I would ask that on this thread, respect and compassion be maintained for all. So no selfish demands. "Quit talking like..." is a selfish demand, to use an example from Weaver.

And no disrespectful judgments. "You have an amazing lack of understanding of what "Inspired" means." is a disrespectful judgment, to use an example from FH.

And no angry outbursts, either. Nor sarcasm. Nor other forms of verbal abuse like name-calling.

Why? Because I asked. And because there are worthwhile things to talk about here, if we can avoid the all-too-common degeneration into circular ranting.

JustJ - I'm okay with keeping it respectful and civil. But I don't see what I said to Weaver as an example of Disrespectful Judgment. Weaver made an uninformed claim about the plenary inspiration of the Word of God, falling into an often used, but misinformed, idea that "inspired" means dictated.

Rather than get into a discussion of the Scripture itself, I attempted to use a poor analogy to perhaps give her something she could use to "understand" a little better. For someone claiming to be studied in these writings, Hindu, etc., her lack of understanding of what "all Scripture is given my inspiration..." means is "amazing." That's not a Disrespectful Judgment, that is truly amazing.
Now if I asserted based on what she said that she was deliberately trying to mislead people and to make the Scripture "just another man-written book of philosophy," then perhaps you would be correct in assigning such an assertion as a "Disrespectful Judgment," barring any other derogatory remarks that might have attended such an assertion. But that was not what I said.

On the other hand, her dismissal of the Word of God as BEING the Word of God would seem to be a disrespectful judgment, especially since she used it to tell me I was all "wet." So we are, perhaps, getting close to those vexing DJ's you are concerned about.



Anyway, let civility rule, if possible, with all of us emotional creatures. <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

Just J,

With all due respect, you started this thread, with a header bringing it to the attention of FH and WAT. Now you are correcting them and telling them to behave.

It's like setting two dogs to fighting -- two dogs who have a history of fighting -- and then lecturing them on diplomacy. It might make you feel higher and loftier, but it doesn't do much for the dogs.

You know that this was likely to create a set-to between FH and WAT. So ... why?

(And would everyone PLEASE humor me by spelling Gandhi correctly?)

A.M.: Yup. I am. Why? Because. <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

Gandhi. You're hereby humored. <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

FH: Read about disrespectful judgments here. W. Harley says it better than I can.

http://www.marriagebuilders.com/graphic/mbi3402_disrespect.html

Two points, at least, for honesty!

I was going to post a few things on this thread and then realized that it mattered not. <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/frown.gif" alt="" />

However, FH, while WAT can surely defend himself. I would like to point out a few things I know that you don't. One is that I actually know WAT personally. Two, we are both technically trained and practice our training. Three, I do beleive in God and frankly WAT and I have no problems getting along.

I say all of this because your need to defend yourself and your belief is NOT NEEDED. I think that is WAT's point. You seem to be a well read man, and you have your beliefs as do we all. You don't need to defend yourself. Whether I, WAT or anyone believes as you do is really not relevant. I presume you are strong in your faith.

Now one last thing to consider. People who are technically trained are trained to question, test, evaluate, and consider information. I fear you view his questioning as an attack, and yet it is simply questioning. It is what we do, and frankly it is how we were born.

I realize that belief is not to be tested, because after all it is belief. But, consider that those of us that deal and try to understand the physical world come at it by asking questions. So we naturally question any absolute statements. It is not an attack.

I must go, and yes I will refrain from entering this discussion further.

God Bless,

JL

You are right J, this was disrespectful.

Sorry FH, if you took it that way but I have a feeling your skin is quite thick on this subject, especially coming from me as I don't think I trigger you in the least but you trigger me, and that is okay.

I am learning to keep an open mind to all opinions and faiths, so you are good for me. And if I didn't care what you think, I don't think I would post directly to you.

Most of us are touchy on the subject of our own faiths, and there are bound to be triggers and excitability. I am starting to understand this more than ever, as I realize how excited I can get.

