Welcome to the
Marriage Builders® Discussion Forum

This is a community where people come in search of marriage related support, answers, or encouragement. Also, information about the Marriage Builders principles can be found in the books available for sale in the Marriage Builders® Bookstore.
If you would like to join our discussion forum, please read the Announcement Forum for instructions, rules, & guidelines.
The members of this community are peers and not professionals. Professional coaching is available by clicking on the link titled Coaching Center at the top of this page.
We trust that you will find the Marriage Builders® Discussion Forum to be a helpful resource for you. We look forward to your participation.
Once you have reviewed all the FAQ, tech support and announcement information, if you still have problems that are not addressed, please e-mail the administrators at mbrestored@gmail.com
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 2 of 4 1 2 3 4
2long #1747145 09/15/06 12:29 AM
Joined: Sep 2004
Posts: 2,187
F
Member
Offline
Member
F
Joined: Sep 2004
Posts: 2,187
2Long...

If you and I become "state-mates", we'll have to meet in the middle for lunch some day..


Formerly G.G. and Jeb
Me: BS 50
She: xW 50
Jeb: Mini Schnauzer
Married: 29 yrs
Children: MM25, MM23
Plan B - 12/06/04
Divorced - 11/17/05
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 10,816
2
Member
Offline
Member
2
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 10,816
If you're going 2 be in the bay area, I tend 2 get up there once or 2wice a year on business anyway.

Fall AGU in December, for example. JL and graycloud will be there, 2. redhat lives thereabouts, and we've had other MBers come and go as well.

Week of the 11th, I think.

-ol' 2long

Joined: May 2002
Posts: 9,015
F
Member
Offline
Member
F
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 9,015
Quote
You know folks. There is a reason that Dr. Harley, and his son and daughter did NOT make this a Christian site. And what is going on now is exactly that reason.


This is getting really tedious.

JL


JL - here's a simple suggestion to make it less "tedious" for you. If you don't like reading posts from Christians, don't read them. You have the right and the ability to NOT read any thread or post you don't want to. Obviously, though, you do read and you do let it "bother" you so much that you feel compelled to try to stop discussions others are having because YOU have "judged" it "tedious" to you. But as WAT pointed out, it IS a public forum and you have the choice to read or not read as you see fit.

Perhaps others don't "see it your way?" Perhaps that's part of why Heartsore, Marshmellow, etc. posted that they didn't want me to leave (I assume stop all posting, not just on Heartsore's thread)? WAT, 2long, etc. felt perfectly "at home" posting "plain old" advice, but when Heartsore asked me to post to his "spirtitual side," the attacks began. It took no time at all for WAT and 2long to "go on the offensive," probably for much the same reason you are stating here, they found it "tedious" and out of kilter with their "judgment" of what should or should not be said. Please note that I said NOTHING about any advice or posts that either of them, or anyone else for that matter, made whether I agreed or disagreed with the advice they were "offering" to Heartsore.

It is again interesting that you pop in with such a comment when the subject matter is Christian beliefs and posting those beliefs. It's NOT "tedious" when others post in opposition to Christian advice or even when they call people "mentally ill" (as 2long did) or attack individuals for their beliefs (as long as those beliefs are Christian).

The double standard around here continues per the usual routine. Why don't you just hang out a sign that "Christians" are not welcome here if they dare to include their faith as part of "who they are," the advice they want to hear, and the advice they offer to other Christians?


"You know folks. There is a reason that Dr. Harley, and his son and daughter did NOT make this a Christian site."

That's right, JL. They made OPEN to all regardless of their beliefs. But of course that's just "tedious" too, for others to have to read things they don't want to read or that they disagree with.

Such is life JL. Perhaps a refresher course in "Disrespectful Judgments" might help you be less emotionally flustered that you view others as "tedious."

Or is it simply that you have all the answers to all the questions and problems that everyone is dealing with? IF that is the case, perhaps a refresher course in counseling is also needed.

I find the attacks on traditional Christian beliefs to be "tedious" too. Maybe that has something to do with "in the eye of the beholder."

Perhaps we should just start a "Tedious Bear" club to add to the pantheon of Care Bears.

Joined: Jun 2000
Posts: 8,069
R
Member
Offline
Member
R
Joined: Jun 2000
Posts: 8,069
Quote
JL - here's a simple suggestion to make it less "tedious" for you. If you don't like reading posts from Christians, don't read them. You have the right and the ability to NOT read any thread or post you don't want to. Obviously, though, you do read and you do let it "bother" you so much that you feel compelled to try to stop discussions others are having because YOU have "judged" it "tedious" to you. But as WAT pointed out, it IS a public forum and you have the choice to read or not read as you see fit.

