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 3 of 4 1 2 3 4
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 5,906
A
Member
Offline
Member
A
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 5,906
these types of posts in my opinion are just doomed for failure...

what is the point exactly?

even the original post..

For instance, if someone says, "As a Christian, we should not ____(fill in the blank)," I often see you post a seemingly angry response to the effect that just because someone is not a Christian doesn't mean that he/she is going to do ____(the fill-in-the-blank thing), or that one doesn't have to be a Christian to know right from wrong.

how can you even say that based on a false premise that all Christians even agree on the same stuff...

need to claim to be born again
transsubstantiation
the sabbath...
baptism
pergutory

it's all pretty much offensive....when presented as this is the ONLY right answer....
it's not meant to be I realize..
but it is....

and it all just balances on the cliff of blowing these boards apart....

ARK

ark^^ #1747166 09/16/06 06:48 AM
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 9,015
F
Member
Offline
Member
F
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 9,015
Quote
and it all just balances on the cliff of blowing these boards apart....


You are kidding, right, ark?? We certainly wouldn't want to "blow these boards apart," but isn't it equally true that non-Christians also take positions that are based on a false premise that all non-Christians even agree on the same stuff...?

Shoot, even members of MB don't see "eye to eye" and "agree on all the same stuff" all of the time, regardless of their religious beliefs.

IF, one could argue, MB "formulas" for rebuilding marriages worked in EVERY case, under EVERY circumstance, then they would be "authoritative" and "absolute." But I would be hard pressed to assert that they work in EVERY case, as I am sure you would also.

Think about the things that MB requires....

No Contact with the OP whatsoever, for life.
Plan A "stuffing" of emotional rage and turmoil over a VALID reason (adultery).
15 HOURS per week for "just the two of you."
Complete openness and honesty, surrendering one's "right to privacy."
You can add to list as easily as I can.

it's all pretty much offensive....when presented as this is the ONLY right answer....

"Offensiveness" is most often in the eye of the beholder. Much of what is needed for recovery, especially "the MB way," seems "offensive" to one's emotions and reason, at least initially.

MB requires CHANGE on the part of the BS and the WS. Why isn't "required change" also "offensive?"

How about the "treatement" that an OP gets when they post as if they were on the TOW board? The MB position could be seen as "offensive" to the recipient of such postings, don't you think?

The issues you listed are "Christian" issues that DO exist and DO cause discussions, controversies, "offenses," because the term "Christian" is appropriated by many with differing opinions of what the term means. They use it as an "umbrella term," for whatever reason. But the "authority" for what IS a Christian, by God's standard and not Man's wish, is contained in the Word of God. THAT is the "measure" of what is and what is not a "Christian" by God's determination, not ours. Is the Word of God "offensive" to many? Sure. It deals in "absolutes" that are established by God, no matter if anyone "likes them" or not.

Attacks by others (usually non-Christians) on Christian belief is also "offensive." But substituting human reason and moral relativism as THE standard is normal for many, regardless of how "offensive" it might be to others.


Quote
what is the point exactly?

The "point," imho, of the originator of the thread was that the attacks by non-Christians ARE as equally offensive to feelings of many Christians as are the "offenses" that they are feeling from the Christian poster. The only difference is in WHO's feelings are being talked about.

IF that is "balancing on the cliff," then we are all there and awaiting a push to drive us off the cliff. It would seem, though, that discussion OFTEN entails "opposing viewpoints" and does not try to "PUSH" someone over the edge.

A Betrayed Spouse might well say "infidelity is WRONG!" while the Wayward Spouse might well say "infidelity is RIGHT for me!" IS there a right and wrong position here? Does taking one position versus the other "incorrectly" push the other person "over the edge?" Why should there BE a "right and wrong" anyway?

Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 10,816
2
Member
Offline
Member
2
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 10,816
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..

One might say (this "one", for example):

I accept that there is a spiri2al principle behind the universe that governs matters of thought and self-awareness, compassion and empathy, just as there are physical laws that govern the way the matter in the universe behaves. Our understanding of this principle defines our standards of behavior, morals, depending on our present interpretation or depth of understanding of that principle. Others, with different viewpoints of what this principle is, or what it should be called, whether it is a personality or just a 'rule', might find such a position to be "offensive" to them. This is unders2d and accepted by me, because it is recognized that we each have arrived at our current position via a lifetime of focused upbringing by well-meaning parents and other acknowledged figureheads. We are all different, and yet we are very, very similar. This does not remove from anyone any perceived "right" of the individual to "choose for themselves" what they want to label "good or bad" behavior, morals, etc, but it does suggest that there is more wonder 2 the path 2 enlightenment than simply applying labels and drawing either/or conclusions..."