I only wish more people from other faiths would chime in. I wish more people were not afraid to voice their opinions and feelings on the subject.

Or maybe they are smart not to. Who knows.

AMM, I was in a hurry and spelling is no more my strong suit than writing is.

JL - Nice "drive by."

I'll think about responding and if it's worth the time.

I say all of this because your need to defend yourself and your belief is NOT NEEDED. I think that is WAT's point.

Of course it's WAT's point, as it would appear it is yours also. "Silence connotes assent."

Just abdicate the "floor" to WAT and say nothing. I'm sorry, JL, but in general I don't say anything when WAT is attempting to help others, including Christians, with his marital advice. The same is true for you. "Cut out the spiritual side of someone's life and how it also 'plays into' how one responds to infidelity and recovery," is what I have been told many times.

This is no different. "Cut out any talk that might 'oppose,' or give a 'different opinion' regarding origins and life as postulated by the proponents of Evolution and the opponents of Creation."

Say nothing.

Be quiet.

"We are right and you are wrong, so just keep you mouth shut."

"God bless?" Are you serious, JL?

So let me get this straight...since I may not be trained in WAT's field or your field, I should keep my mouth shut because I can't possibly understand the arguments from someone trained in that field? That is your "drive by" argument?

It makes one wonder if the reverse would also be true then. Since WAT and perhaps you, too, or anyone else NOT a born again Christian, are not trained in Biblical studies they should keep their mouths shut about anything to do with Christianity? Or perhaps all of us not formally trained in Marital Counseling, especially the "Harley form of Marital Counseling," should keep our mouths shut and only let the "experts" in the field comment and respond to people who post on MB?

Interesting slant on things I'd say. Pretty much right up there with 2longs previous comment on the former Evolution/Creation thread that TRAINED, DEGREED, and PRACTICING Scientists who also believe in CREATION are NOT "real scientists" and anything they say should be ignored, or they should simply keep their mouths shut.

You are saying the same thing JL.

I say all of this because your need to defend yourself and your belief is NOT NEEDED. I think that is WAT's point.

Why didn't you phrase your sentence the way you meant it?

I say all of this because your need to defend yourself and your belief is NOT WANTED. I think that is WAT's point.

I know WAT's position from previous discussions with him.
I know 2longs' position from previous discussions with him.
Now it appears I know your position also, though you fail to state WHAT your own position on the issue is and prefer to use support for WAT as your camoflage.

Interesting.

Not in the least. I am only starting to read about Gandhi's accomplishments and his beliefs.

Haven't read the Bhagavad Gita, either FH. I only asked if anyone else had, as I was interested in what it had to say about our origins.

I would never intentionaly try to mislead people with the problems I have with the Bible, FH. Furthermore I know that people are capable of coming to their own conclusions and certainly are not going to learn anything from me. I have a need to voice my thoughts on the subject and welcome other people's opinions even when they are in disagreement... but imagine that someday this need will end as my understanding increases.

I am the student here.

I am intensely interested in what other people think on the subject, and am very aware that I have a ways to go in my own understanding.

That is why I keep reading these theads, out of interest of what all of you think.

Ahh..my bad in not understanding what you were driving at.

To answer your question, YES, there is someone on MB who has read and studied it for a long time and I have had a few email exhanges with that person. If that person chooses to respond, I'll leave it up to that person.




I understand. Just don't let JL hear of it though.

So to "keep the peace" around here, if, as part of your investigation and intense interest, you'd like to email me with questions or "problems" you might have regarding Christianity and the Bible I'd be happy to try to answer or address them for you.

FH,

I have come to the conclusion you don't understand a word you read in the bible. I did NOT say you should be quiet. I did not say you should not discuss and debate. I said you have no need to defend because YOU are not being attacted.

