RE: what about evolution? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Theology] >> Science & Origins



Message

Jhud -> RE: what about evolution? (5/14/2008 6:10:31 PM)

quote:

It's going to be interesting to see what comes of current explorations into brain functions. But what is the relationship between brain functions and moral sense? A reductionist will make the whole mental/emotional/spiritual complex an epiphenomenon of neural activity. A Buddhist will consider the physical body, including the brain, to be a conditioned epiphenomenon of consciousness. Then you have the school of emergence in which the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. I don't know that science will resolve such issues.


Tom Wolfe has an interesting take on the issue.

quote:

Of course. They are, after all, only human. Doesn't make it right nor relieve us of the duty of clarifying the difference.


I never said it didn't. Indeed, I believe that is part of my job here.



unclemonkey -> RE: what about evolution? (5/14/2008 6:23:54 PM)

ORIGINAL:cchris
quote:

Believe what you want. I think you're wrong,…

I choose to believe the Bible. Do you have any Biblical support for the doctrine of man's inherent goodness you promote?

quote:

If you don't want to accept me as a Christian, then you won't.

That is NOT the issue. You are promoting eastern mystic doctrine as Christian doctrine. That is what I object to. As I said, I won’t object to you pushing eastern mystic doctrine as long as you call it what it is.

quote:

You aren't everyone, and people like you are impossible to avoid.

Why do you want to turn this into a personal battle? My objection isn’t with you, but rather the doctrine you promote.

Why are you avoiding my question? Do you believe the Bible contains ANY literal history?



Jhud -> RE: what about evolution? (5/14/2008 6:34:52 PM)

quote:

Jhud, it is also unfortunate that your tone seems less friendly now that you know I believe in evolution. Regardless: I didn't say that men were perfect, only that there is a trend among the human race to admire virtue and detest vice. Fictional heroes almost without fail embody virtue. The prime virtues aren't always the same, but you will be hard pressed to find a cowardly or malicious hero-- or a selfless and merciful villain for that matter. Check any culture you like. Christianity then, to me, is the embodiment and galvanization of all virtues that lay dormant in the human heart.


See, I think my tone is always the same. I am not sure how it became unfriendly.

I do think that we have ideals that we aspire to, and have universally aspired to over the millenia, but I think our base inclinations are to be selfish - and so be frustrated in our attempts to achieve those ideals. And I think as we experience such frustration, we are inclined to diminish those moral standards to which we previously aspired, and twist them so that they fit our selfish desires - and begin to call evil 'good', and good 'evil'. It is rather a proven path of civilizations going back as far as records allow.



cchris -> RE: what about evolution? (5/14/2008 6:42:37 PM)

I believe that children -- as the closest men are to their state before the influence of the temporal world-- demonstrate that man is a creature that, while being virtuous, is weak and susceptible to the honed and dangerous cunning of our enemy.

I don't believe in eastern mysticism. I believe in Christianity, and that is that. I have no interest in proving myself a Christian to you. I know what I am. I know that God has worked in my life, and whether you believe me or not is irrelevant.

I believe that the bible contains literal history, but I'm not going to debate with you how and why the Bible means what it does to me.

My arguement in this thread is that Christians are and should be brothers, despite minor doctrinal differences, and that appealing to the heart of a lost soul is the only way to guide him to Jesus. No more, no less.



ianz -> RE: what about evolution? (5/14/2008 6:43:45 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: unclemonkey

ORIGINAL:cchris
quote:

Believe what you want. I think you're wrong,…

I choose to believe the Bible. Do you have any Biblical support for the doctrine of man's inherent goodness you promote?

quote:

If you don't want to accept me as a Christian, then you won't.

That is NOT the issue. You are promoting eastern mystic doctrine as Christian doctrine. That is what I object to. As I said, I won’t object to you pushing eastern mystic doctrine as long as you call it what it is.

You're making a judgment on whether someone can call themselves a Christian. I'm not a Christian, but I don't see how you get this right. Certainly reading posts like this one put me off Christianity big time. Eastern mysticism sounds great if this is what Christians have to put up with. Gandhi's quote springs to mind.

quote:

quote:

You aren't everyone, and people like you are impossible to avoid.

Why do you want to turn this into a personal battle? My objection isn’t with you, but rather the doctrine you promote.