Perhaps others don't "see it your way?" Perhaps that's part of why Heartsore, Marshmellow, etc. posted that they didn't want me to leave (I assume stop all posting, not just on Heartsore's thread)? WAT, 2long, etc. felt perfectly "at home" posting "plain old" advice, but when Heartsore asked me to post to his "spirtitual side," the attacks began. It took no time at all for WAT and 2long to "go on the offensive," probably for much the same reason you are stating here, they found it "tedious" and out of kilter with their "judgment" of what should or should not be said. Please note that I said NOTHING about any advice or posts that either of them, or anyone else for that matter, made whether I agreed or disagreed with the advice they were "offering" to Heartsore.

It is again interesting that you pop in with such a comment when the subject matter is Christian beliefs and posting those beliefs. It's NOT "tedious" when others post in opposition to Christian advice or even when they call people "mentally ill" (as 2long did) or attack individuals for their beliefs (as long as those beliefs are Christian).

The double standard around here continues per the usual routine. Why don't you just hang out a sign that "Christians" are not welcome here if they dare to include their faith as part of "who they are," the advice they want to hear, and the advice they offer to other Christians?


"You know folks. There is a reason that Dr. Harley, and his son and daughter did NOT make this a Christian site."

That's right, JL. They made OPEN to all regardless of their beliefs. But of course that's just "tedious" too, for others to have to read things they don't want to read or that they disagree with.

Such is life JL. Perhaps a refresher course in "Disrespectful Judgments" might help you be less emotionally flustered that you view others as "tedious."

Or is it simply that you have all the answers to all the questions and problems that everyone is dealing with? IF that is the case, perhaps a refresher course in counseling is also needed.

I find the attacks on traditional Christian beliefs to be "tedious" too. Maybe that has something to do with "in the eye of the beholder."

Perhaps we should just start a "Tedious Bear" club to add to the pantheon of Care Bears.

[b]Good grief. Christian or not, there certainly doesn't seem to be a shortage of disrespectful judgments on this thread. And a certain degree of pots calling kettles ....... well I think we all get the idea.

Joined: May 2002
Posts: 9,015
F
Member
Offline
Member
F
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 9,015
Quote
Good grief. Christian or not, there certainly doesn't seem to be a shortage of disrespectful judgments on this thread. And a certain degree of pots calling kettles ....... well I think we all get the idea.


Resilient - quite so. I've seen that for a long time.

I wonder how it is that you quoted my post, and not anyone else's "pot" for your responsive post? I suppose it was just convenient as the latest post, but I want you to know that I agree with your sentiment in general.

However, if you'll look, what you'll basically find is that I haven't posted other than in response to the "first salvo" from someone who wants to take a "pot shot" at Christian posting in general, or me personally.

I other words, I don't "go looking" for a fight, but I also won't "roll over" and hide from a "fight" that someone else starts. I guess one of the "casualties" of having gone through an affair and recovery is a reticence to slip back into former modes of "conflict avoidance" as a way to deal with "unpleasantness."

I left Heartsore's thread for just that reason, to avoid unnecessary conflict with others that was not helpful to his already "full plate" of affair related problems.

God bless.

Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 928
S
Member
Offline
Member
S
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 928
Quote
If God is NOT Supreme and LORD of all, who is?


This is a quote from FH on Heartsore's thread.

I believe this is an example of the root of this issue.

For Christians, often the world is black and white... and I interpret FH's words and arguments to show this type of thought.

This type of thinking is neither right nor wrong, IMO, it is just what it is.

A Christian may think that you believe in God or don't. You are going to heaven or ******. You are following God's commandments or not. You are good or not.

To ask a non-believer the question "If God is NOT Supreme and LORD of all, who is?"... this is implying that there must be a "who". Black or white. A Christians paradigm shows that something or someone must be the creator, in charge, the supreme being. As the Bible exists (or whatever rationale is used), then this being must be God.

But a non-believer might ask... why do we need to believe in a supreme being? They might say, "I don't believe in a supreme being, yet do believe that the moral standards discussed in the Bible are relevant and important in life".

