Hey, Guys! Got a couple of things that I need to say to you, although I'm not sure how to say them. Anyway, there is no intent to offend you, although I AM taking issue with some things y'all have posted.

First:

WAT, I've been reading your posts for a very long time, and I think you are a good man who gives a lot of good advice.

I understand that you are not a Christian, and that you take issue with some our Christian viewpoints. That is your right, of course; but, at times, it seems that you misunderstand some things that are said. 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.

Of course, one doesn't have to be a Christian to know right from wrong. However, being a Christian does mean that we should examine ourselves for any wrongful behavior...of which we may not previously have been aware. Actually, that is true of ANYONE, IMHO. But, as Christians, we are supposed to strive to live as Christ-like as we can, so it is only natural for Christians to caution other Christians against sinful behavior. There is no personal attack being made upon you or other non-Christians in these remarks.

But, WAT, usually, your responses are to Christians who are posting to others...either other Christians or someone who appears to be interested in hearing the Christian viewpoint. As I just mentioned above, there is no personal attack being made against you that I can see.

WAT, I don't know what has turned you against God. You've had a lot going on in your life, and I am so sorry about it all. <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/teary.gif" alt="" /> I've had a lot going on in my life, too...and from the number of posters on MB, there is a LOT going on in a LOT of people's lives. Many of us have found a great deal of comfort and security in our faith, while others apparently haven't, for one reason or another.

I am not going to try to convert you to Christianity because I respect that you do not want to hear it. However, I do want you to understand that you do not know what my experience is, nor what the experiences of other Christians are, that have led us to believe and to KNOW that God does exist and that Jesus Christ died for our sins because of His great love for us. For me, suffice it to say that it was during a time of tremendous grief and ANGER at God, and it was the most amazing thing! I never expected it. <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/shocked.gif" alt="" />

So, WAT, I feel that it is very disrespectful for anyone to disparage the faith of Christians who are posting to others and who are not, in any way, trying to insult or convert the person doing the disparaging.

2Long,

I can relate to your long-term situation. It's not quite the same, as I believe that my FWH probably had several "flings" over the course of our marriage. He did stop cheating years ago, but seems to still have the mindset of a WS. In fact, I think he has your FWW beat for sheer stubborness!

In regard to your post to Forever Hers on Heartsore's thread: I believe you said that he was trying to educate Heartsore's wife through Heartsore. I don't think that is exactly true. I believe that Heartsore's wife is a professed Christian (although a wayward one at the moment!), and my take on FH's post was that he was addressing the need for her to be also be reconciled with God, and that the counseler may cause more damage with bad advice. I don't think that he was urging Heartsore to browbeat his wife into repenting before God and reconciling to Him, or anything remotely like that. Heartsore's very loving Plan A and his faith are what I believe will bring his WW back to the marriage, and THEN, with Christian guidance and Heartsore's spiritual leadership in their family, his wife can make her soul right with God. However, she needs help from other Christians all the way to help this process along. Those who urge her to look only to herself and her worldly needs will not be much help to her. After all, looking only to herself and her worldly needs are part of what got her into this mess in the first place. <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/eek.gif" alt="" />

Cool! Most of that is for WAT 2 address! <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

I don't disagree with anything you've said (or even with anything FH said, in context) before this:


I agree! BUT, (and it's' a big butt!), my point was that she's not in a receptive position at all right now. I don't know anyone who can get "through 2 her" at this point, except her God and herself. And if past MB experience is any indication, she's going 2 have 2 hit bottom before she'll listen 2 her God.



Also agreed. But if hitting bottom so she can listen 2 wisdom requires that she explore her worldly needs in order 2 find out how empty of real reward that path truly is, then that may be what she needs 2 go through.

I wasn't advocating that she get her worldly needs met, though. But she may have 2 try that 2 realize how fruitless a persuit it truly is.

Then, she can come back 2 her faith with some sincerity! <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

-ol' 2long

LC - I agree with 2long about this. My wife had no interest in the things of God until she ended her affair and came home. Then she was crushed by the enormity of what she did of course but really, she will need to hit bottom before her relationship with God means anything to her.

2Long and BigK,

I understand what you're talking about, and I agree that is the likely course; however, a wise Christian may, without "pushing", be able to say the right things to help her get a "jump start", don't you think? Maybe sort of doing a "reverse babble" for Christians?

Sometimes, a Christian does not even have to actually speak of God to get a Christian point across. Sometimes, just knowing that the person you're talking to IS a Christian helps, even if the Christian doesn't actually delve into the topic of your soul. Maybe that only works if guilt is already starting to kick in...I dunno!

Anyway, I'm not sure I'm making sense, as it's past time for me to get to bed. Let me think on how to better explain what I mean and get back to y'all on it later.