To my mind, the personal attacks were started by you. You took exception to cchris labelling him or herself a Christian. All cchris has noted since is your acerbic attitude.

quote:

Why are you avoiding my question? Do you believe the Bible contains ANY literal history?

cchris answered your question, noting that much of what the Bible describes is accurate, and backed up with archaeological evidence.

Regards, Ian



Jhud -> RE: what about evolution? (5/14/2008 6:44:06 PM)

quote:

I believe that children, as the closest man is to his state before the temporal world, demonstrate that man is a creature that, while being virtuous, is very weak.


You don't have children, do you? [;)]



cchris -> RE: what about evolution? (5/14/2008 6:46:15 PM)

Nope. I know they aren't all a bunch of heroes of virtue and benevolence, but there is an innocence about them that makes me understand why Jesus wants us to be as they are.



Jhud -> RE: what about evolution? (5/14/2008 6:49:36 PM)

quote:

To my mind, the personal attacks were started by you. You took exception to cchris labelling him or herself a Christian. All cchris has noted since is your acerbic attitude.


You know, I read back through all of unclemonkeys posts, and I see no where where he suggested cchris shouldn't call himself a Christian; he took exception to him labeling certain beliefs as Christian, but that is quite a different matter.

I mean the man's posts have a lot more vim and vigor than his mild mannered picture would suggest, but he wasn't attacking cchris.



Jhud -> RE: what about evolution? (5/14/2008 6:52:11 PM)

quote:

Nope. I know they aren't all a bunch of heroes of virtue and benevolence, but there is an innocence about them that makes me understand why Jesus wants us to be as they are.


While I am certain my children lacked the pretentions of the world when they were younger, they certainly weren't the embodiment of virtue. Indeed, a ruler who acted as a baby does would be a terrible tyrant indeed.



ianz -> RE: what about evolution? (5/14/2008 6:52:55 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud

quote:

To my mind, the personal attacks were started by you. You took exception to cchris labelling him or herself a Christian. All cchris has noted since is your acerbic attitude.


You know, I read back through all of unclemonkeys posts, and I see no where where he suggested cchris shouldn't call himself a Christian; he took exception to him labeling certain beliefs as Christian, but that is quite a different matter.

I mean the man's posts have a lot more vim and vigor than his mild mannered picture would suggest, but he wasn't attacking cchris.

You must have been a diplomat in a previous life. [;)]

Edit: I didn't paste the smiley correctly.



Jhud -> RE: what about evolution? (5/14/2008 6:54:53 PM)

quote:

You must have been a diplomat in a previous life.


As everyone will tell you, I am nothing if not diplomatic. [:)]



cchris -> RE: what about evolution? (5/14/2008 7:03:13 PM)

While I remember not being perfectly virtuous (no mortal ever can be), I do remember the horror and mortification I felt when I saw cruelty or images of graphic sex and violence. It's a shame that the world is such a hard place that it's either get used to it or live in constant shock. Don't get me wrong though, those things still boil my blood, it's just now they aren't as brutaly unexpected.



Jhud -> RE: what about evolution? (5/14/2008 7:09:38 PM)

quote:

yep I remember I wasn't perfectly innocent either. But I do remember the horror and mortification I felt when I saw cruelty or images of graphic sex and violence. It's a shame that the world is such a hard place that it's either get used to it or live in constant shock. Don't get me wrong though, those things still boil my blood, it's just now they aren't as brutaly unexpected.


I agree there is an innocence to children that can be corrupted - indeed, i think losing one's innocence is a matter of gaining knowledge of evil that resonate's with one's own inate capacity for doing evil.



cchris -> RE: what about evolution? (5/14/2008 7:29:00 PM)

Indeed. Thank God for a conscience that can grow with us, if we allow it to -- or even dispite our efforts to ignore it!



unclemonkey -> RE: what about evolution? (5/14/2008 11:04:08 PM)

ORIGINAL:ianz
quote:

You're making a judgment on whether someone can call themselves a Christian.

No, I am not. I am making a judgment on a particular doctrine.

quote:

You took exception to cchris labelling him or herself a Christian.

Maybe you need to read my posts again. What I took exception to is the labeling of the doctrine of man’s inherent goodness as a Christian doctrine. It is un-Biblical and therefore not Christian. It is eastern mysticism that teaches that man is inherently good so it is a doctrine of eastern mysticism.

quote:

Certainly reading posts like this one put me off Christianity big time.