The arguments used with a non-believer would easily be taken as an insult. Eg. "you don't believe in God, therefore it is not possible for you to be a moral person... or you are beneath me... or you will go to ******." These are disrespectful judgements in their own right. I know that these are not the words said by a Christian, but I believe this is the meaning received by many non-Christians.

On the other hand, many Christians feel it is their responsibility to evangelize and spread "truth" (or their truth). A Christian allowing someone to remain a non-Christian may be seen as a failure to the Christian... they have left them to die an eternity in he!!. Arguing with a Christian their right to share their beliefs can be seen as disresptful to them... it is an important part of who they are and their life mission.

Maybe I haven't read enough of this argument and am way off base. But I see this argument as being impossible to come to terms with. It has gone on for centuries and will continue.

I am a Christian, but I don't necessarily operate in the same fashion. Similar to the idea that I cannot change my W in her behavior, I can not change someones beliefs by telling them. I need to show it and be prepared if the person is receptive. As this is a forum, it is impossible to show it... except maybe by not offering disrespectful judgements.

FH... I respect the fact that you have chosen a belief and taken a stand. I respect that you see it your responsibility to teach and stand up for God.

WAT and others... I respect that a Christian believes that God has given free-will, or as a non-believer would believe... if there is no God, then the free will was already there. I respect your will to your beliefs and your readiness to stand up for inherent goodness is admirable. I would agree with you... that morality and goodness is not necessarily a religious thing. As a God-believer, I think that He sees the importance of morality and goodness and teaches us... commands us to live this way. This is not necessarily living God's way... it is God telling us to live in a way that is inherently good. Being a Christian is not primarily about living good... it is about a relationship with God and being forgivin by God.

I have seen a lot of immoral "Christians". My W's A happened at Church and the fallout at the Church has been interesting and disappointing.

But being a Christian does not make you above immoral behaviour... it hopefully just keeps you trying.

I do realize that the main point here from FH is that the discussion was with another Christian and therefore open to express Christian beliefs.
I also recognize that it is WAT's and others right to express their beliefs if they feel a Christian belief is disresptful of a non-Christian.

An interesting debate.

This was a lot of random thoughts... hopefully some of it makes sense and is relevant.

Shaden

Last edited by Shaden; 09/15/06 10:29 AM.

BH (Me) - 38
WW - 36
Married - 16 years
2 children - 10,12
DD1 - 05/30/05 - EA suspected, W wanted space
DD2 - 07/01/05 - EA/PA discovered & confronted WW
DD3 - 07/21/05 - Further contact discovered and now ended.
11/07/05 - exposed to OMW...
07/01/07 - separated to give "space". recovery was not progressing.
09/04/07 - DDAY all over... new OM.

Patience with God is Faith.
Patience with myself is Hope.
Patience with others is Love.
FAITH REQUIRES ACTION!
Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 2,033
K
Member
Offline
Member
K
Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 2,033
""I find the attacks on traditional Christian beliefs to be "tedious" too.""

I do not think the attacks are aimed at the "TRADITIONAL" Christian beliefs, unless you are defining "TRADITIONAL" as "FUNDAMENTALIST" Christian beliefs.

The extreme black/white, holier than thou, preaching down to us backsliders, literalist Christian believers are the ones that raise the hackles on my neck.

IMHO


CORDUROY PILLOWS ARE MAKING HEADLINES!!
Joined: Sep 2004
Posts: 2,187
F
Member
Offline
Member
F
Joined: Sep 2004
Posts: 2,187
Wow...I wonder if this is what Lady Clueless had in mind with her original post?


Formerly G.G. and Jeb
Me: BS 50
She: xW 50
Jeb: Mini Schnauzer
Married: 29 yrs
Children: MM25, MM23
Plan B - 12/06/04
Divorced - 11/17/05
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 1,300
C
Member
Offline
Member
C
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 1,300
It is difficult at best to try to have a rational/non-emotional discussion with zealots. . . that is why I try not to do it.

To me, and to Merriam-Webster too, a zealot is a fanatical partisan. These folks become so convinced that what they have convinced themselves to believe is TRUTH, that they seem to have difficulty understanding that other people can equally convince themselves that what they believe is TRUTH.

I bet a devout Morman believes he knows the TRUTH. As does a devout follower of Islam, Judism, Zoroaster: ask a Hindu or a Jain or a . . . devout Atheist . . . ask them if they think they know the TRUTH. Each of these fellows will be convinced, they will say they know without a doubt, that their religion/world view is TRUTH and the rest are wrong . . . or worse. They can all cite texts that agree with their world view. They can’t all be right, but they are all equally convinced that they are right . . . so whom do you believe?