Well LC, if a Christian WS was in a position to be influenced like that, they wouldn't be ignoring that still small voice would they. My wife avoided church during her affair, avoided God. It was no use to her till the affair ended. It's funny though, the Sunday before d-day, she was in tears during Church - must ask her about that. Still didn't end her affair though.

Actually, a number of posters have come right out and claimed that without a belief in god people have no reason to distinguish right from wrong. WAT has posted on numerous occasions that an internal moral compass does not require one to be a Christian or any other religion.

Why do you use the expression "turned against God," as if belief in god is the default position? Atheism for me is a reasoned decision. For my father, agnoticism was a reasoned decision. As a pre-teen and teenager, my father and I spent many hours debating and clarifying our points of view. You can not assume that non-belief is a result of some disaster that the person in question blamed on a supreme being. I have been an atheist since I was 13 or younger - from the time I was old enough to think about it one way or the other. I know that I dropped out of Unitarian Sunday School after one day in 5th grade because they had us singing songs that implied the divinity of Jesus, when I knew full well that that was in conflict with the definition of "unitarian."

Res ipsa loquitur

WAT

Yes, a Christian who is willfully engaged in wrongdoing does generally tend to avoid church, or Christians whom they believe may be "sitting in judgment" of them. This is where, I think, having other Christians reach out to her in Christian LOVE, without necessarily entering into any discussions with her about her sin situation, can help make that small, still voice get a little louder. By not actually addressing the sin itself (until the time is right), the Christian avoids giving the Christian who is in sin a reason to get angry and turn him away. Does that make sense to you?

I do know that at times (before the event which totally convinced me that God does indeed exist and love me), when I was not feeling so hot about my own actions (nothing like an affair, but still sin, all the same) and avoiding church, having other Christians who may or may not have known what was going on but reached out to me anyway, DID make that small, still voice speak louder to me.

I just got up after not having such a good night's rest (nothing serious...just dealing with a slightly messed up back), so I'm still fuzzy this morning. Maybe later, I'll be able to post with more clarity.

Hi, Nellie,


I agree that some people of posted things that sound as though that is what they believe...and a few may indeed believe it <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/frown.gif" alt="" /> . Without going back to look for every specific post like this, I will venture to say that it seems to me that most of these posts have been in discussions of what we, as Christians, should or should not do. We often don't make ourselves very clear in our posts, nor do we always think about how what we post may really sound before we hit the submit button. I certainly need to work on doing that...maybe by not posting when I'm sleepy or dealing with a painful back?


I certainly agree with this. There are many whom I consider to be good and kind people who seem to have no religious faith at all. However, if/when I (or another Christian) posts to another that a true Christian should or will do such-and-such, it does not mean that we are saying that ONLY a Christian should/will do it. When I say "such-and-such", I am thinking of general acts of morality, and not things that apply only to people of faith, such as prayer, Bible study, etc. IMHO, WAT often seems to seems to seek implications in certain posts that are not actually there.


I apologize for that expression, Nellie. I'm probably wrong about this, but I was under the impression that, at some point, WAT had been involved in a Christian church, and it seems to me that his issues with Christian posters only began a few years ago. That may not be true, and I was wrong to assume so.


That is a decision that only you can make. We each have free will to decide what we will/will not believe.

For me, Christianity is also a reasoned decision, but it also is backed up with an actual salvation experience that came at a time when I was in deep despairing grief, anger, and raging against God. However, I was seeking answers while I was raging, so maybe I had not completely closed my heart and mind to God. At any rate, I got my answer, and I'm so glad that I did. <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

I hope your children and you are doing well. I want you to know how much I admire your devotion to your children and how hard you work to provide for them and their education under the adverse and frustrating circumstances in which you found yourself. I'm sure that your children love and appreciate you all the more for doing so. If some of them don't quite appreciate it now (teenagers sometimes don't!), they will; but, I'm quite sure the love for you is there. <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

((((Nellie))))

Yes, they do. Although not everyone interprets it the same way.

LC - I hesitated to reply at all. I believe you had good intentions. But in some ways you have unwittingly confirmed my very points.





I do not normally discuss my personal beliefs. These ought to be private, IMHO, between an individual and his/her guiding entity/diety/God/Flying Spaghetti Monster/whatever.

Suffice to say your assumptions about me are astonishingly incorrect.

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 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.

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.

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

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.

You said -
Try reading it like this:

"But, WAT, usually, your responses are to whites who are posting to others...either other whites or someone who appears to be interested in hearing the white viewpoint."

What would you call it if in doing so the poster denigrated blacks? Hmmmmmmmmm?

I do not deny that I may have a low threshold for intolerant speech - at least you may perceive this. I imagine that in most cases the poster intends no offensiveness. But like beauty, it's in the eyes of the beholder. The Golden Rule directs us to be sensitive and considerate. Even when the intent is not present, the perception may be.