I am not into political correctness so I am not going to shy away from pointing out the truth about a doctrine even if it upsets people.



unclemonkey -> RE: what about evolution? (5/14/2008 11:07:18 PM)

ORIGINAL:cchris
quote:

I believe that children -- as the closest men are to their state before the influence of the temporal world-- demonstrate that man is a creature that, while being virtuous, is weak and susceptible to the honed and dangerous cunning of our enemy.

Do you think children won’t lie without first being taught to lie?

quote:

I believe that the bible contains literal history,

Finally, a straightforward answer. Thank you.

quote:

but I'm not going to debate with you how and why the Bible means what it does to me.

That is not what I am asking for.
I don’t consider EVERYTHING in the Bible as literal history, but since I accept the Bible as God’s inerrant word I accept those parts of the Bible that are presented in an historic genre as literal history.
Since you do agree that the Bible contains literal history I am interested in how you make the distinction between what is literal history and what isn’t.

quote:

My arguement in this thread is that Christians are and should be brothers, despite minor doctrinal differences, and that appealing to the heart of a lost soul is the only way to guide him to Jesus. No more, no less.

What you are arguing is that those of us who see evolution as an attack on Biblical authority should just keep our mouths shut.



cchris -> RE: what about evolution? (5/14/2008 11:45:54 PM)

You can believe that humans are innately evil if you want. I believe that humans were created to be good but became lost. You don't have to agree with me.

When I read genesis, I read it as though through the eyes of one watching the history of earth unwind through a dream. You don't have to agree with this either.

You think evolution is heresey, I think you misread scripture. Only God knows for sure. This will almost certainly offend you, but it can't be helped.

The main message of my post wasn't to censor, but to focus. Debate is not a bad thing. But what I am saying is that if more time were spent reaching out to non-believers and less on fighting over evolution our duties to God would be better served.

I believe, in regards to our disagreement, that we have nothing left to say to one another. I hope that you can see me as a brother in Christ, as I see you.



unclemonkey -> RE: what about evolution? (5/15/2008 1:35:23 AM)

ORIGINAL:cchris
quote:

You can believe that humans are innately evil if you want. I believe that humans were created to be good but became lost. You don't have to agree with me.

It is not what I believe that matters, but rather what the Bible teaches.
“All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine” – 2nd Timothy 3:16a
“The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?” – Jeremiah 17:9

quote:

When I read genesis, I read it as though through the eyes of one watching the history of earth unwind through a dream.

You don’t believe that Abraham, the father of Israel, actually existed? Please cite the Biblical support for interpreting Genesis as a dream.

quote:

You think evolution is heresey,

Well, heresy IS belief that contradicts Scripture.
Evolution contradicts the Scriptures that say God created distinct kinds.
The billions of years evolution requires contradicts Exodus 20:9-11. “Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work: But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates: For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.”
Of course there is no contradiction if you think God expects us each to work for six billion years before taking a day off.

quote:

I think you misread scripture.

Then please cite the Scriptures that support evolution.

quote:

This will almost certainly offend you, but it can't be helped.

I am not offended at all. I just expect you to be able to provide Biblical support for any doctrine you promote as Christian doctrine.

quote:

But what I am saying is that if more time were spent reaching out to non-believers and less on fighting over evolution our duties to God would be better served.

So why are you squandering your time in this forum?

quote:

The main message of my post wasn't to censor, but to focus. Debate is not a bad thing.

But speaking out against heresy is a bad thing?



gluadys -> RE: what about evolution? (5/15/2008 12:11:07 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud

quote:

It's going to be interesting to see what comes of current explorations into brain functions. But what is the relationship between brain functions and moral sense? A reductionist will make the whole mental/emotional/spiritual complex an epiphenomenon of neural activity. A Buddhist will consider the physical body, including the brain, to be a conditioned epiphenomenon of consciousness. Then you have the school of emergence in which the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. I don't know that science will resolve such issues.


Tom Wolfe has an interesting take on the issue.