I think your flavor of your religious beliefs are mainly a product of where you are born. If one is born in India, chances are he will be a Hindu; if he as the psychological make up that leads one to to gravitate to a spiritual existence, he will probably be devout. If the same person was born in Pakistan, chances are he would be a Muslim, and a devout one at that. It he were to born in the USA, he would probably be a Christian, and devout.

The force of one’s beliefs seldom sways me in an argument; no matter how much I believe that the sun revolves around the earth, it doesn’t change the fact that, well, it doesn’t.

I guess my point, if I have one, is that religious and non-religious partisans are very difficult to talk to if they cannot put down their swords . . . at least once in while.

Last edited by Comfortably Numb; 09/15/06 12:54 PM.

What we think or what we know or what we believe is, in the end, of little consequence. The only consequence is what we do. ~ John Ruskin
Joined: Jun 2000
Posts: 8,069
R
Member
Offline
Member
R
Joined: Jun 2000
Posts: 8,069
Typically, religious based discussions on this board will escalate resulting in the moderators shutting it down.

Its no wonder the world has so much unrest in it when you can even see similar on an e-board. Just sad.

Jo

Joined: May 2002
Posts: 9,015
F
Member
Offline
Member
F
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 9,015
Quote
I do not think the attacks are aimed at the "TRADITIONAL" Christian beliefs, unless you are defining "TRADITIONAL" as "FUNDAMENTALIST" Christian beliefs.


krusht - Interesting comment. But it begs a definition of terms. Since I can't read your mind to know exactly what you meant, could you define those two terms "Traditional" and "Fundamental" as you see them?

Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 10,107
B
Member
Offline
Member
B
Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 10,107
Fleas arguing over who owns the dog.

Such discussions POLLUTE these boards IMO.

Such joyless monomania can't possibly be marrigebuilding.
IMO

A plague on both your houses.


MB Alumni
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 10,060
W
Member
Offline
Member
W
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 10,060
FH - I have neither the desire, time, nor need to refute all of your incorrect assertions about me. In fact, I encourage you to make as many as you like.

But I do need to correct one point because it's bound to come up again and anyone else reading this can thusly recognize it when it occurs.

I have never said and it's ludicrous for anyone to say, that my moral standards are better than any one else's or better than yours.

What I HAVE said is that my morals or no worse than those who claim a higher "authority" - no matter the source. I say this frequently when you state unequivocally or infer - you have done both - that mine or others are lesser because we haven't chosen your authority as our own. That's bigotry.

This is what I'll continue to point out. Is that clear to you? Do you understand the distinction? If I slip and ever DO claim my morals are better than yours or any one else's, please point this out.

WAT

Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 11,539
F
Member
Offline
Member
F
Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 11,539
I believe JL, and I was agreeing with him, was saying these ongoing arguments are tedious. Nothing more or less implied, FH. I am a Christian as well but I get tired of the arguments on the board about what should and should not be said. Ignore is a wonderful feature, so is just skipping certain posts. This is not an insult FH as I have told you before, you have helped me a great deal here on MB. So has WAT, JL and others.


Faith

me: FWW/BS 52 H: FWH/BS 49
DS 30
DD 21
DS 15
OCDS 8
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 9,015
F
Member
Offline
Member
F
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 9,015
Shaden, good post!

The quote you cited was a question I had specifically for WAT. He has not answered as of this date.

If I may....


Quote
A Christian may think that you believe in God or don't. You are going to heaven or ******. You are following God's commandments or not. You are good or not.


This is not how I see it. Perhaps it is how some see things. Allow me to clarify.

"A Christian may think that you believe in God or don't."

Many people believe in many sorts of "gods." What I specifically refer to is the God of the Bible, Creator of all things, what is referred to as the Triune God.

" You are going to heaven or ******."

This is true in that I accept what God has said in His revealed Word concerning the fate of Man. God has provided the ONE "way out" of he11, and that is Jesus Christ. So I do believe this and know that many who don't believe in Jesus would either disagree or believe that He11 doesn't exist.

"You are following God's commandments or not."

This is true, but you don't have to be a Christian to follow God's commandments. Jews, for example, were trying to that long before Christians came on the scene. Others accept some portion of those commands as "making sense" to them (i.e., the Golden Rule sort of restatement).