-ol' 2long

2long #1747168 09/16/06 10:39 AM
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 9,015
F
Member
Offline
Member
F
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 9,015
Quote
I accept that there is a spiri2al principle behind the universe that governs matters of thought and self-awareness, compassion and empathy, just as there are physical laws that govern the way the matter in the universe behaves. Our understanding of this principle defines our standards of behavior, morals, depending on our present interpretation or depth of understanding of that principle. Others, with different viewpoints of what this principle is, or what it should be called, whether it is a personality or just a 'rule', might find such a position to be "offensive" to them. This is unders2d and accepted by me, because it is recognized that we each have arrived at our current position via a lifetime of focused upbringing by well-meaning parents and other acknowledged figureheads. We are all different, and yet we are very, very similar. This does not remove from anyone any perceived "right" of the individual to "choose for themselves" what they want to label "good or bad" behavior, morals, etc, but it does suggest that there is more wonder 2 the path 2 enlightenment than simply applying labels and drawing either/or conclusions..."


An excellent post, 2long, even if I am "mentally ill" and my reasoning might be "suspect." <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

People are CAPABLE of choosing for themselves. That capacity to choose has never been question, and it would be pointless to argue otherwise as it is common knowledge that people have "free will" and are capable of making choices.

Whether or not those "choices," whatever they may be, are considered by others to be "right" or "wrong" is a different issue. That is an evaluation, a "judgment" if you will, arrived at by comparing their "choice" to SOME standard that exists and that purports to be the "yardstick" of "right and wrong."

That is the issue that has been raised. What is that "SOME" that is taken as the 'yardstick' and why should it apply not only to the individual, but to others as well?

Personally, I believe, as Scripture states, that God gave ALL men that ability and it is "Man" who has many times "chosen poorly" in what they will do, either in submission to God or not. Think of it somewhat like a rudderless ship. It WILL float and it will "get somewhere" even if it's just by being carried along by the currents. But the "steering" is not steady, nor can the ship be made to follow the same course as another ship also making way along the same body of water. If the currents change, the ship will change course too, even if it's just a small course change. If the current change is strong enough, the ship too will make a "big change" as there is no rudder to keep it on the original course.

The captain of that rudderless ship might even WANT to go a certain direction, but he also is carried along at the mercy of the prevailing current.

If, by some means, "act of will," "stubbornness," etc., the captain is able to keep his own rudder in the water, he will be "fighting" the current and others could consider him "crazy" to try to "hold course" against the increasingly strong current attempting to move the ship in a different direction.

There ARE, as you pointed out, some moral laws ARE a matter of "choice." Speed limits, for example. The penalty for breaking the limit could be $5, $50, $100, etc. or they could be waived. But some laws are not subject to people's choices. Gravity is one such law. Society could decide to "suspend the law of gravity" let's say, between 3pm and 4pm each day. But I'd guess that anyone who chose to "believe" that gravity WAS suspended and stepped off a building would find themselves being cleaned up with a shovel. Some moral laws are NOT subject to "choice," similar to gravity. They were established by God and no matter how sincerely we might think they "don't apply," they do. That's the issue of "laws" that are established that "personal vote" can't change. Neither I, nor you, not anyone else can "force" someone to adopt a given set of moral standards. But that also does not free people from potential consequences of choosing to ignore them or from choosing a "poor set of standards" that "match" what they want to do.

As you were essentially saying in your concluding sentence, sincerity of belief is not the same things as being right. Truth is not dependent merely upon sincerity of what someone believes, it operates independently, just like gravity does. Thus the often used phrase, "searching for the truth," implies there IS a truth "out there" that someone may not have found yet.

Joined: Jun 2000
Posts: 8,069
R
Member
Offline
Member
R
Joined: Jun 2000
Posts: 8,069
I'm still wondering what this thread is doing here when we've been told that Marriage Builders *by design* is not a Christian-based sight.

I KNOW there are boards created specifically for these type religious-centric discussions. Do you need the links?

Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 928
S
Member
Offline
Member
S
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 928
Quote
Such discussions POLLUTE these boards IMO.

Quote
I'm still wondering what this thread is doing here when we've been told that Marriage Builders *by design* is not a Christian-based sight.


I have to disagree on these and other points here...

One strong point I have learned over this past year is that a huge portion of Marriage Building is indeed Self Building.

What is a large part of Plan A... making yourself a better person.

This includes all aspects... exercise for health and physical fitness. Fashion, hair, etc. for visual appearance, education and reading for mental exercise. Music, art, sport for creativity and leisure. IC and family for emotional building. And finding ones spiritual source and beliefs for spiritual building.

I was once asked on here... and still have not answered... "Why do I feel it necessary to 'take sides'?". I am still sorting this "simple" question out. The fact is, I don't take sides very often. I am trying to figure out if this is or isn't a problem in my life.