JMHO

WAT

""What's worse, having no authoritative morals or not following them if you do?"" <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/cool.gif" alt="" /> AMEN BROTHER!!

""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.""

[color:"red"] And if one believes the earth is older than 10,000 years, that person is going to heck in a hand basket! [/color]

The bigotry towards Christians by some here is CRYSTAL clear as well, and it is VERY offensive to me personally, and I suspect to other Christians as well...It always seems condescending, many times it is somewhat veiled aggression, and on other occasions it is appears as blatant ridicule...

It does not surprise me in the least however, it is foretold in the Bible after all...


Mrs. W

WAT, you continue to be consistent, I give you that. And your consistent twisting of what is said and reinterpreting it in your own “worldview” is why I decided to take away a distracting “target” for you from Heartsore’s thread. Never mind the fact that he professes to be a believer, you can’t separate the “spiritual in Christ” from your human “viewpoint.”

So, even though I know it won’t “get through to you,” let’s look at your current “stream of consciousness” arguments. We’ve had similar discussions in the past, so I am fairly certain it will again fall on deaf ears, even if those ears are full of human morality.



You persist in this twisting of what is said to “make the point you want to make.” One more time, anyone CAN choose a set of Standards, Morals, whatever term you want to use, for THEMSELVES. The issue is NOT the ability to choose a set of behavioral standards, morals, or ethics. The issue is twofold, WHAT standards are chosen as “superior” to others for the individual, and WHY should those standards be the “standards of choice” for anyone other than the individual. In other words, what imbues your chosen selection of morals as being “best,” and by logical extension, “best” for others? The natural implication that goes along with your own selection is that “other choices” are inferior to yours. So the logical question would be “why?”

“By who’s ‘authority’ is a set of standards applicable to ALL and not open to ‘pick and choose or ignore completely’ by an individual’s “right to choose” for themselves?




And this is the answer to the above questions. WAT is the “supreme authority” and JUDGE of everyone else. There is no higher authority than WAT.




Again you twist what has been said because you want to retain the “authority” for yourself AND to impose your choices on others as the only “authoritative one.”

Let’s set the record straight one more time, WAT. ANYONE, any individual, CAN choose to behave according to so-called “good morals” (your “Golden Rule” example, for example). It may even be highly desirable that others also behave in a similar manner. But you don’t, under the rules of “freedom of choice” and “individual rights” have the right, much less the “authority,” to declare or JUDGE anyone else’s selection of a “set of moral standards of their own choosing.” It REQUIRES a Sovereign who HAS THE RIGHT to declare and impose a set of standards on his subjects regardless of whether they personally like it or not. To NOT obey the Sovereign is rebellion.

But if there is no “Sovereign,” and each individual is their own “sovereign” with the inherent right to behave any way they choose no matter what anyone else might think, then each person becomes an “island unto themselves.”

"But," you might object, "we select “Society” to be our “sovereign” in some of these matters and give “Society” the right to impose certain standards (just so long as they don’t acknowledge God)." “Society,” however, is made up of a conglomeration of individual “islands” that drift with the currents and that can “change.” What once was chosen as a set of standards, morals, ethics, CAN and DOES change with time, even to the point of what was once “good” becoming “bad,” and vice versa.

That is the essence of humanist relativism. It’s “all relative” to what WE, as humans, want to be the accepted “good morals” and not the “bad morals.” The problem is that the definition of “good and bad” gets muddied, even changes, over time and the infiltration of individual “feelings” and “desires.”

“Take up your cross and follow me,” “deny self,” etc. have no place in a strictly humanistic society because there can BE no “higher authority” than the individual and what THEY think is right behavior (no matter what anyone else thinks).

WAT, YOU might not change your own chosen set of morals and they might be the “good ones.” But other can, and do, often change theirs. And it doesn’t matter whether they are Christians or not. Once “self” is elevated above God, “self” can choose anything they want and can “justify” that choice because they alone are “sovereign” of their life.




That’s the wrong question, WAT. The question is what makes ANY set of morals “authoritative,” not whether someone chooses no morals or chooses to not follow the morals they HAD chosen. If the individual is the “authority,” then no one has the right to “judge” another’s “morals” by their own set of “morals.”

The real question, from a Christian perspective, isn’t really about morals, or “works of the flesh.” It is about whether or not someone, individually, is saved or not. It is not a question of the “here and now,” but is a question of the “here and forever.”

A Christian accepts God as being the Supreme Authority in all things, who has the inherent right to determine “right and wrong,” and to establish a set of morals that are applicable to all people and NOT subject to their “interpretation,” “picking and choosing,” or complete rejection. God is the Master and we are His servants, not His “equal.”