" You are good or not. "

"Goodness," I would submit is "relative" to many things, not the least of which is the culture and/or society that one lives in. "Goodness" from a biblical perspective essentially means "Holy, sinless, living in humble submission to God at all times." No one, including Christians, "measures up" to God's standard of "goodness." Especially with respect to salvation. "All have sinned" (except for the Lord Jesus Christ Himself). That is the "point" from a Christian perspective. IF the standard to "gauge" Goodness is society, then society, not God determines what is good and what is bad. Cannibalism, for example, was considered "good" by some societies, but I'd bet that most "Western" societies would put that activity in the "bad" column.

So what happens is that according to societal standards some are on the totally depraved side, some are near "saints" in how they behave toward others, and most are at some gradient inbetween.

But the issue that I raise, and the purpose of my question to WAT was essentially, "if not God's standards, then what standards does one select that are applicable to all people worldwide?"


Quote
To ask a non-believer the question "If God is NOT Supreme and LORD of all, who is?"... this is implying that there must be a "who". Black or white. A Christians paradigm shows that something or someone must be the creator, in charge, the supreme being. As the Bible exists (or whatever rationale is used), then this being must be God.


Shaden, there is ALWAYS a "who." Someone IS "lord of their life" and in the context of the discussion with WAT, the context is the "Christian God, Sovereign Lord and Creator" or the Individual human being. Making "society" the "lord" is really just begging the question because society (unless it's a Theocracy dedicated to God) is made up of individuals who choose to "pool" their collective individual "lordships of their own lives" and establish a set of "rules," "morals," "good and bad" behaviors, etc. that they apply to their own group. But that does not mean they are even applicable to anyone else, unless imposed upon them by force.

A Christian DOES accept God as Sovereign Lord. As Sovereign, God, and God alone, has the RIGHT to establish universal standards of behavior, morals, or whatever term we want to use to describe His commands. That others might find such a position to be "offensive" to them is not surprising, because it removes the "right" of the individual to "choose for themselves" what they want to be "good or bad" behavior, morals, etc..


Quote
The arguments used with a non-believer would easily be taken as an insult. Eg. "you don't believe in God, therefore it is not possible for you to be a moral person... or you are beneath me... or you will go to ******." These are disrespectful judgements in their own right. I know that these are not the words said by a Christian, but I believe this is the meaning received by many non-Christians.


I understand how an unbeliever could intrepret things this way, but that's not what is actually being said. ANYONE can be a "moral person," if the standard used is their own definition of "moral and immoral." Moral or immoral is not the key issue. The key issue is "saved or unsaved." And that issue IS directly tied to the existence of God and the truth of who Jesus Christ is.

It is not only "possible" for an unbeliever to be a "moral person," by societal definition. They are not "perfect" and "sinless" at all times. That's the difference. NO Christian "makes it to heaven" by "being good." Nothing a Christian can do, or anyone else for that matter, can "Earn" them salavation from sin and life with God for eternity.

So there are, to use an example that is more relevant to MB, Christians who are in a biblically "unequally yoked" marriage because they chose to marry someone who is not a Christian. That unbelieving spouse CAN choose fidelity, love for their spouse, etc. and would be "good." But the command regarding marriage, by God, applies to the Christian in such a marriage, not to the unbelieving spouse.

It is also why God grants Christians the right to divorce if a believing spouse falls into the sin of adultery. Marriage is a very special case with God, as is the particular sin of adultery. "Good" is defined by God, not by courts who grant "no fault" divorces merely because marriage in societal standards is NOT seen as "a lifetime commitment to God and each other."


Quote
On the other hand, many Christians feel it is their responsibility to evangelize and spread "truth" (or their truth). A Christian allowing someone to remain a non-Christian may be seen as a failure to the Christian... they have left them to die an eternity in he!!. Arguing with a Christian their right to share their beliefs can be seen as disresptful to them... it is an important part of who they are and their life mission.


It is the Christians "responsibility" to be obedient to the Great Commission, commanded by God.

But the "problem" you allude to is that some "forget" that it is NOT the Christian who "saves" anyone. It is God, and God alone, who saves people. The reason is twofold. One, we are commanded to share the Good News with the entire world so that those who will respond to Christ will HEAR the Good News. Two, once the Good News has been "preached to all people," the Second Coming and the Judgment will occur. Suffice it to say that with the explosion of technology in the past 50 years or so, it's no longer "hypothetical" that everyone CAN, at some point, actually hear the Good News. What the individual does in receiving or rejecting that Good News is between God and the individual. Our job (meaning Christians) is to be obedient to God and "get the Word out" to all the corners of the world. It is not our job to convert anyone. But is IS our job, in the face of opposition that seeks to sway other's minds, or in the face of sincere questions about the Good News, to stand ready to explain WHY we believe what we believe.