Religious or spiritual based discussions are a part of growing oneself which is necessary for marriage building, IMO.

I often see advice to use "ignore" or don't respond, but yet the responses still come.

Why? Because I believe we all know how important this topic is. Whether you are Christian, Buddhist, Atheist, Jewish, Muslim... spirituality is a primary part of who we are.

Who we are plays a primary role in marriage building.

Yes the same arguments do get tiring... but still necessary.

I would suggest those who advice using "ignore"... really do use it... unless... they really are interested sometimes in this type of discussion.

I don't read or get involved with all of these threads... but sometimes I feel it is important.

If noone responds to a question or debate... then I guess there is no debate. But every time a thread like this comes up... many flock to it. BECAUSE it is important... Christian or not...AND part of marriage building.

...IMHO!

Shaden

Last edited by Shaden; 09/16/06 12:49 PM.

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 2005
Posts: 928
S
Member
Offline
Member
S
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 928
There are threads on here that do nothing but discuss global barbecues (social building) or, like in one of my favorite threads, Heartsores... last night discussed 80's music.

We discuss fashion, recipes, diets, Canadian beer... does any of these things have to do with marriage building?

We even have to hear about Pep without her clothes on... <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/blush.gif" alt="" />

Why is spirituality "off the board"? Because it is controversial?

...just wondering.

Shaden

Last edited by Shaden; 09/16/06 12:56 PM.
Joined: Jun 2000
Posts: 8,069
R
Member
Offline
Member
R
Joined: Jun 2000
Posts: 8,069
Quote
Quote
Such discussions POLLUTE these boards IMO.

Quote
I'm still wondering what this thread is doing here when we've been told that Marriage Builders *by design* is not a Christian-based sight.


I have to disagree on these and other points here...

One strong point I have learned over this past year is that a huge portion of Marriage Building is indeed Self Building.

What is a large part of Plan A... making yourself a better person.

This includes all aspects... exercise for health and physical fitness. Fashion, hair, etc. for visual appearance, education and reading for mental exercise. Music, art, sport for creativity and leisure. IC and family for emotional building. And finding ones spiritual source and beliefs for spiritual building.

I was once asked on here... and still have not answered... "Why do I feel it necessary to 'take sides'?". I am still sorting this "simple" question out. The fact is, I don't take sides very often. I am trying to figure out if this is or isn't a problem in my life.

Religious or spiritual based discussions are a part of growing oneself which is necessary for marriage building, IMO.

I often see advice to use "ignore" or don't respond, but yet the responses still come.

Why? Because I believe we all know how important this topic is. Whether you are Christian, Buddhist, Atheist, Jewish, Muslim... spirituality is a primary part of who we are.

Who we are plays a primary role in marriage building.

Yes the same arguments do get tiring... but still necessary.

I would suggest those who advice using "ignore"... really do use it... unless... they really are interested sometimes in this type of discussion.

I don't read or get involved with all of these threads... but sometimes I feel it is important.

If noone responds to a question or debate... then I guess there is no debate. But every time a thread like this comes up... many flock to it. BECAUSE it is important... Christian or not...AND part of marriage building.

...IMHO!

Shaden

I don't disagree with you, Shaden. BUT, this specific thread has become "Religion" centric, with zero to none marriage building content. Not appropriate for this board.

Jo

Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 345
N
Member
Offline
Member
N
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 345
It is pointless to argue about ethics or any other subject that requires philosophical or scientific acumen with someone who claims evolution is an "invention."

Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 10,060
W
Member
Offline
Member
W
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 10,060
Quote
And finding ones spiritual source and beliefs for spiritual building.

I was once asked on here... and still have not answered... "Why do I feel it necessary to 'take sides'?". I am still sorting this "simple" question out. The fact is, I don't take sides very often. I am trying to figure out if this is or isn't a problem in my life.

Religious or spiritual based discussions are a part of growing oneself which is necessary for marriage building, IMO.
Shaden - I submit that this is not about taking sides nor necessarily about spiritual growth.

It's about respect and non-discrimination to those who have already decided something different and/or may conclude they don't need any spiritual growth.

Specifically, this is about recognition that here is more than one answer and could be as many answers as there are people. One particular answer does not suit everybody. Hardly. One person's diety - if any - is not necessarily the same as another's and is no more right or wrong than another's. Very, very simple.

When one person espouses that their particular version is the One, good for them. No one else has to agree, but every one has to accept that that's that person's choice.

The foul comes when that person is intolerant of others' choices, doesn't recognize that others have a choice, or denigrates their choice. That is religious bigotry. We see it in the news everyday and IMHO, we need not see it here.

JMHO

WAT

Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 8,297
K
Member
Offline
Member
K
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 8,297
Quote
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"..