Yes, WAT, it IS a public forum. And your lament is a shoe that fits your foot just as well. You have many times told me to keep my religious advice and comments to myself and NOT state them to non-Christians. Yet you have no compunction to blather your advice to professed Christians and give your “humanistic” perspective. You even go so far as to object to Christian, biblically based, advice given to another who states that they ARE a Christian and welcome such advice. Why? Because WAT is the “standard” by which all others are to be judged.

WAT, ALL people, not just Christians, inherently know “right and wrong.” That knowledge came to Man in the Garden of Eden when Adam and Eve ate the fruit of the “Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil.” That knowledge has been passed down to all of Adam and Eve’s descendants. But they also have an inherent “sin nature” that puts “self” and “self-centered” desires as the “authority” in what MAY be “good” or “bad.” They make the “absolute” relative, relative to human desire and personal want, regardless of what the “absolute” may say.

Thus, for Christians, the first question is; "If you won't obey God, why would you obey anyone else?"

Even the Apostle Paul fought this battle against his “flesh,” his human nature, and what he knew he should do as a follower of Christ.

Remember, Paul was a “Pharisee of Pharisees,” totally steeped in the “good works” of being a Pharisee, before he became a Christian. What made the difference for Paul? Christ and the Cross. It’s the same for all Christians. Why? Because the issue is that SIN is first and foremost against GOD, not against Man. It is that SIN(s) of thought, word, and deed, against God that needs to be addressed first for a Christian simply because “all our good works are as filthy rags in the sight of God” if they (our sins) are not forgiven in Christ and what HE did for us (“I, myself, shall work salvation for my people”).

And Christians have the indwelling Holy Spirit to reveal sin(s) in their lives that they might even be aware of, to say nothing of willful chosen sin. Non-Christians do NOT have the indwelling Holy Spirit, by choice of God. Only those who have accepted Jesus Christ as their personal Lord and Savior are given the Holy Spirit to live with, and in, them.

And it changes whom actually “Sits on the Throne” of one’s life as Sovereign, with all the rights of the Sovereign.

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

I so agree.

LC -

Rather than jumping into this debate (which will go on with no resolution in sight, IMO)....let me just say that I, for one...appreciate what you said in your original post to WAT and 2Long.

I think you were very kind, gentle, and certainly must be considered "non-offensive", I would think, by anyone.

From one Christian to another...I thank you...

(drats...I wasn't supposed to say that, was I???)

Georgia

FGG:

Why in he11 would you say that? (oops, I wasn't supposed 2 say THAT, was I?) <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

-ol' 2long

2Long....

Hah...you caught me live and in action! I can't sleep.

And...why would I say what?

That you shouldn't have said "Christian"



I ain't got no truk with that at all. <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

-ol' 2long

2Long...

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

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

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.

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.

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

""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

Wow...I wonder if this is what Lady Clueless had in mind with her original post?

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.

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

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?

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.

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

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.

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....




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?"




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..




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."




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.




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."




This really is the KEY.


God bless.

Well, it didn't take you long, FH.


You are placing your morals above others'. Again.

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


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

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.




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.




'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.

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"..

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.

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

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.



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?

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

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.

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?

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

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

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

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."

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

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

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

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...



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

That's the rub.

~ Marsh

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.




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.





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.






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?






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?





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.”





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….).






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.



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.”

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!

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

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.




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.




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.)




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.





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.

"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

As Humpty Dumpty said to Alice:

There's glory for you!'
'I don't know what you mean by "glory,"' Alice said.
Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. 'Of course you don't * till I tell you. I meant
"there's a nice knock-down argument for you!"'
'But "glory" doesn't mean "a nice knock-down argument,"' Alice objected.
'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, 'it means just
what I choose it to mean * neither more nor less.'
'The question is,' said Alice, 'whether you CAN make words mean so many different
things.'
'The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, 'which is to be master * that's all.'

-ol' 2long

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?

foreverhers...
the truth is you don't speak in principles...

you speak in what you believe is TRUTH applicable to ALL Christians...

claiming that anyone who doesn't believe exactly as YOU do...
are not true Christians...

over and over and over you present beliefs and practices as the ONLY way...

never acknowledging that within the Christian community lays many many different interpertations.


I have no interest in debating these issues here
I have no interest in what you believe vs what I believe..

my advice is that you should premise your beliefs with..

in MY sect we believe that blah blah blah blah because we have interperted this passage...to mean blah blah blah...

that's my advice

cause you don't speak for ALL Christians..
you speak for what your sect of Christianity believes in...

the only applicable Chistian principle is the underlying belief in Jesus
pretty much everything else is interperted differently

but I think that there are a lot of sects of Christianity that you don't speak for...a lot of the times....

and that you believe you do....but you really don't...

I just wish you would say what you believe for you and yours...and not insist on emcompassing everyone in to it...
cause it's not that way...
it's really not....

ARK