If you want to debate and discuss, please do, but don't loss your temper, don't forget you have no idea who you are talking to, and don't forget you have no unique insight or grasp of Christianity.

I did truly mean God Bless when I said it and find that particular comment about my salutaion to you both offensive and without merit. I still mean it to you. That is my point, I am not mad at you, or angry at you, but I will refrain from debating with you because frankly you seem too damaged already.

This is not a drive by, it is an attempt to avoid what I feel will be a debate with no purpose.

God Bless YOU,

JL

Since it's this "quote" of what I may or may not have said that's being used as an example 2 JL...

I keep trying 2 remember exactly what I said that you're paraphrasing with this. I suppose I could look up the old thread, but I've got 2 bin some MOLA data and that's going 2 take me a good chunk of the day, so I'm not going 2 look up the old thread.

I suspect your paraphrasing sounds "off" 2 me - almost 2 the degree that I don't even think I said it - because it's fraught with your emotional reaction 2 what I did say. Remember this quote? (though I don't know the author):


Regarding science and creationism, and scientists and creationism, though: Sure, in short, I believe that a credentialed scientist who also professes 2 be a creationist is an oxymoron. The 2 can't coexist in one individual, because the "scientist" would have 2 abandon the scientific method 2 also be a creationist.

-ol' 2long

2long, are you serious?

Let's just substitute a little (italicized for clarity) in your statement to apply it to evolutionist scientists to illustrate the nonsense of your statement, or at least the extreme bias against scientists who also believe in the Word of God:

"Regarding science and creationism, and scientists and creationism, though: Sure, in short, I believe that a credentialed scientist who also professes 2 be an evolutionist is an oxymoron. The 2 can't coexist in one individual, because the "scientist" would have 2 abandon the scientific method 2 also be an evolutionist."

2long, you know, or you should know, that the "scientific method" cannot be applied to either model of origins, whether that be the origins of inanimate or living. "Reproduceability" and "Observability" are integral to the "scientific method," and both are beyond the scope of science with respect to origins.

Therefore, to use your reasoning, no scientist who adheres (by faith and not the results of the scientific method) can be a "scientist." They would be "reduced" to a perhaps a "philosopher" of their chosen philosophy or belief, sans definite scientific proof.




Okay. Then in the interests of clarity and truth (I don't want to be accused of putting words in your mouth or of "quote mining" as has often been used to discount other quotations) I will go back and find the specific thread and message that I referenced in the paraphrase.


Edited to add the aforementioned reference:




Seems to be rather clear and unequivocable. Perhaps you'd care to amend the declaritive statement at this time?

The URL for the post should you want to check it out for yourself, and the thread referenced is:

2long's response regarding scientists who cannot be scientists if they believe in Creation

You'll find the specific post on Page 7 of that thread, near the bottom of that page.

There is also, on that thread shortly before your quoted post, a long list of scientists who DO believe in Creation that I, if memory serves, bigkahuna listed.

2long,
did you ever see the movie "What the Bleep do we know?" ?

Weaver,
I have studied the Bhagavad Gita, which is actually a part of the Mahabaratha.
The Mahabaratha tells the story of 10 brothers, 5 "good" and 5 "bad".
At a certain point the armies of the brothers are standing opposed to each other, waiting for the battle to begin.
Arjuna, one of the five "good" brothers, asks Krishna who is the driver of his chariot, to position their chariot in between the two waiting armies.
Arjuna realises he'll have to fight his own family and sinks into depression.
Krishna then starts explaning to him what the correct way of acting is (and this constitutes the Bhagavad Gita).

From the "eastern" view point we are all interconnected, and any idea of division/separation is actually an illusion that one can overcome.
So it may seem that they have many "gods", where actually all these are manifestations - symbols, if you will - of the same energy or God to them.
The different types of energy have their own manifestation, Shiva is the destroyer, Brahma is the creator, Vishnu is the one who "keeps it together" (I don't know the exact word in English), for example.
They measure the age of our universe as "breaths of Brahma (the creator)" and give a very exact number of years for the age of our solar system.
I'd have to look it up, it's X billion years <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

This is what "A Course in Miracles" says as well.



