Rules for Debating

I Wonder if I should Post Something that I Came Across Recently that is Actually sort of Interesting.  It is a Debate Flow Chart that has some rather Interesting Guide Lines on it.  If you want a Larger View of it, just Click Here.



This came from the Blog of someone Known as Soapbox or the Soapster.  In my Initial Comments on his Post, it is apparent that I was not real Trusting at First, due to the Fact that so many of the Ideas and Rules are Subjective and thus, without a Referee, these Rules may not Work too Well.  For Example, rather someone's Argument is shown to be Faulty is Often a Subjective Call, as well as Judgments about rather or not our Opponent is being Rational and Following Reason.  Whether or not One Position is more Realistic then another, or the Evidence Offered is Adequate are also Subjective Judgments, as well as the Judgment about whether or not an Argument has been Resolved or not, so that the Discussion can move on to the Next Point, or even whether or not a Certain Fact Presented is Accurate or Inaccurate.

This is why I Kept saying, in the Comment Section of Soapster's Post, "According to Whom?"  Because of the Subjective Nature of these Rules, without a Referee, if a Person Desires to be in Control of a Discussion, he could Use the Subjective Nature of these Rules to his Advantage.

Considering this, I decided that these Rules Really are Good, if Used in a Fair Manner, for I Find that when there are no Rules, the Discussion will Generally Degrade into Chaos, yet I also Decided to Add Two more Rules of my Own to the 4 that are Listed on the Flow Chart and here they are below.

5.) Do not Accuse Based on your Own Subjective Opinion about your Opponent's Ability to Reason.

And

6.) These Rules do Need to Apply to all Parties and not just to your Opponent.

Let me Know your Thoughts.

Also, I don't Know why this Post is Insisting on being the Last one on a Page.  Please do, though, Click on "Older Posts", for more  Posts and Of Course, do Read the Comments, for I have Placed more of my thoughts in the Comments Section.

What we've been doing with Our Out of Town Guest.

When I'm Away from the Computer for too Long, I sort of Lose my Train of Thought.  I will Probably be Rereading some things in Order to get it back again, so Please do Scan Down to see if there is any New Comments that you have not yet Read.

Since I haven't Posted in awhile, though, I thought I would share with you what I have been doing.  We had out of Town Company that Stayed for Three Weeks.  At First I thought that that was going to be a rather Long Time to have such Company, but Fortunately, it was only One.  My Husband's Cousin from Indiana was the One who Graced us with his Presence from Saturday, October 1 to Monday, October 24.  He is sort of a High Energy Person who caused me to be a little Busier than Usual.  We did a lot of Fun Stuff, such as Hiking, yet I still came home feeling rather Tired and after getting the Cooking, Cleaning Up and Laundry done, I was Craving some time to myself.  Being a Bit of a Loner, I Need more Time to Reflect then a lot of People do.  It was Fun, though.

The First Thing that the Guys did was took a Trip Up to some Property that we Own in Northern California.  My Husband had Asked his Cousin to help him Clean Up some of the Fallen Trees.  Prior to that, we were just Visiting and Hiking Locally.  They were gone from the 5th to the 9th.  Realizing that Three Weeks worth of Company may be a little much for me, I decided not to go.  Though I should have had 4 1/2 Days to myself, I Really Only had 2 1/2, for I spent the 8th and part of the 7th Cleaning House and Running Errands and on the Morning of the 9th, I Threw Something in the Crock Pot for the Guys Return in the Afternoon and Went to Church that Morning.

I was on the Computer just a Little on the 6th and 7th, but was Reluctant to start any Conversations that I was not going to be able to Finish.  I Bought myself some Cloths and I don't even Remember what else, but it was good to Relax and Reflect for just a Few Days.

