual does more good than bad.

All this to say, goodness is a relative term, especially when we throw out the rigid religious morality.

4- No country has built a decent plan to explore the solar system, collectivist, individualist, atheist, or Christian. I don't see how you shot down my example. Every nation is pretty shortsighted, because human beings have trouble planning beyond a generation.

Oh sorry. I mainly just didn't understand your point there. So I guess we're all failures in this sense, then, regardless of our religion. 🙁

Not that it'll matter for most atheists (or myself, really), since they have the lowest fertility rate of any demographic. It's hard to bring children into the world when you think there's nothing but death awaiting them, on a little blue marble floating through space. And if they're lucky, we might even get off the blue marble so they can die in the endless void or beyond. The real fault of atheism is that, given a few generations, it's likely that they'll continue to be a minority because they just don't breed fast enough.

I think this is a very good point. But I don't know, Jack. I think you've got this idea all atheists are nihilists that don't give a **** about anything and have no concept of what is good and what is bad. Many of those I've met are actually quite principled. Conversely, I've met a sh*tton of Sunday worshippers that wouldn't have a problem stealing an old woman's purse while she's looking the other way. After all, God does offer forgiveness. You can easily game that system. Do terrible **** up until right before death, then ask God to forgive. You've essentially played his a*s for a sucker if he actually lets you into heaven at that point, which, according to the bible, is possible. Tax collector vs. the pharasie (or however you spell it).

 

[Mad Jack]

Lol was wondering the same thing. I assumed @MadJack was one of those guys that just ditches class and watches lectures on 2x speed to save a significant amount of time.



Ah ****. Leave it to SDN to give me the outliers. You are in the top 10% of people, so I should have figured you'd be an exception.

I agree with all of this. I guess it's become more and more astounding to me over time, as I actually became a "thinking person," just how sheepish most people are. But then I look back at my old perspective, and it actually makes perfect sense -- why would they waste the time when they could just have someone else do the job? Sure, leading has its benefits, but mannnn personally I think the costs of taking on that responsibility far outweigh them. Nevertheless I like the idea of being a leader a little too much, plus the fact I'm half masochistic and don't care about the costs, so it works out ok for me.



Who knows. Cultures can change. All it takes is proper socialization of the younger generations and you can have a totally different population of people coming up with totally different views (sounds like....well, us right now).

I also am actually of the same opinion as you on this point - humans help others for what can be traced back to selfish reasons. Even what seems like complete altruism with no strings attached (jumping in front of a bullet for someone and ending up dead) might be done for selfish reasons (i.e. wanting to be glorified/immortalized as a hero).



Same. But it's still selfish then. And also even for the person that does it for the sake of "doing good" probably does it to bolster their own sense of purpose etc. So we're agreed on this point.

I was mainly saying human beings don't always tend toward evil. But yeah they could tend toward good for evil reasons - sure. They're still doing good, however, which means one could describe them so (at least in that moment). This goes with the fact that your statements actually suggest "good" is a fabrication - an unreachable idea that human beings can only aspire to but never achieve. So if it's not real in the first place, and we still describe some people as "good," perhaps the definition we're using there, when describing others, is something different from what we think of as a universal, lasting goodness of the person. Maybe it's mainly just describing the act itself and its consequences. It could never fully describe the person, though, I think, unless that act of goodness is the only thing one has to describe the person (e.g. a single encounter with a stranger is all you have to describe that stranger; if he did something good in that moment, you could only describe him as good).



Yeah. We're agreed. But if all human action operates on this principle, again, I think we are taking that into account when describing what is good. Say all humans do things for selfish reasons, and take that as a baseline -- then describe goodness on the basis of the acts performed by the individual. The reasons don't necessarily have to matter, provided the individual does more good than bad.

All this to say, goodness is a relative term, especially when we throw out the rigid religious morality.



Oh sorry. I mainly just didn't understand your point there. So I guess we're all failures in this sense, then, regardless of our religion. 🙁



I think this is a very good point. But I don't know, Jack. I think you've got this idea all atheists are nihilists that don't give a **** about anything and have no concept of what is good and what is bad. Many of those I've met are actually quite principled. Conversely, I've met a sh*tton of Sunday worshippers that wouldn't have a problem stealing an old woman's purse while she's looking the other way. After all, God does offer forgiveness. You can easily game that system. Do terrible **** up until right before death, then ask God to forgive. You've essentially played his a*s for a sucker if he actually lets you into heaven at that point, which, according to the bible, is possible. Tax collector vs. the pharasie (or however you spell it).