Thank you brownhair.

It's interesting (and very impressive) to me that you have studied the Hindu beliefs. <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

Yes, FH, I am serious.


I can make no sense of such an approach. Such a substi2tion. Doesn't "work" for me.


Oh, for Rice Cake. One More Time: Evolution does not address origins, but changes through time. This has been stated over and over for you. Your stubborn refusal 2 accomodate these 2 facts is exactly why you don't see WAT participating on this thread anymore (and he told me I could say that).

The scientific method is exactly what is being applied 2 testing hypotheses regarding evolution. It cannot be applied 2 any "model" that involves superna2ral processes or acts.


Adheres 2 what?


I assume you're referring 2 scientists with religious or spiri2al beliefs with this? Well, I'm spiri2al, and I have no problem with my spiri2al beliefs being categorized as unscientific. They are. That's no insult.


No, that sounds pretty good as it is.



I suspect they're all kooks as well.

-ol' 2long

I took a several electives in college that covered the Bhagavad Gita, Koran, I Ching, Talmud ( see note – lol, I even learned a little Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek, Sanskrit, already knew Latin; now, if I could only remember a worthwhile chunk) and the major writings of a couple of other belief systems. The professor that taught the Mahabaratha was one of the guys that deciphered Sanskrit. Interesting guy, he had an edictic memory. The professor that taught I Ching wrote Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance.

Being an engineering student there wasn’t a whole lot of time for such extra far-flung interests. But it was all very interesting. Studying, even superficially, these writings helped me clarify some of my own Christianity. It was especially interesting to learn about some of the blatant scribe induced errors in the New Testament. Modern scientific textual criticism was in it infancy back then. They know a lot more about what is not accurate now.

I still have my texts around here somewhere. You guys made me want to dig them out and read again.

How come there isn’t more time!

With prayers,

ed: Tried to insert Hebrew title but does not work. Have to figure out how to do this.

JL, thank you for your thoughts about FH's approach. I had never considered it that way before.

Aphelion, I wish I'd gone to school where you did. I had the opportunity to study several of those books, but not with such high-powered folks.

And yes, I agree -- I wish there were more time. If there were, I would go find a PhD in mathematics and another in religion and perhaps a third one in ethics or psychology. And I'd write that book I promised Penny I would write -- one that combines Stosny's work, Helen Fischer's work, Patrick Carnes' approach to 12 Step programs, Pope Benedict's Encyclical on Love, and the principles of coaching.

Right after I finish writing policy for my work and get my house repairs done and become financially independent.

Anyone who'd like to nominate me for a few million dollars to get all that done, just e-mail me. <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

WAT, sorry you're not participating anymore, though I understand your reasons.

By the way, I realized that my response to AMM might imply that I really did just set this up to create a fight between FH and WAT. That's not the case. I was agreeing that having posted it, I was proceeding to ask them to speak civilly to one another. Her assumptions about my reasoning are hers and not mine. As to why I did it? Same answer as before: Because.

JL - I can't say that I am surprised that you have come to such a disrespectful judgment, you've made similar judgmental statements in the past. It is your opinion and you are entitled to it. But you, also, know very little about me, or my "understanding" of what is written in the Word of God.

So I guess now JustLearning has been elevated, at least in his own mind, as THE arbiter and judge of what the Bible says and I should just be "quiet" and say nothing, despite his "disclaimer" that he didn't tell me to "shut up and go away."

I don't know you JL, so you may well be a biblical scholar. If so, what is your opinion of the Scriptures and their being inspired and inerrant? What does the Scripture say about that question?

Who IS Jesus Christ and what makes him an "authority" on the validity of Scripture, especially in the context of this "debate" about "God created.." or "Nature evolved...?"
What DID Jesus have to say about the first 11 chapters of Genesis?