What a delightful article. I think the main thing we need to do with this sort of thing is not be afraid of it. Nothing factual can be a genuine threat to faith. I think it helps immensely to divest ourselves of Cartesian/Platonic dualism and understand ---as Genesis 2:7 says ---that we are souls: we don't have souls. And the souls that we are are a physico-psychic unity, not a physical-spiritual duality. We are not and never have been ghosts in the machine.

This means, of course that the Catholic dogma of the immortal soul is incorrect. It is not re-incarnation or transmigration which is the Christian escahtological hope, but resurrection. Resurrection of the whole being, which as the Apostles' Creed makes clear, is a resurrection of the body.

In light of what we are learning about the interconnections of humanity and the planet, I think we also need to consider that it is not only the human body that is the subject of resurrection, but the complete body of Gaia.

A couple of interesting thoughts from the article that struck very forcibly:



quote:

If I were a college student today, I don't think I could resist going into neuroscience. Here we have the two most fascinating riddles of the twenty-first century: the riddle of the human mind and the riddle of what happens to the human mind when it comes to know itself absolutely. In any case, we live in an age in which it is impossible and pointless to avert your eyes from the truth.

He [Nietzsche] predicted that eventually modern science would turn its juggernaut of skepticism upon itself, question the validity of its own foundations, tear them apart, and self-destruct. I thought about that in the summer of 1994 when a group of mathematicians and computer scientists held a conference at the Santa Fe Institute on "Limits to Scientific Knowledge." The consensus was that since the human mind is, after all, an entirely physical apparatus, a form of computer, the product of a particular genetic history, it is finite in its capabilities. Being finite, hardwired, it will probably never have the power to comprehend human existence in any complete way. It would be as if a group of dogs were to call a conference to try to understand The Dog. They could try as hard as they wanted, but they wouldn't get very far. Dogs can communicate only about forty notions, all of them primitive, and they can't record anything. The project would be doomed from the start. The human brain is far superior to the dog's, but it is limited nonetheless. So any hope of human beings arriving at some final, complete, self-enclosed theory of human existence is doomed, too.



Both bolded parts, I believe, are very important. The first because we must always be prepared to face the truth, however painful it may be. The second because it notes the limits of science and so still leaves plenty of room for us to play around with non-scientific factors like faith.

The truly important thing is not to rest faith on a rejection of fact, but to shape faith so that we can live with fact in hope and not despair. I think Christianity has the resources to do that, but fundamentalism clearly does not.


quote:

quote:

Of course. They are, after all, only human. Doesn't make it right nor relieve us of the duty of clarifying the difference.


I never said it didn't. Indeed, I believe that is part of my job here.


Me too. I think you handicap yourself though, when you try to throw the baby[evolution] out with the bathwater [atheism].



cchris -> RE: what about evolution? (5/15/2008 12:55:25 PM)

quote:

quote:

But what I am saying is that if more time were spent reaching out to non-believers and less on fighting over evolution our duties to God would be better served.
So why are you squandering your time in this forum?

quote:

The main message of my post wasn't to censor, but to focus. Debate is not a bad thing.
But speaking out against heresy is a bad thing?


I think that you're in such a rush to talk that you're not even listening.

I'm only in the science forum to ask for unity. I'm not going to argue evolutionsim versus creationism. I know all about your arguements and I've spent years contemplating them. This is not a new debate for me. I've had this argument hundreds of times and to explain to you in a post what took me years to decide on is just not going to happen. Anyways, it always ends with the same result. Nothing is achieved but bitterness.

In fact, I wonder how many times you've had the this same argument. I wonder if the number of times you've reached out to non-believers in a non-argumentative manner even comes close.

That's why I'm trying to bring awareness. Trying to convince me that I'm not following Christianity correctly is a waste of time and irrelevant to my message.

Non-believers don't care about heresy. And they won't untill they've accepted Christ. Only then will they choose whether to be Baptists or Catholics or whatever. That's a part of their own personal relationship with God. The important thing is to show them the demons that have been at their heels all their lives, and that their is a Savior.

You can have the last word because I'm not going to get into this any deeper with you. Like I said, I know my beliefs and I know when I have a guilty concsience. I know that God is working in my life. That's all I need to know.

If anything, you've made what I suggest seem even more relevant. You have shown none of the traits that a Christian is supposed to show: Humility, tranquility, understanding, and friendliness. You've come across as a frothing at the mouth zealot. And that's why I've decided to relate something about myself. I don't expect it to benefit you, but maybe others will learn something, and better understand the non-believer, which is essential if we want to dispell the clouds of doubt they have.