And real-time lectures are for silly people that like to waste their ever-dwindling mortality as inefficiently as possible.

 

[fancymylotus]

And real-time lectures are for silly people that like to waste their ever-dwindling mortality as inefficiently as possible.

If only all of us mere mortals could be as smart as you!

 

[Gandyy]

And real-time lectures are for silly people that like to waste their ever-dwindling mortality as inefficiently as possible.

What is that from?

 

[Mad Jack]

If only all of us mere mortals could be as smart as you!

It's not about being as smart as me- I watch the same lectures, but professors talk sloooooooow in person. Most med students that have the option do recorded lectures at 2x because it's faster- I can do the lectures in half the time, or watch them twice as much. Either way, it's winning all around.

What is that from?

The original Robocop.

 

[fancymylotus]

It's not about being as smart as me- I watch the same lectures, but professors talk sloooooooow in person. Most med students that have the option do recorded lectures at 2x because it's faster- I can do the lectures in half the time, or watch them twice as much. Either way, it's winning all around.

The original Robocop.

Darn, my brilliance and sarcasm is getting totally lost. I went to school too, you know. Our lectures were similarly recorded and transcribed etc.

 

[Gandyy]

It's not about being as smart as me- I watch the same lectures, but professors talk sloooooooow in person. Most med students that have the option do recorded lectures at 2x because it's faster- I can do the lectures in half the time, or watch them twice as much. Either way, it's winning all around.

The original Robocop.

Its been so long since I've seen that movie.

 

[deleted407021]

The original Robocop.

An important distinction.

 

[Gandyy]

This is a very long shot, but did anyone watch the original double dragon on VHS back in 1996 or something. I was like in kindergarten or something back then.

 

[Mad Jack]

Darn, my brilliance and sarcasm is getting totally lost. I went to school too, you know. Our lectures were similarly recorded and transcribed etc.

I can never tell with you 😉 Might be joking, might be tearing me a new one. Text sucks like that.

 

[Mad Jack]

And in case anyone thinks we're veering off-topic: Robocop was a Christ allegory.

Probably my favorite one. I'd buy it for a dollar.

 

[StudyLater]

See this is why my UG sucks. I've only ever had one prof that does recorded lectures. I'm not sure why this is. Do pub UG's get paid on the basis of attendance or something? I'm actually pretty sure it's optional for profs to require attendance (I've had plenty that don't), so....

 

[deleted407021]

Cyborg Jesus is best Jesus.


What we really need is a merging of allegories. Cyborg lion boy wizard with a high midichlorian count.

 

[fancymylotus]

This is a very long shot, but did anyone watch the original double dragon on VHS back in 1996 or something. I was like in kindergarten or something back then.

Thank you for making me feel old.

 

[Neutropix]

...the bad weather here just woke me and saw I this, how is this thread still going and why are you people still awake?!

I hadn't replied to the thread in like 24 hours so yeah.

 

[Neutropix]

Doctrine is the interpretation of men. Why would you trust the words of man over the words you can read? Plus there's so many mistranslations, etc. I view very much of the Bible as an attempt to explain the universe and morality to a very primitive people, hence much of it being allegorical.

Of course, to any traditional conservatives, the only response such ideas would get would be

Whatever helps you sleep at night MJ.

 

[Mad Jack]

Whatever helps you sleep at night MJ.

With how bad my insomnia has been lately, that sentence was so unintentionally hilarious you almost owed me a new keyboard.

 

[Neutropix]

With how bad my insomnia has been lately, that sentence was so unintentionally hilarious you almost owed me a new keyboard.

Me too. I'll work out and study all day and then lay in bed staring at the ceiling for hours despite the fact that my body must be exhausted.

 

[MyNameWasUsed]

League is such a huge waste of time though.

Time aint wasted if its enjoyed

 

[fancymylotus]

Me too. I'll work out and study all day and then lay in bed staring at the ceiling for hours despite the fact that my body must be exhausted.