That's one of the funniest things I've read on here. <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

KiwiJ #1747176 09/16/06 03:20 PM
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 10,060
W
Member
Offline
Member
W
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 10,060
I hope it does turn out different this time.

I hope everyone can accept that others have made different choices from their's and that that's OK. Further, that any other's choice isn't wrong nor worse than their own. AND finally, that differing choices are not denigrated nor ridiclued.

Pretty simple, huh?

It is simple.

Those who will be uncomfortable with this may be so because they want to impose their views on all others, they feel threatened by differing ideas, and/or are insecure with their own choices.

JMHO

WAT

Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 928
S
Member
Offline
Member
S
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 928
Hey WAT...

first off I want to say I have a huge amount of respect for you, your advice given to many, and I respect your beliefs and views.

I do want to discuss your argument, though...

You said...

Quote
The foul comes when that person is intolerant of others' choices, doesn't recognize that others have a choice, or denigrates their choice.


Doesn't this forum do this in every thread in respect to Adultery? We are intolerant of peoples choices to commit adultery and we denigrate that choice. And I do mean "We"... as I am also intolerant of this.

We "know" that adultery is wrong. How do we know this?

For a Christian, their whole belief might be tied into the "fact" they know God is the only God and not believing in Him is wrong and harmful to yourself and others. To tolerate other beliefs is wrong.

This is not necessarily my view of Christianity... maybe my personal beliefs are not strong enough, yet. I also believe that this form of evangelism does more harm than good. But I respect those who have such strong convictions and can stand up for them... the same as I respect you and yours. To tolerate other beliefs is in opposition of their beliefs. This is a catch 22.

I don't believe in or have much knowledge of Islamic or Muslim cultures and religion... but I can say that I do respect how solidly many of them stand by their beliefs... even though they are sometimes in opposition of my beliefs.

Now, I recognize that I am talking here about beliefs where you have mentioned choices. A christian should believe in freedom of choice and respect that... but should also not tolerate choices made in opposition of their beliefs... choices such as adultery.

As you and FH both agree adultery is wrong, there is no debate there... but I believe there is a similarity in the arguments.

I agree that being intolerant will not create any change in you or other non-Christians and the hair rises on my neck when facing any possible "self-righteousness"... and I would choose to operate differently. But to ask someone who has such firmly entrenched beliefs to show tolerance could be asking them to betray their beliefs.

I am searching for answers and testing this logic. Help me out here. (WAT or anyone else who has opinions on this)

Shaden

Last edited by Shaden; 09/17/06 02:45 PM.

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: Aug 2006
Posts: 3,862
M
Member
Offline
Member
M
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 3,862
Quote
But to ask someone who has such firmly entrenched beliefs to show tolerance could be asking them to betray their beliefs.

That's the rub.

~ Marsh

Joined: May 2002
Posts: 9,015
F
Member
Offline
Member
F
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 9,015
Quote
Suffice to say your assumptions about me are astonishingly incorrect.

Okay, WAT, you’ve never been a Christian. But it’s not so “astonishing” that the poster made that assumption since you are so willing to attack Christian perspectives, comments, and advice. I am glad you “corrected the record” so that future misunderstandings can be avoided.



Quote
But you are correct that [color:"blue"]I[/color] started having "issues" with certain posters "several years" ago - when posters on this forum strated to more overtly wear their faiths on their sleeves and apparently and unavoidably began slipping into careless practices of intolerance towards others. The inferences are frequently there that unless one is Christian one's morals are suspect, one's truthfulness is doubtful, and Godlessness equates to hedonism.

I will continue to point these out when I spot them.

Here we finally get to the truth of the matter of the “contention” on this thread and on other threads. WAT has appointed himself the JUDGE and ARBITER of what can and cannot be discussed. But as we’ll see later, he tries to convince people that he has “no dog in this fight” because there “should not be right or wrong because everyone’s beliefs are ‘equal’.” Equal so long as they are not Christian and NOT stated in “public,” EVEN IF such statements and discussions are BETWEEN others who also claim to be Christians.

If there is “intolerance” here, WAT, it is contained in your stated purpose in the last sentence of the above quotation. YOU WILL impose your will on others whenever YOU decide they are WRONG.




Quote
I can't even count the number of times I've tried to refute the very silly notion that unless one has "authoritative" morals, this means your "unauthoritative" morals are automatically variable and you'll just do whatever you want,
damn the torpedos,let's go kick a puppy. Sickening. Intolerant. Bigoted.

The “very silly notion” is that YOU think there is no “right or wrong.” What are you DOING giving advice to anyone on MB if you DON’T think something is right or wrong? You set yourself up as the “authoritative one” every time you tell people anything, from “get a divorce” to “try all you can to save your marriage.” You set up MB principles as “authoritative” for marriages, but how can they BE “authoritative” concerning behavior if it’s all just a “very silly notion?”