The 10th was a Laundry day and then from the 11th to the 16th we were Out of Town.  We Traveled Up to Florence, Oregon to see my Husband's Brother and his Wife.  We had a Really good Visit, saw the Beach, some Sea Lion Caves, did some Fishing and Hiking, had a Truck Ride on the Dunes, etc.  We Traveled on the 11th and then were in Florence from the 12th to the 14th.  On the 15th, we Traveled Down the Coast and saw the Redwoods and Patrick's Point.  On the 16th, we sort of got Lost on this One Beach, (Clam Beach, Near Arcadia, California) which is another Interesting Story that I may Expand on in the Comment Section.

Once we Finally Got on the Road again, we Traveled in land, over the Mountains, and Visited the Big Foot Museum in Willow Creek.  We Even Stopped for a Minute along the Stream to Try Out our Guest's Medal Detector and do some Gold Panning.  No Luck.  We're just Amateurs having Fun.

On the 17th, we Picked up Our Dog from the Boarding Facility, Took him for a Long Walk and then Spent the Rest of the Day Helping my Father-in-Law who has the Beginnings of Dementia and Needed Help with some things.  Not too Surprisingly, the 18th was another Landry day and guess who got Elected to do it all, while the Guys Spent that Day Gold Panning?  Still no Luck, even though they were Accompanied by Experience Gold Panners this time.  Apparently, though there has been Gold Found in the Area that they went to, Gold Prospecting has Picked up to the Point in which it has Made Finding the Gold more Difficult.

On the 19th, we Took our Dog on a Long Hike on a Trail Near by that Allows Dogs.  On the 20th, we went Gold Panning again in a Stream, yet again Found Very Little.  It was Discouraging.  Our Guest was Hoping for so much more then that, since there are Indeed Gold Claims Along this River, yet we are still Amateurs and it Turns Out that this is Really Hard if you do not Know what you are Doing or where to Look.  Later in the Day, we Hiked Quite a Distance Along a Flume.  Just in Case you haven't Guessed, Our Guest Loves to Hike.

On the 21rst, the Guys did a Day Trip up to Mount Lassen and I really should have Gone Along to this One, cause they went on some Trails that I had Never been on and it sounded really Neat.  Instead, I stayed Home and did some more House Work and Landry.  If Only I was more of a High Energy Person, I could have done more of this in the Evenings after returning from all our other Activities and then Cooking and Cleaning Up the Kitchen, but I have Never been a High Energy Person. 

On the 22nd, we Visited a Gold Panning Museum that is not Far from here and our Guest wanted to Look at Travel Trailers, even though none of us can Afford to Make such a Purchase right now.  That is unless we Find Ourselves some Gold.  lol.  After Church, on the 23rd, we did a 3 1/2 Hour Hike around a Lake.  We were not in Agreement over rather it was 8 or 9 Miles that we Hiked.  On the 24th we Took our Guest to the Airport.

Black & White, Nature vs. Nurture Debate & Sigmund Freud

Well, I've gotten Side Tracked from my Swedenborg Series (the Next Two Posts Below).  I was going to do Three or Four Posts on him, but Only Ended Up doing two.  There may be more Later, yet for now, I'm Focused on Sigmund Freud and am Amazed to what Extent People who Write about these Historical Figures are Black and White in their Thinking.  For example, why do People Think that when it comes to Nature vs. Nurture, we have to Settle for one or the other and that it can't be a little of both.

This Post is sort of a Critique of an Article that I've read about Sigmund Freud.  Here is the Link to the Article that I'm now Responding to.  It covers all sorts of things relating to Sigmund Freud, yet if you Found this Post by way of a Web Search and are Primarily interested in the Nature vs. Nurture Debate, please feel Freed to Skip Down to the Part that contains the Heading "Black & White Thinking in the Article (Nature vs. Nurture)".  To Answer the Very First of your Questions, though, Freud's Focus was Very Strongly on Nurture.

The Author of said Article is Anti-Freud & Anti-Nurture.
I Wonder if it will Surprise the Friend who gave me this Link, to Realize that when I Read it all the way through to the End, what I mainly saw was Bias and Black and White Thinking.  I'm not even Particularly a Lover of Freud, yet I still Found the Final Conclusions in this Article to be Excessively Anti-Freud, or Actually more Specifically, Anti-Nurture in relation to the Nature vs. Nurture Debate.