Story of my life, and I thankfully have nothing to study for anymore.

 

[Neutropix]

Story of my life, and I thankfully have nothing to study for anymore.

It's irritating. I think my testosterone levels are too high or something. I just feel like this ball of energy.

 

[StudyLater]

Thank you for making me feel old.

What?! I thought you were 23!

is what I say to get on womens' good sides.

(actually works most of the time if I keep a perfectly straight face)

With how bad my insomnia has been lately, that sentence was so unintentionally hilarious you almost owed me a new keyboard.

What do you think this is from? Recently had this issue during MCAT study. I think it was that (waiting for my eventual demise) combined with copious amounts of caffeine all throughout the day.

Story of my life, and I thankfully have nothing to study for anymore.

What? But....how do you have a purpose then?

 

[Mad Jack]

What do you think this is from? Recently had this issue during MCAT study. I think it was that (waiting for my eventual demise) combined with copious amounts of caffeine all throughout the day.

It's mostly stress and the past refusing to let my mind wind down. And anxiety. Come to think of it neuroanatomy kind of wrecked me mentally. But whatever, it's OOOOOOOOOOOOVEEEEEEEER as of noon today!!!!!!!!!!

 

[fancymylotus]

What?! I thought you were 23!

is what I say to get on womens' good sides.

(actually works most of the time if I keep a perfectly straight face)



What do you think this is from? Recently had this issue during MCAT study. I think it was that (waiting for my eventual demise) combined with copious amounts of caffeine all throughout the day.



What? But....how do you have a purpose then?

23 plus a few years. I'd like to think I don't look ancient though. And since my life felt like it was lacking in purpose, we went and rescued a huge fluffy doggie recently.

It's probably a combo of stress and caffeine that's making you feel that way FYI

 

[StudyLater]

23 plus a few years. I'd like to think I don't look ancient though.

Just gauge it this way: If you ever have a teenage son and his friends are constantly hitting on you (much to your son's dismay), then you're doing alright for yourself.

And since my life felt like it was lacking in purpose, we went and rescued a huge fluffy doggie recently.

You may be sorry when you realize just how much he/she will **** with abandon all over your nice carpet/imported rugs.

This is why I intend to have entirely hardwood floors going forward.

It's probably a combo of stress and caffeine that's making you feel that way FYI

Yeah. I stopped having coffee past 12 and that pretty much did the trick.

 

[Gandyy]

Thank you for making me feel old.

Well that makes me and you both.

 

[Crayola227]

Let's just stick with America, so the conversation doesn't get too unwieldy.8
1.) The constitution is entirely godless. Some people get confused when "natural law" is discussed. This has nothing to do with Christianity.
2.) Phrases that we hear thrown around like "In God We Trust" and "One Nation Under God" are not from the founding era.
3.) The Declaration of Independence does include references to a deity, though no references to the God of Abraham. Most of the founders, with George Washington being an exception, were deists; some were outright atheists. They believed that a creator was necessary to explain "the universe." This makes sense if you take into account that neither Darwin nor astro physics had come along yet. Don't confuse this with the founders being Christians.
4.) Many founders not only rejected Christianity, but were outright opposed to it. I'm not going to go cherry pick quotes, but the language of Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, Benjamin Franklin, and Thomas Paine is particularly vehement in this regard.
5.) In contrast, the founders do directly mention great works of the Enlightenment as a clear influence, such as Hobbes' Leviathan.
6.) Yes ancient Greece was a major influence on the founders. Since, as you said yourself, this predates Christianity, I'm not sure what your point is.

My point was that the history of Western Civilization is not the same as US History, I see now that you were confusing the two in your posts.

The history of Western Civilization goes back to Greek/Roman times, but with the rise of Christianity and the break up of the Roman Empire, most "pagan" influences and mores were supplanted or at best absorbed by a Judeo-Christian worldview. Then you have the Middle Ages. Then you have the Renaissance, or rebirth, of classical ideas. This was seen as paving the way for the Great Enlightenment later, the Age of Reason.

If you want to look only at the greatest influences on the US government alone, I would agree with you the Enlightenment was a greater influence than the Bible on the Founders.