If it IS a “very silly notion,” as you later posted that “any other’s choice isn’t wrong nor worse than their own,” WHAT makes anything (MB principles, Christian principles, etc.) authoritative that they should apply to anyone?

I suspect you like to call people and their beliefs “ Sickening. Intolerant. Bigoted” because you WANT to in order to justify YOUR position as being “better than” or “superior” to someone else.





Quote
What's worse, having no authoritative morals or not following them if you do?

Oh, neither, since you have stated that you believe no one’s actions are any “better” or “worse than” anyone else’s. Is that question supposed to be along the same lines as “have you stopped beating your wife yet?”

Let’s try to be consistent AND logical, okay?





Quote
Yes, I can get angry when faced with religious bigotry. So should you. It IS bigotry when a poster makes obvious inferences or overtly draws denigrating comparisons to others' faiths or non-faiths. The fact that some don't recognize it when it occurs makes it worse. It matters not if a poster is addressing a like-minded poster. This is a public forum.

Let’s start out with the fallacy of your last statement as indicative how you “pick and choose” what you want in order to support your premise while simultaneously denying others the same right you claim for yourself; I will continue to point these out when I spot them. The “fallacy of your statement, “This is a public forum” is that it is a PRIVATELY owned site, owned by the Harley’s, and opened by them to all who choose come, post, etc.. They operate, it would seem to me, on the “Good Samaritan” basis regardless of anyone’s faith. THEY set the rules of “acceptable behavior in posting” and THEY are the authority in that matter.

You target Christianity for your attacks and inflammatory comments of “religious bigotry” while engaging in “bigotry” against anyone who supports, and states their support, for God and Jesus Christ. From your perspective, NO religion is “Right.” ONLY the “psychological crutch” of religion is to be “put up with” if someone doesn’t have the strength to make it under their own power without any religion, but NONE of them are “TRUE.” I understand that perspective and I understand how it might seem normal to you.

What you don’t seem to understand is that a Christian’s “worldview” is different from yours and that it includes God, Jesus Christ, and that “God’s way” IS the only way to salvation. Submitting our lives to God and accepting God’s “rules” will affect our morals, because we derive our morals from God.

But here you want to do the same thing as in Public Schools. You want to ban all discussion of Christianity because you KNOW part of the Christian belief is that ONLY through Christ can one have salvation from sins, that the Word of God is authoritative, and that God DID create all things. All that runs counter to your beliefs and what you want, so you want to deny others from exercising their right of Free Speech because you contend they will somehow “force” others to believe in Christ. You want to “force feed” everyone that NO religion is “right” and that only natural forces are at work in the universe. In short, you want to Censure all Christian talk, even to between Christians. BUT, “talk” by anyone holding any other “belief” is okay with you. Wouldn’t that seem to be a bit “bigoted” by your own definition?




Quote
I hope it does turn out different this time.

We’ll see, WAT. This is a sentiment that I share, and probably many others share as well. But I am not “confident” that it will, because you and I, and others, approach these things from a different perspective with a different “worldview.”




Quote
I hope everyone can accept that others have made different choices from their's and that that's OK. Further, that any other's choice isn't wrong nor worse than their own. AND finally, that differing choices are not denigrated nor ridiclued.

Pretty simple, huh?

It is simple.

WAT, I can accept that, and have accepted that all along. Can you?

But let’s clarify your statement a little, okay?

“Further, that any other's choice isn't wrong nor worse than their own.”

IF this is what you truly believe, then you have “proven” the idea that you have consistently ridiculed and objected to: “Relativism.” We are NOT talking about “denigrating” or “ridiculing” anyone for their actions and/or beliefs, BUT we (I) am also contending that some “choices” are “wrong” or “worse than their own” (as you put it) simply because without SOME standards of “acceptability, you have anarchy. NO society, Christian or other, exists without SOME rules by which behaviors are “judged” to be “right or wrong.” IF that is NOT TRUE, then the purpose of something like Marriage Builders is “offensive” to anyone who chooses to engage in adultery. How many people do you think are, or have been, on Marriage Builders who DON’T think that adultery is WRONG? By what standard to they make that judgment and by what standard is THEIR standard applicable to anyone but themselves? “How DARE someone “wear their belief that adultery is wrong on their sleeve!” For the Christian, as well as for the Jew, God set the standard in the seventh Commandment, "Thou shalt NOT commit adultery." God is the authority for me, and for other Christians, but one does not have to be a Christian to also hold to that same moral standard. My point is that regardless of what any given Christian may choose to believe for themself, GOD set the standard and His rule is right regardless of whether or not anyone "agrees" with Him about adultery. Truth is not dependent upon opinion.