The Positives Relating to Freud
In the First Part of the Article, a lot of Freud's Ideas are Explained and Only Some of them are Argued against.  For Example, the Article Admits that "Most People, including many who Reject other Elements of Freud's Work, Accept the Claim that Part of the Mind is Unconscious and that People Often Act for Reasons of which they are not Conscious."  The Article Actually calls Freud's Idea about the Unconscious "A Ground Breaking Idea".

The Article also says that the Idea that the Mind is not a Monolithic or Homogeneous thing Continues to have Enormous Influence on People Outside of Psychology.

Ok, so the Id, Ego & Super Ego has been Questioned and Rejected by some and Freud is Criticized for giving too much Importance to One or the other of these Factors, yet his Contributions to the Field of Psychology were Significant and can not be Discounted so Easily.

The Negatives
The Main Conflict has always been Relating to Freud's Over Emphasis on Sex as the Motivator of all Creative and Productive Behavior.  The Fact that Freud Expanded his Sexual Idea to Include all of our Creative Instincts and the Idea that Children are Sexual Beings has been Under Attack since the Very Beginning and his Idea of the Sexual Instinct and the Death Instinct has been Challenged as well.  Ideas such as the Oedipus conflict; Oral, Annal & Phallic Fixations, as well as Penis Envy (Another one that was not Mentioned in the Article) were all Controversial from the Start.  Freud was just Plain too Focused on Sex, to the Exclusion of other Social Motivators and I would Add Intellectual Motivators as well.  This Part of the Conflict is in No Way New.  These Ideas were Rejected by Most Psychologists a Really Long Time Ago.

It also doesn't Surprise me to Read that some Guy named Lydiard H. Horton Claimed that Freud's Dream Theory was "Dangerously Inaccurate".

Towards the end of the Linked Article, the Author was quite Negative, Making all Kinds of Generalized Negative Statements against Freud's Over All Theory, Research and Practice and "a Large Majority of Freud's Work".

Freud's Model and Theory of the Mind and his Basic Methods and Theories are Rejected by Some Clinical Psychologists and by Most Experimental Psychologists and Psychiatrists.  Many Clinical Psychologists, though, have Modified his Approach and Still Use it.

When the Article begins to talk about Freud's Psychological Theories being "Hotly Disputed Today", that he is Regarded as a Charlatan by some, that Psychiatry and Psychology has been "Recast as Scientific Disciplines", that his Influence is Lessening in Psychiatry and that his Theories have been Repudiated and Replaced by the Ideas of Emil Kaepelin, some of the Positives that were said earlier in the Article seem to have been Forgotten.

Back to the Positives
What about the "Ground Breaking" Idea about the Unconscious Mind and how it Influences Behavior; an Idea that Most People do still accept?  And What about the Idea that the Mind is not Homogenius or Monolithic?  And What about the Fact that Some Clinical Psychologists have Modified Freud's Approach and Developed a Variety of Models and Therapies that are Similar?  And What about the Fact that even many of those who have Rejected his "Model of the Mind" have still Adopted Elements of his Therapeutic Methods and that even the Use of "Talking as a Form of Therapy" is Accredited to Freud?  And What about the Fact that some People, even Today, still Seek Out Freud's method of Psychoanalysis as Part of a Process of Self-Discovery?  Also, What about his Research in Relation to Cerebral Palsy, in that he disagreed with William Little about the cause of it and that his Opinion is the One that was Confirmed by Research in the 1980s?  Yes, Freud was the One who Discovered that Birth Complications were a Symptom, not the Cause of Cerebral Palsy.

Ok, so Most of Psychiatrists and Psychologists Today Reject Traditional Freudian Psychoanalysis the way it was Originally done, yet what about all the Positives?  This Article Appears to be Throwing the Baby Out with the Bath Water.  For Example, the Article Mentions how Experimental Psychologists and Psychiatrists Often Rely more on Drugs then on Talk in their Treatments and this is True, yet Considering all of the Negative Side Effects of these Drugs, the Total Emphasis on Drugs is way more Negative, than Positive.  Talking has never Stopped being a Good Idea, even to those Clinical Psychologists who have Rejected Freud's Model of the Mind.