I used to consider myself an enemy of God. In fact, for years I was consumed with the idea of helping destroy the faith of his followers. It wasn´t always like that, but as I sank deep into depression I realized that I had heard alot of talk about how great God was, but felt that there was very little evidence.

In my quest to understand and feel better, I can count on one hand the amount of times a Christian bothered to understand what I was going through, much less help me. But I can't even begin to count the amount of times "Christians" yelled and fought with me because I believed differently than they did.

This greatly increased my determination to steal the faith of the uncertain. In fact, this major flaw in God's "witnesses" turned out to be one of my most persuasive arguements. I would ask why, if Christ is so special, are his followers so devoid of compassion? It was an unfortunate mistake by me, because at the time I didn't realize that the best Christians are usually the least judgemental, spreading Christianity in the spirit of friendship and not haughty indignation.

Fortunately, the Lord was willing to show me the way back to him, stronger for what I had been through. Since then I've been on the recieving end of anger angainst the Kingdom of God. The most prominent case that they leveled at Christianity was that, because Christ is the leader of all these unfeeling Christians, he must be responsible for their behavior. I want those people to have no groundsin their arguments to the lost that Christ is not worthy of worship because his followers care more about being right than they do about helping to save the lost and unfortunate. That's why I'm asking for Christians to put away their animosity and to try to show them our religion by wanting to help them instead of wanting to defeat them in debates.



Jhud -> RE: what about evolution? (5/15/2008 1:06:14 PM)

quote:

Fortunately, the Lord was willing to show me the way back to him, stronger for what I had been through. Since then I've been on the recieving end of anger angainst the Kingdom of God. The most prominent case that they leveled at Christianity was that, because Christ is the leader of all these unfeeling Christians, he must be responsible for their behavior. I want those people to have to grounds to convince the lost that Christ is not worthy of worship because his followers care more about being right than they do about helping save the lost and unfortunate. That's why I'm asking for Christians to put away their animosity and to try to show them our religion by wanting to help them instead of wanting to defeat them in debates.


In all due respect Chris, it's a little silly to come into a forum specifically set up to discuss origins and claim that this represents the lack of compassion found in Christianity in general because we focus on discussing origins. You have no idea what anybody does outside of this forum, and you can't judge that based on opinions about this specific topic; especially when it's a topic that is much more about objective facts and evidences, and much less about dealing with others life issues.

If you spend a little time looking around, you will there are many other threads where problems are shared, compassion is shown, and people are encouraged. It even happens here occasionally - but more likely than not, the conversation will revolve around logic and reason and what can be objectively agreed upon, so it would be rather myopic to use this as a measuring stick.



cchris -> RE: what about evolution? (5/15/2008 1:41:21 PM)

I came to talk about how the divide between evolution and creation has become caustic. a forum about the ideas of origin is as appropriate a place to talk about that as any other.

I don't know what you or anyone on this forum is like in real life. But I can make inferences about character based on my interactions with you. You may be exceptionally nice to the people you know, but does that matter when you've treated a stranger brashly and as an enemy over one differing point of view? One of the first things unclemonkey did in this thread was to assert that I was "Biblically incompetant." Maybe, because you share opinions with him, you don't realise how insulting this is, especially given the fact that he knows nothing about me or my history, and even less about my journey to better understand God.

I think this is a great forum with great people, don't get me wrong. But I never expected so much animosity to be leveled at me, even as I struggled to keep detached from agressiveness and then from my indignation. Animosity has no place in the debating repetoire of the common Christian, and this is another theme I wanted to discuss. If it's not apparent to you, it's been apparent to myself and the others who have observed unclemonkey's abrasive approach. I've fought hard not to let myself judge unclemonkey, despite the fact that he has been antagonistic and unsympathetic to me from the start, indeed while preaching Christian Doctrine. This leads me to another issue that I wanted to explore when I made this thread. We have to be aware of the aggravating nature of this issue. When we debate it we need to do it civilly, with respect for differing points of view and respect for, as you pointed out, our lack of knowledge about the hearts and histories of our rivals. If that's too hard to do, then I recommend leaving the subject alone and focusing on better ways to serve God.