Quote
FH... I respect the fact that you have chosen a belief and taken a stand. I respect that you see it your responsibility to teach and stand up for God.


Thank you. I appreciate your words, and I consider it an understanding that 2 Timothy 3:16-17 is the basis of a Christian's stance in the face of the "world."


Quote
Being a Christian is not primarily about living good... it is about a relationship with God and being forgivin by God.


This really is the KEY.


God bless.

Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 10,060
W
Member
Offline
Member
W
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 10,060
Well, it didn't take you long, FH.

Quote
A Christian DOES accept God as Sovereign Lord. As Sovereign, God, and God alone, has the RIGHT to establish universal standards of behavior, morals, or whatever term we want to use to describe His commands. That others might find such a position to be "offensive" to them is not surprising, because it removes the "right" of the individual to "choose for themselves" what they want to be "good or bad" behavior, morals, etc..

You are placing your morals above others'. Again.

The Terms of Service of this forum state, in part:
Quote
You agree, through your use of this service, that you will not use this BB to post any material which is knowingly false and/or defamatory, inaccurate, abusive, vulgar, hateful, harassing, obscene, profane, threatening, invasive of a person's privacy, or otherwise violative of any law.


I suspect you know this is defamatory, hateful, etc to me and others. If you don't know by now, consider this as notice.

Please stop.

WAT

Joined: May 2002
Posts: 9,015
F
Member
Offline
Member
F
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 9,015
Quote
Well, it didn't take you long, FH.


Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A Christian DOES accept God as Sovereign Lord. As Sovereign, God, and God alone, has the RIGHT to establish universal standards of behavior, morals, or whatever term we want to use to describe His commands. That others might find such a position to be "offensive" to them is not surprising, because it removes the "right" of the individual to "choose for themselves" what they want to be "good or bad" behavior, morals, etc..


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



You are placing your morals above others'. Again.


No I am not, WAT. I stated where my "chosen set of standards" comes from and why I think that they are the best for me, and perhaps should be considered by others also.

I asked you where yours come from and if they are applicable to others because of what "authority" might be behind them. That's NOT attacking you or anyone else. That's part of a discussion about WHY people choose the standards they choose and why they may, or may not, be applicable to others besides themselves.

YOU started this, WAT, not me.


Quote
The Terms of Service of this forum state, in part:

Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You agree, through your use of this service, that you will not use this BB to post any material which is knowingly false and/or defamatory, inaccurate, abusive, vulgar, hateful, harassing, obscene, profane, threatening, invasive of a person's privacy, or otherwise violative of any law.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



I suspect you know this is defamatory, hateful, etc to me and others. If you don't know by now, consider this as notice.


Okay, and consider your defamation of my beliefs, Christian beliefs in general, to be equally "defamatory, hateful, etc to me and others" who might also consider themselves Christians who believe in Jesus as their Lord and Savior. Do you somehow think you have a "corner" on being "offended?" You start picking on me and my beliefs and then you resort to "threats" to get your point across? I expected better from you WAT.


Quote
Please stop.


'sho 'nuff.

Assuming you will likewise stop.

If you won't, then I will reserve the right to respond if I feel offended and I won't even run to the moderators for help.

Now, on a more serious note, if you think I'm violating some LAW, please feel free to point it out and I'll stop that immediately as my morals won't allow me to break the law (unless I'm driving a car and late for an appointment). Yes, even I am "not good" all the time.

Joined: Sep 2004
Posts: 2,187
F
Member
Offline
Member
F
Joined: Sep 2004
Posts: 2,187
Do you ever get that feeling that you've been some place before?? Like you've had this experience already??

And you think..."maybe it'll turn out different this time"..


Formerly G.G. and Jeb
Me: BS 50
She: xW 50
Jeb: Mini Schnauzer
Married: 29 yrs
Children: MM25, MM23
Plan B - 12/06/04
Divorced - 11/17/05
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 345
N
Member
Offline
Member
N
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 345
Quote
I asked you where yours come from and if they are applicable to others because of what "authority" might be behind them.

I believe that WAT and others have said repeatedly that no external authority is required. That is the whole point of an internal moral code - it is, by definition, INTERNAL, and not dependent on any supreme being. WAT has stated his position on numerous occasions, yet ForeverHers keeps asking the same already answered question, at great length.