However, focus on the Enlightenment and the Founders is still not sufficient study of US History and its influences. And as merely a chapter in the history of Western Civilization, my earlier point still stands.

As I said, if you want to understand Western Civilization and its mores and worldview, ignoring any of contributions of Greek, Roman, Christian history, is not going to cut it. Trying to suppress Classical knowledge and influence was one of the more embarassing mistakes Western (Christian-controlled) Civilization ever did (Middle Ages), so it would be highly ironic to pooh-pooh the Judeo-Christian influence on history and current civilization now in the Age of Enlightenment.

If tomorrow all the Muslims woke up and became atheists, we would still be forced to study the history of Islam to understand that society and its values and how those values came to be today.

The Catholics don't like to recognize how many of their practices resemble pagan ritual, but that doesn't mean it isn't so.

Atheists don't want to recognize the influences either.

 

[efle]

My point was that the history of Western Civilization is not the same as US History, I see now that you were confusing the two in your posts.

The history of Western Civilization goes back to Greek/Roman times, but with the rise of Christianity and the break up of the Roman Empire, most "pagan" influences and mores were supplanted or at best absorbed by a Judeo-Christian worldview. Then you have the Middle Ages. Then you have the Renaissance, or rebirth, of classical ideas. This was seen as paving the way for the Great Enlightenment later, the Age of Reason.

If you want to look only at the greatest influences on the US government alone, I would agree with you the Enlightenment was a greater influence than the Bible on the Founders.

However, focus on the Enlightenment and the Founders is still not sufficient study of US History and its influences. And as merely a chapter in the history of Western Civilization, my earlier point still stands.

As I said, if you want to understand Western Civilization and its mores and worldview, ignoring any of contributions of Greek, Roman, Christian history, is not going to cut it. Trying to suppress Classical knowledge and influence was one of the more embarassing mistakes Western (Christian-controlled) Civilization ever did (Middle Ages), so it would be highly ironic to pooh-pooh the Judeo-Christian influence on history and current civilization now in the Age of Enlightenment.

If tomorrow all the Muslims woke up and became atheists, we would still be forced to study the history of Islam to understand that society and its values and how those values came to be today.

The Catholics don't like to recognize how many of their practices resemble pagan ritual, but that doesn't mean it isn't so.

Atheists don't want to recognize the influences either.

Classics were studied in the middle ages...

Atheists are stereotypically known to recognize and contest religion at every turn, not ignore it

 

[Mad Jack]

Classics were studied in the middle ages...

Atheists are stereotypically known to recognize and contest religion at every turn, not ignore it

And that, right there, is why many are so damn annoying. They're as in-your-face with their nonreligion as many hardcore religious people are with their proselytizing.

 

[fancymylotus]

That's it, I'm turning atheist.

 

[ZedsDed]

My point was that the history of Western Civilization is not the same as US History, I see now that you were confusing the two in your posts.

The history of Western Civilization goes back to Greek/Roman times, but with the rise of Christianity and the break up of the Roman Empire, most "pagan" influences and mores were supplanted or at best absorbed by a Judeo-Christian worldview. Then you have the Middle Ages. Then you have the Renaissance, or rebirth, of classical ideas. This was seen as paving the way for the Great Enlightenment later, the Age of Reason.

If you want to look only at the greatest influences on the US government alone, I would agree with you the Enlightenment was a greater influence than the Bible on the Founders.

However, focus on the Enlightenment and the Founders is still not sufficient study of US History and its influences. And as merely a chapter in the history of Western Civilization, my earlier point still stands.

As I said, if you want to understand Western Civilization and its mores and worldview, ignoring any of contributions of Greek, Roman, Christian history, is not going to cut it. Trying to suppress Classical knowledge and influence was one of the more embarassing mistakes Western (Christian-controlled) Civilization ever did (Middle Ages), so it would be highly ironic to pooh-pooh the Judeo-Christian influence on history and current civilization now in the Age of Enlightenment.

If tomorrow all the Muslims woke up and became atheists, we would still be forced to study the history of Islam to understand that society and its values and how those values came to be today.

The Catholics don't like to recognize how many of their practices resemble pagan ritual, but that doesn't mean it isn't so.