IF it’s NOT “wrong” all the time, then it IS “relative.” It does not matter what any one person may think, a LAW exists independently of any belief they may sincerely hold (as in “adultery is okay in my case because: “I’m not a Christian,” “I’m not a believer in Monogamy,” “My spouse doesn’t ‘turn me on’ anymore,” whatever reason someone might want to use to rationalize their behavior, etc….).





Quote
Those who will be uncomfortable with this may be so because they want to impose their views on all others, they feel threatened by differing ideas, and/or are insecure with their own choices.

WAT, this is a ridiculous argument. NO ONE is “imposing” their views on all others (unless, perhaps, it’s your attempt to silence any “Christian talk” because YOU don’t like it).

DISCUSSING things, or stating one’s personal belief, is NOT the same thing as “imposing their views on all others.” There is no way I could impose anything on anyone, even if I wanted to. With respect to being “saved,” only God can work that miracle. For example; I strongly disagree with you and 2long regarding Creation and HOW life in all of it’s diversity “got here.” You and 2long strongly disagree with my position and YOU have called me crazy, etc., and included ANYONE who might also believe in a “Young Earth” rather than your chosen belief of an “Old Earth.”

For the record, I am quite secure in my beliefs and hope that my choices are reflective of that belief in God and His Word. BECAUSE I am secure in my belief is WHY I am not afraid of confronting you when you begin to speak about things you don’t know (true Christian faith, for example). It is WHY I am not afraid to discuss things like Evolution (that you embrace) because it is NOT the world or the facts that are in “question.” What IS at issue is the “interpretation” of those facts, and that is based in any individual examiners’ presuppositions and biases that they bring to the evaluation of the very same data. The SAME facts are available, for example, to BOTH a committed evolutionist and a committed creationist.



You said to Shaden: “- I submit that this is not about taking sides nor necessarily about spiritual growth.

It's about respect and non-discrimination to those who have already decided something different and/or may conclude they don't need any spiritual growth.”


Okay, if this is what you believe, then how do you justify jumping into Heartsore’s thread with a comment of “Again, FH - Godlessness does not automatically equate to hedonism, no more than spirituality prevents it. Your intolerance is showing again.”? I said no such thing, and anything that I said was said to Heartsore in response to his request for me to comment regarding his wife’s email to him and how it might reflect her relationship with the Lord. It would seem to be patently obvious, by your own “yardstick” quoted above, that Heartsore may not have “already decided something different.” Furthermore, one may NOT conclude that Heartsore doesn’t need “any spiritual growth” when he, himself, asked me specifically to comment and/or advise him on spiritual issues.

But your jumping on me with an accusation that ” Your intolerance is showing again” is nothing of the sort. If anything, your accusations showed YOUR intolerance of anything approaching “Christian” advice to a fellow Christian because YOU might “feel offended” by the mere suggestion, let alone statement, that a Christian’s “duty” is to obey God in humble obedience to God’s commands, especially if they might be in conflict with some human thought or command.

It is not surprising that you took that stance because you have stated that has been your purpose for “years.” “But you are correct that I started having "issues" with certain posters "several years" ago - when posters on this forum strated to more overtly wear their faiths on their sleeves and apparently and unavoidably began slipping into careless practices of intolerance(your interpretation, which I disagree with) towards others. The inferences(you are free to draw whatever ‘inference’ you want, but that does make your inference correct) are frequently there that unless one is Christian one's morals are suspect, one's truthfulness is doubtful, and Godlessness equates to hedonism.(No WAT, it means that you need to state what your ‘alternative’ to ANY foundation for moral structure for self and/or society is, not merely attack someone else’s belief)

I will continue to point these out when I spot them.” [/i] (Sure you will, I have come to expect nothing less than your opinion overrules anyone else’s opinion, without argument).

Or as you put it in another post; RES IPSA LOQUITUR - Lat. "the thing speaks for itself." Refers to situations when it's assumed that a person's injury was caused by the negligent action of another party because the accident was the sort that wouldn't occur unless someone was negligent.

But, since you “will continue to point these out,” as you interpret them, I would call your attitude and posting against Christians who post to be “premeditated,” and not at all “accidental.” In addition, just HOW, in what way, were YOU “injured” by any discussion, let alone a Christian discussion when you already reject anything “Christian” as having any validity for you?

Furthermore, you will note that on Heartsore’s thread, I said not one word TO you or ABOUT your advice to Heartsore. But that didn’t stop you from jumping on me the minute I posted anything to Heartsore.