What do you think about the truth of the 1st chapter of the Gospel of John?



Ahh...I get it JL. It's okay to attack fundamental biblical Christianity but it's not okay for anyone to "defend" it because they are not "personally" being attacked. Well, let's just look at it as "my family" is being attacked, and I do tend to take that personally. Just as those doing the attacking seem to have the right to "go on the attack," it would seem that I might have the same right to "go on the attack" against evolutionist theory and speculation that masquerades as fact, since it's the PHILOSOPHY that I would argue against. Therefore, by extension of your logic, the supporters of Evolution should NOT get emotionally involved and should not lose their tempers because "they" are not being attacked, their belief is.

Good for the goose, good for the gander, it would seem.



For the record, I am not losing my temper. I simply refuse to be "pushed around" by others simply because they think they can bully and silence any opposition to their chosen belief. I will defend Christianity and point out error whenever it seems prudent. Whether or not anyone else may agree or disagree with what I might say is irrelevant. I base my "defense" on the Scripture and sound study. If you care to discuss or argue Scripture, be my guest. I'll be happy to discuss it with you. I EXPECT disrespect for the Scripture from unbelievers. I am saddened when those who claim to be Christians do so. It IS their choice, but it is sad anyway for them to make such a choice.

You are correct in one assertion however,JL. I don't know who you are, nor do I know who WAT or 2long are. I KNOW 2long is a geologist, but that's about all I know as to who he is and I know none of you personally.

How about yourself? Care to tell us a little bit about who you are, your area of expertise, so we CAN get to know you better?




Ahhh...now I'm "damaged." Another interesting judgment, JL.

So what is your model of "normal" and what part of that "normal" is "damaged," in your opinion?

Or perhaps you mean "damaged" with respect to my belief in Jesus Christ and the Word of God? If that is what you were referring to, rest easy JL, my faith has not been damaged.



Uh huh. What debate? The one about not understanding a word of what I read in the Scripture? The one about Creation versus Evolution as the HOW everything got here? God versus Nature? Perhaps some other debate that you might be thinking of?

Not a drive-by? Slip in for a post or two, attacking me personally, then leave for whatever justification and rationalization you choose to make it "okay" in your mind, and it's NOT a drive-by? As is often said, "It's all in the eye of the beholder."



Thank you. The same to you.

Oh for Rice Cakes. One more time: There can be NO "evolution" of biological life without there first being an origin of that life. There can be no universe without there first being an origin of that universe.

Choose to limit your use of the word "evolution" to organic life if it pleases you. I understand that. I also understand that many people talk about an "evolving" universe, etc. All you are doing is begging the question.

HOW did the universe, the earth, etc., come into being in the first place?

How did life come into being in the first place so that you could then limit any changes in the "first life" to the term "evolution?"

How IS your opinion of the origin of the universe, or the origin of life testable by the "scientific method?"

You obviously understand rocks. I understand biology, as it was my major. That doesn't make either one of us an "expert" in this arena. You ridicule and discount any scientist who believes in "God created..." and, along with WAT, BELIEVE that all things came into being by natural processes and random chance. That is a faith as much as is my faith that "God created..." It is a "philosophy" or "belief" that you hold, but it's not based in the the "scientific method," nor is it "reproduceable and observable." But it IS one or the other.

Have an additional Rice Cake: Concerning your "evolution" only as applied to living organisms. You continue to seem to operate under the false notion that Creationists think that there can be no variation (what you might want to call evolution) within the various kinds of life that God created. "Molecules to molecules," "birds to birds," "dogs to dogs," etc. are all perfectly fine with in Creationism. "Molecules to Man" is not. "Inanimate goo to living, self-replicating organism" is not.




Well, it looks like disrespectful judgments are the "norm," or was that just an emotional reaction of yours that JL doesn't like to see?