Atheists don't want to recognize the influences either.

The original discussion was about where "fundamental Western principles" are derived from. I suppose Mad and I were a bit vague about defining "fundamental Western principles." That's probably where the confusion is coming from.

I'm not terribly interested in what influenced society in 1042 A.D. If we are in the middle of an abstract academic seminar, fine. But the "values" of, say, feudalism are really not relevant to today's society. Enlightenment values and the Classics dominate modern Western discourse to a much greater extent than anything from the Old or New Testament. A society where religion still has a much greater philosophical hold would be the Middle East.

 

[Mad Jack]

That's it, I'm turning atheist.

As good a choice as any, really.

 

[ZedsDed]

And that, right there, is why many are so damn annoying. They're as in-your-face with their nonreligion as many hardcore religious people are with their proselytizing.

I agree. And that's why IRL I only talk about it if asked. It's not worth being a friendless DBag who tells other people how to live their life.

 

[fancymylotus]

As good a choice as any, really.

Would never ever happen.

 

[StudyLater]

Would never ever happen.

Weird. I could have sworn your thing said physician before, but I just paid attention for the first time to it today and it says dentist. Did you recently change careers in the past 24hrs?? 😱

 

[ZedsDed]

Would never ever happen.

What if your partner was an atheist? I was never able to make my relationships work out when my other half held deep religious convictions. 🙁

 

[Mad Jack]

Weird. I could have sworn your thing said physician before, but I just paid attention for the first time to it today and it says dentist. Did you recently change careers in the past 24hrs?? 😱

She's always been a dentite.

 

[fancymylotus]

Weird. I could have sworn your thing said physician before, but I just paid attention for the first time to it today and it says dentist. Did you recently change careers in the past 24hrs?? 😱

Totes

 

[fancymylotus]

What if your partner was an atheist? I was never able to make my relationships work out when my other half held deep religious convictions. 🙁

My other half is Muslim. I'm Hindu. Cue lolz

 

[StudyLater]

@ZedsDed Or just don't mention it in the future....until you're married.

Then contribute to the 50% divorce figure.

 

[fancymylotus]

@ZedsDed Or just don't mention it in the future....until you're married.

Then contribute to the 50% figure.

Don't do this. Bad bad idea 🙂

 

[StudyLater]

Don't do this. Bad bad idea 🙂

I seriously don't think though that there are that many girls out there who are that religious that they just couldn't be with you exclusively on that basis. Especially college educated women that are taught to have open minds and to be accepting of others.

 

[ZedsDed]

@ZedsDed Or just don't mention it in the future....until you're married.

Then contribute to the 50% divorce figure.

Lol I assure you I'm never the first one to bring it up. My reaction to their religiosity is generally whatevs. "You do you bro."

 

[ZedsDed]

I seriously don't think though that there are that many girls out there who are that religious that they just couldn't be with you exclusively on that basis. Especially college educated women that are taught to have open minds and to be accepting of others.

It's natural when you are close to someone to ask what their beliefs are. I don't think you could dodge that question all the way till you put a ring on it.

 

[StudyLater]

Lol I assure you I'm never the first one to bring it up. My reaction to their religiosity is generally whatevs. "You do you bro."

My general response is "I'm not that religious," because why the headache of that conversation? It's just gonna be cliche.

"But if you don't believe in Jesus, then bluh bluh bleh."
"Well, you know, I actually think that people should bleh bleh blah and not have to follow a doctrine that bladdy blah bleh."

And so on and so forth. I get tired just thinking about it.

At the very least I don't think you should lead with this kind of a conversation. It's something I'd probably do after a few months, so they actually know you're just a regular, likeable person and won't judge you exclusively on the basis of your beliefs.

Though to be honest I've never met a girl yet that took significant issue with it.

 

[fancymylotus]

I seriously don't think though that there are that many girls out there who are that religious that they just couldn't be with you exclusively on that basis. Especially college educated women that are taught to have open minds and to be accepting of others.

Meh. I don't think I'm the most open accepting person on the planet but I am not overly religious and thus am more willing to compromise on specifics(I don't eat red meat but I don't mind if our children do as his country's cuisine is based almost exclusively off of it, etc)