Edit: look, I'm not opposed to talking about evolution with anyone, but I'm not going to answer questions about my faith and how I reconcile it with evolution under hostile confrontation. I've done that too many times, both on the offensive and the defensive, and I don't want to do it anymore.



unclemonkey -> RE: what about evolution? (5/15/2008 4:19:17 PM)

ORIGINAL:cchris
quote:

I'm only in the science forum to ask for unity. I'm not going to argue evolutionsim versus creationism.

What you are seeking is compromise. Given the choice of heresy or schism I choose schism. Evidently you choose heresy.

quote:

I know all about your arguements and I've spent years contemplating them.

Over those years then you should have accumulated Biblical references to support your position. All you need do to persuade me to accept the compromise you seek is provide Biblical support.

quote:

I've had this argument hundreds of times and to explain to you in a post what took me years to decide on is just not going to happen.

The only reason I can see for it not happening is because you have no Biblical support for your decision. I gladly provide Biblical support for my arguments.

quote:

Anyways, it always ends with the same result. Nothing is achieved but bitterness.

The only bitterness I see here is the bitterness you express over my refusal to accept your argument without justification.
That begs the question: If you have been doing this for years and the only result you have achieved is bitterness then why are you still doing it?

quote:

I wonder if the number of times you've reached out to non-believers in a non-argumentative manner even comes close.

Thank you for providing an example of the bitterness you refer to.
FYI, just yesterday I ran into a Jehovah’s Witness while I was handing out church tracts. He kept repeating: “You need to learn to understand the Bible”. Yet when I asked him for Biblical references supporting his belief that Jesus is not God all he could say was: “I am not sure just where the Bible says it”. Even after I showed him in his own “New World Translation” a clear reference to Jesus as God he still insisted that my problem was that I didn’t understand the Bible. I didn’t get bitter. I just told him ‘bye’ and went on.

quote:

That's why I'm trying to bring awareness.

The awareness you are trying to bring is compromise with eastern mysticism. I don’t find that acceptable.

quote:

Trying to convince me that I'm not following Christianity correctly is a waste of time and irrelevant to my message.

Was Jesus “following Christianity correctly” when he overturned the tables and ran the moneychangers out of the Temple?

quote:

Non-believers don't care about heresy. And they won't untill they've accepted Christ.

I care about heresy and WILL speak out against it. It seems rather deceptive to befriend heresy in order to attract non-believers.

quote:

You have shown none of the traits that a Christian is supposed to show: Humility, tranquility, understanding, and friendliness.

How about integrity? Are you at least going to give me credit for that virtue or are you so infuriated that all you care to do now is cast insults?

quote:

But I can't even begin to count the amount of times "Christians" yelled and fought with me because I believed differently than they did.

Much like your response to my refusal to switch my thinking to match yours.



unclemonkey -> RE: what about evolution? (5/15/2008 4:56:41 PM)

ORIGINAL:cchris
quote:

One of the first things unclemonkey did in this thread was to assert that I was "Biblically incompetant."

That was an observation. Promoting an eastern mystic doctrine (man’s inherent goodness), which clearly contradicts the Bible, as Christian doctrine is a demonstration of Biblical incompetence.
You have succeeded quite well in confirming that observation.
You perceive my abhorrence for political correctness as personally insulting and that is a shame.



Jhud -> RE: what about evolution? (5/15/2008 4:57:21 PM)

quote:

I came to talk about how the divide between evolution and creation has become caustic. a forum about the ideas of origin is as appropriate a place to talk about that as any other.

I don't know what you or anyone on this forum is like in real life. But I can make inferences about character based on my interactions with you. You may be exceptionally nice to the people you know, but does that matter when you've treated a stranger brashly and as an enemy over one differing point of view? One of the first things unclemonkey did in this thread was to assert that I was "Biblically incompetant." Maybe, because you share opinions with him, you don't realise how insulting this is, especially given the fact that he knows nothing about me or my history, and even less about my journey to better understand God.


I am not sure how I treated you ‘brashly’ – I have treated people brashly, but I try to get to know them first.

I will let unclemonkey speak for himself, because he is completely capable, but you can’t take every disagreement as a personal attack or you are going to find this a very tough place to interact. In fact, as you acknowledge you don’t really know anyone here, so perhaps you could start with that?



Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4   next >   >>



Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.5 ANSI