WAT, I am truly sorry if discussions of God and Christian advice, based in the Bible, offends you. Especially if such discussion takes place between Christians it would seem prudent for you to not read those posts or to refrain from attempting to impose your “worldview” upon believers in Christ. Beyond that, even people of other faiths can “discuss” the differences in their beliefs, even if one of those faiths happens to be Christian.


Quote
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.

I’m still willing to stop, WAT. One more time, are you?


Regardless of your answer, I am committed to YOUR right to Free Speech, to speak or not to speak, as you so choose. I reserve the same right. It matters not if your speech offends me, or if mine offends you. Your motivation in posting is yours, as is my motivation in posting when I post. Just know that “Conflict Avoidance” was one of the “casualties” of having gone through an affair “fire” I didn’t ask for or want. Thus, I am not, perhaps unfortunately, as willing to “turn the other cheek” and keep taking the abuse. It is one of my new “shortcomings.”

Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 6,025
M
Member
Offline
Member
M
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 6,025
Excellent Post FH...It just about summarizes EVERYTHING I would love to say on the subject.

I know it's tedious to labor with such arguments and discussions but many of us here are learning a lot.

Thank you,

Mr. Wondering


FBH(me)-51 FWW-49 (MrsWondering)
DD19 DS 22 Dday-2005-Recovered

"agree to disagree" = Used when one wants to reject the objective reality of the situation and hopefully replace it with their own.
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 3,862
M
Member
Offline
Member
M
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 3,862
Quote
Excellent Post FH...It just about summarizes EVERYTHING I would love to say on the subject.

I know it's tedious to labor with such arguments and discussions but many of us here are learning a lot.

Thank you,

Mr. Wondering

I whole heartedly agree.

Great post, FH!

Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 10,816
2
Member
Offline
Member
2
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 10,816
You folks pretty much agree with that??

Holy cattle prods!

FH, it's weird. You seemed 2 be getting my point, but then you went on about the rightness of what you believe. I accept, it's what you believe 2 be right. It's not what I believe, however.

I don't have the time 2 type up long posts like you seem 2. I'll just note that your posts 2 WAT, here, are full of DJs. I hope someday you'll be ashamed of yourself for that. But I don't expect you 2 be. Oh well, people pretty much agree with you.

You win. I won't post here again. Enjoy.

-ol' 2long

2long #1747183 09/18/06 06:00 AM
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 9,015
F
Member
Offline
Member
F
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 9,015
Quote
You folks pretty much agree with that??

Holy cattle prods!

Surprising, isn't it? Some folks might actually believe differently than what WAT or you might expect about their faith in God and the "rightness" of anyone being able to post even if others might, "horrors," disagree with them.



Quote
FH, it's weird. You seemed 2 be getting my point, but then you went on about the rightness of what you believe. I accept, it's what you believe 2 be right. It's not what I believe, however.

I never said you believe as I do. You have stated that you "were" a Christian but no longer are. The only "argument" I would have with that is the same that I would have with many others who claim to be, or were, "Christians." According to the Scripture, they most likely were not true Christians, but were Christians in name only. Why? Because Christ made it clear that once someone has truly accepted him as their Lord and Savior, surrendering their life to him, they can never be lost. The "authority" that I use is the Word of God, and that should be the same "authority" that all who claim to be Christians should also look to as the "final word" concerning salvation.

But there ARE some things that God has not chosen to reveal to us and has reserved for himself. "One day" we will know those things when we are with him in heaven, but the things that God HAS chosen to reveal to us ARE authoritative because GOD is Sovereign.

Now, there ARE those who ARE Christians themselves who believe that a Christian CAN lose their salvation, but that puts the "power" of salvation into the hands of "Man" and not God. We'll not go into that discussion here, other than to say that it is a misinterpretation of Scripture and the "sealing" of the Holy Spirit.



Quote
I don't have the time 2 type up long posts like you seem 2.

For the record, 2long, neither do I have the time. I "make" the time when it's needed. In this case it took several "times" as I would type a little and then come back to type more when time permitted, until it was finished and ready to be posted.

You, likewise, "take time" to post on subjects that interest you and even some where you are "arguing" a differing position (i.e., geology, evolution, Flood, etc.)



Quote
I'll just note that your posts 2 WAT, here, are full of DJs. I hope someday you'll be ashamed of yourself for that. But I don't expect you 2 be.

Okay. If that is how you see it, that is how you see it.

Surprising though that your calling me "mentally ill" isn't a DJ and WAT's attacks on "Christian oriented posting" simply because he's self-apppointed himself (in his own words and therefore an admission requiring no 'judgment' by me or anyone else) the arbiter of what can and cannot be said isn't seen by you as Disrespectful Judgments either.



Quote
Oh well, people pretty much agree with you.

You win. I won't post here again. Enjoy.