Joined: May 2002
Posts: 9,015
F
Member
Offline
Member
F
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 9,015
Quote
I believe that WAT and others have said repeatedly that no external authority is required. That is the whole point of an internal moral code - it is, by definition, INTERNAL, and not dependent on any supreme being. WAT has stated his position on numerous occasions, yet ForeverHers keeps asking the same already answered question, at great length.


Nellie, of course he has said that before. So have I, in the sense that ALL humans have the capacity to know "right and wrong" as result of the "Fall," the eating of the fruit from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. But that also is based on the predicate of us being created beings by God, who established what "Good and Evil" are.

To simply say that people have an "internal" moral code, while simultaneously denying God or believing that people "evolved" from some lifeform that does not have a "moral code," begs the question of WHERE did such a code come from, imho.

In addition, if it is "internal" and subjective to each individual, what makes any individual's "internal moral code" applicable to anyone else but themself? If each individual is "free" to make anything their chosen set of "moral code," or definition of right and wrong, what is "right" for one person may well be "wrong" for another. So what is the "standard" that defines "right and wrong" for moral behavior? How is "moral" defined? Who, or what, "sets the rules" for comparison that "in effect" judges someone's chosen belief in what is "moral" and "right" for them?

Society has adopted some "moral rules" of right and wrong behavior, but they are obviously not "universal" to other societies (they can also choose their own) and they change even within a given society by "societal whim, decree, or changes in what they want to define as 'moral' or 'right and wrong'."

Simply stating that the "moral code" is INTERNAL to each individual, no matter how often it is stated, does NOT answer the fundamental question of how it originated and why it should apply to anyone other than the individual.

An example, if I may. Is it always immoral to murder someone? Is it always immoral to commit adultery? Is it always immoral to have more than one spouse at the same time?

Who, or what, determines the answer to that "moral dilemna" so that the answer does not change regardless of individual desires, wants, or societal changes that might be "contrary" to one's own chosen set of morals? Or ARE morals, determined by each individual according to whatever mysterious "internal code" they might possess, RELATIVE and not "authoritative" or "unchanging?"

By the same token (your quoted argument), I have repeatedly stated that MY moral code comes from God. The Scripture states clearly that it is God who has established what is "Right and Wrong," not Mankind. I acknowledge that such a belief comes from being a Christian and I acknowledge that others reject Christianity.

If they reject Christianity, the question is then "where does their authority come from to be able to 'impose' their set of morals on others so that they should obey the same set of moral standards?" Any INDIVIDUAL can choose to behave in ways that our society may deem to be "moral" and "good," and frankly it would be highly desirable if ALL people chose to behave in such manner. I DO NOT deny that some people have chosen to live in such a manner while at the same time rejecting God, Jesus Christ, or any "supreme authority." Strictly from our societal standpoint, their "good behavior" is good and beneficial to others. But it IS "their choice" and not something they MUST adopt because "someone else said so."

That's not much different from the "debates" we have had about the origin of the universe, the origin of life, and the "evolution" of mankind from some slimy single celled organism NOT "created by God in the image of God." WHERE did we come from is the same as WHERE did your (or your given society's) definition of moral behavior and 'right and wrong' come from?

People will point to things like the 10 Commandments and the Golden Rule as the "where." But where did they come from? Most will say from some man who "made them up," rather than from a Sovereign God. So take the "Golden Rule" for example. "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." A "good" rule, or at least I think so. But while the desire to "protect oneself from others" by getting them to accept your (the Golden Rule) "moral code" would seem to be desirable, it is SUBJECTIVE to each individual. There is no "authority" to the rule other than personal choice. Therefore any individual is "free" to accept or reject it according to their own personal desires. If it doesn't "fit" their chosen lifestyle, they can reject it and no one should be able to tell them that "they are wrong." That IS what is behind a WS, for example, "justifying and rationalizing" choosing a set of moral behavior that is contrary to fidelity to a monogamous marriage. When the STANDARDS are subjective, there is no "standard" by which to compare them, judge them, or call one set of Standards "Right" and another set of Standards "Wrong."