2long, there are plenty of people on MB who disagree with my position of being able to speak about Christ and Christian principles for Christians. One that I can think of even went so far as to say that Christian "talk" POLLUTES the MB boards. And THAT isn't a Disrespectful Judgment in your book?

This seems to be more like the "schoolyard bully" who can't handle it when someone actually "stands up" to him and says, "You're wrong." 2long, it's one thing to say someone is a "piece of dung, worthless, and ready to be made into Soylent Green, is mentally ill and incapbable of rational thought because they are crazy."

It's a completely different thing to say that someone's IDEAS and CHOICES may be wrong and to discuss them, give reasons WHY someone might think they are wrong, etc. That is called COMMUNICATION and evaluation of IDEAS, not Disrespectful Judgments.

When WAT contends that all thoughts and ideas are "equal" and that there is no "right and wrong," it is NOT a disrespectful judgment to discuss that idea and ask for supportive data and facts that might support his stated position.

You see, I can easily "put myself into the shoes of an evolutionist," because I was one at one time. But it's very difficult, if not impossible, for the "natural man" to put himself into the shoes of true Christian, because it's NOT just a matter of knowing Christ existed, died, etc., it's about a relationship WITH God through Christ.

But with respect to your charge of being disrespectful, let me guess, it would be equally "disrespectful" for you to tell Lyell that he was wrong and that catastrophes HAVE played a part instead of his idea of tranquil uniformitarianism? In the "arena of ideas" it is NOT disrespectful to argue against another idea even if no one else cares to "believe" your arguments and ideas and prefers the "other," or someone else's idea.

In the days of Noah, no one believed God but Noah. The "argument" was ended with a lot of "cold water" because there IS someone who "Judges" and has the authority TO judge. That is my belief, and I know that you and WAT disagree with it. I believe in a "Young Earth" while you and WAT believe in an "Old Earth." Why? Primarily because evolution REQUIRES a LOT of time whereas Creation by an Omnipotent God does not. FACTS in the physical world exist independent of any "right or wrong." They exist as FACTS, data, what can be seen or what has been found. Those very same facts are available to everyone. The DIFFERENCES in opinion concerning those facts comes from the presuppostions and biases of whoever examines the data and attempts to formulate and explanation for their "being."

It is the INTERPRETATION that is discussed, argued, contended for, etc. That is what "pure scientific inquiry" is all about. But anyone who claims that they DON'T approach the interpretation of data and facts with a preconceived bias (presupposition) is kidding themselves.

The disrespectful judgments come from attacking the "messenger," not the message. It seems perfectly okay around here for people to attack Christians personally as a way to "discredit" their "ideas." But they don't want to discuss the "ideas" themselves. And now you accuse me of being "disrespectful" to WAT's ideas?

It is your right to think that if you wish. But consider this, boots usually come in pairs, right and left, right and wrong. What's good for the goose is good for the gander. Why do juries "sit in judgment" if there IS no "right and wrong" and no "standard" by which to measure the behavioral choices of anyone? IF THERE IS a standard, who sets it and is it "fixed" or is it variable and open to change over time, making "right into wrong" and "wrong into right?" Or does the individual's right to choose their own standards equate to "they are always right" regardless, an "island unto self" and everyone can do whatever THEY want to do?

We claim to be a "Nation of Laws" and the "proper" behavior is to submit our will to those laws. We set the Constitution, penned by the authors of the Constitution, as the "authority." Then we set about changing it and saying "it didn't really mean what it said" and taking parts of it "out of context" to prove a point. Sometimes we even "bring in" something that is NOT in the recognized "authoritative document" and try to make THAT have the same level of authority, i.e. "Separtation of Church and State."

Wherein lies the DJ?

Or is it simply a case of everything being "relative" and to be interpreted by "today's" prevailing desires even when they are in conflict with the "authority?" Take away the "authority" and "anything goes."

If you wish to leave the arena of ideas on this thread, that is your choice. I have likewise chosen to leave threads in the past. TIME is valuable to all of us, and only the individual can decide where to spend or invest that time.

Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 10,816
2
Member
Offline
Member
2
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 10,816
"Reply", "Quote" and "Quick Reply" are choices, and I've made my choice.

JL - one of my favorite Christian friends - was right on: This is tedious. Meaning: It isn't fruitful.

It certainly isn't enlightening.



2 paraphrase Chief Joseph:

FH, I will post 2 you no more forever.

-ol' 2long

Page 3 of 4 1 2 3 4

Moderated by  Fordude 

Link Copied to Clipboard
Forum Search
Who's Online Now
0 members (), 63 guests, and 50 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Newest Members
Convict20, GTNY, Avianna, BootsJeans, B24gordon
71,735 Registered Users
Forum Statistics
Forums67
Topics133,549
Posts2,322,799
Members71,736
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