So you see, that is what seems to "chafe" on some others because I "argue" for a set of moral behavior that devolves upon us from a Sovereign God who has the right, within Himself, to determine what He considers "Right and Wrong" and the right by virtue of being Sovereign, to IMPOSE His set of "right and wrong" on Mankind. But the "cry" that is also repeatedly stated is that "no one should judge another." IF morals are "relative" and not "authoritatively established," then that "cry" would be appropriate. But if ANY set of morals is "applicable to others outside of self," then "judging" behavior becomes normative and the "cry" is merely a way to attempt to justify a set of behaviors and/or beliefs that are "wrong" when compared to the chosen set "imposed" on everyone else.

It's "okay" for them to tell me I am wrong, or that I am "mentally ill" as one did just recently, and so state that I am wrong repeatedly, publicly, and vociferously AND that their statements should not be "offensive" to me, or to anyone else who might also believe as I do in a Sovereign Lord and Creator. But it's NOT "okay" for me to defend my beliefs or give arguments as to why my beliefs might have applicability to others as well. Hence the continuing "double standard." Are they "judging?" Are they attempting to impose THEIR "moral choices" and their definition of "Right and Wrong" on me? What do you think?

Whence does my "knowledge" come from? It comes from the inspired and inerrant Word of God and the indwelling Holy Spirit who is my "Counselor" of "right and wrong" according to God. I freely state where it comes from. And I hope that even those who do not "believe as I do" would also accept AT LEAST the universality of God's "moral code" as being applicable to all of mankind because following them results in "good" instead of "bad" behavior, and interactions between people.

Now, if that is "offensive" to some, I am sorry, but I can't control their "feelings." There are other "religions" of the world that also propose "moral behavioral codes," but they basically leave it up to each individual to choose or not choose to embrace them for themself. However, at the "root" of even those codes is a "religious belief."

Surprisingly, or perhaps not so surprisingly, it is usually the "Christian" religion that gets hammered (at least until recently when Islam has come under 'attack' by Western civilization for "exporting" their chosen "code" and the differences in their "moral code" from what "non-Muslims" accept as "right and wrong"). Why? We are back to the "universality" question and what gives the, or an, "Authority" to one set of moral code over another? For the "Islamo-fascists," and also in the Koran, the "moral code" they adopt is quite simple and clear to them...convert to Islam or die.

"We hold THESE TRUTHS to be self evident, that ALL people are created equal and endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable (unchanging, not subject to societal change or individual whim) rights, among which are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."

What sets the United States apart from other countries? Our Declaration of Independence, our Constitution, etc. But it is CLEAR that the "founding fathers" based their "code," "beliefs," etc. on the CREATOR and not the recent invention of evolution. They established laws, etc., BASED upon the Word of God, not personal fiat and choice (and the clashing of such 'personal choices' is largely to blame for slavery and the Civil War, for example).

It is equally clear that as America moves further and further away from God and the authority of Scripture, that society "reinvents" the moral code to allow for their own "personal choice and desires." "Freedom of Choice" for the individual becomes the "yardstick," and imho, anarchy is not behind, regardless of whether or not SOME people choose to "behave morally" that may be "old fashioned" and in apparent opposition to "today's definition" of acceptable behavior.

Here on MB there are a set of standards that are imposed upon all participants that is known as the TOS. That is what WAT attempted to use to impose his will upon me. That set of standards IS made by the owner of the system and applicable, whether we like them or not, to all as the "standard" the owner has chosen. The "judge" of whether or not those rules (MB moral code, if you will) are violated or if someone's behavior is "Right or Wrong" according to THAT code is the owner and/or his designated "overseers." But those "rules" exist and are applicable to everyone even if they don't "like them" or think they shouldn't apply to them. What WAT was attempting was the Pauline equivalent of "I appeal to Ceasar!" to be the judge, or at least to attempt to silence anyone who might NOT accept his chosen viewpoint.

So once again, WHAT is the "authority" upon which to build a "universal moral code" that would apply to everyone equally?

An "internal moral code" may be the way to justify one's choice, but it is NOT the answer since it is subjective to each individual.

Page 2 of 4 1 2 3 4

Moderated by  Fordude 

Link Copied to Clipboard
Forum Search
Who's Online Now
1 members (Overcomer4513), 140 guests, and 49 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Newest Members
Overcomer4513, caraduke, Convict20, GTNY, Avianna
71,737 Registered Users
Forum Statistics
Forums67
Topics133,550
Posts2,322,804
Members71,737
Most Online3,185
Jan 27th, 2020
Building Marriages That Last A Lifetime
Copyright © 1995-2020, Marriage Builders®. All Rights Reserved.  |  Web Development by SunStar Media.
Site Navigation
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5