Black & White Thinking in the Article (Nature vs. Nurture)
So what was it about this Article that I found to be inappropriately Black and White?  Well, the Statement "Freud's Notion that the Child's Relationship to the Parents is Responsible for Everything from Psychiatric Disorders to Criminal Behavior has also been Discredited." is Only True because of the Word Everything.  Never Mind, though, that the Suggestion that "Everything" is the Result of Genetics is just as Inaccurate.  Ok, so maybe we shouldn't always "Blame-the-Parents" for "Eveything", yet what I've Found to be Equally True is that Continually Blaming Oneself isn't Helpful either and also, to Suggest that Genetics and Biology Explains "Everything" and that there is no such thing as the Influence of Nurture is no more Accurate than the Opposite Extreme.

Just because there were many Decades, in which "Genetic and Biological Causes of Psychiatric Disorders were Dismissed without Scientific Investigation" does not Justify now Dismissing the Nurture Part of the Equation.

Yes, it is well established that Genetic and Biological Factors have a Great Influence on Human Development and Behavior and Sure, Psychiatric Disorders are Generally Considered Diseases of the Brain whose Etiology is Principally Genetic and many such Diseases have been Demonstrated to be Impervious to Psychoanalysis, yet none of that means that there is no such thing as Nurture.  Or that Nurture has no Influence what-so-ever.

To Use the Controversy Over the Excessive Sexual Focus of Sigmund Freud to Push the Idea of Genetic Influences, at the Exclusion of Equally Important Nurture Influences is Absurd.

The Only Reason that the "Diagnostic and Statistical Manual" or the "American Psychiatric Association" Reflects the Neo-Kraelinian Scientific-Biological Approach to Psychiatric Disorders is because Psychiatry has always been the Biological and Nature Branch of Psychology.  Clinical Psychology is still alive and well, though, and is still Focused on Nurture, just as much as Psychiatry is on Nature and their Focus is on Talking, rather then Drugs.

It almost sounds as if the Author of the Linked Article is Holding some Kind of a Grudge because Biological and Genetic Etiologies were "Largely Ignored during the Earlier Freud-Dominated Decade of the Twentieth Century".

Anyway, though this Article Mentioned a Number of Positives at the Beginning, the Concluding thoughts were Excessively Negative and made it sound as if all of Freud's Ideas are Under Attack, rather then just a few of them, and that even Believing in Nurture and not just Nature is an Idea of the Past, but such a Suggestion is not at all True.

The Scientifically Observable & the Non-Scientifically Observable
One Last Black and White Thought is this one...

"Proponents of Science conclude that this Invalidates Freudian Theory and Proponents of Freud conclude that this Invalidates Science."  

Just because Freud Claimed that many of our Conscious Thoughts and Actions are Motivated by Unconscious Fears and Desires, this does not mean that this Invalidates Science.  Oh Come On!  Statements Like this sort of cause me to Shake my Head.  Why does it have to be One or the Other?  How does the Existence of Something that can not be Directly Observed and Studied Scientifically Invalidate that which can be Observed and Studied?  And how does that which can be Directly Observed and Studied Invalidate that which can not be?  Why is it so hard to Imagine that both the Observable and the Non-Observable are True Realities, that that which can be Studied Scientifically and that which can not be can both be Valid Realities and that both Nature and Nurture Exist and Interact with each Other and Why are some People so Very Very Blind to the Idea of NOT One of the Other, but Both?

I just don't get it.  Black and White Thinking is so Prevalent on the Web these days that I Wonder sometimes if True Reasoning has been Totally Lost.

Swedenborg/Part 2/Christianity Intellect Compatible

This Post is the Second of a Three Part Series, or actually, it may be 4 or 5 Parts by the time I'm done, on a Link that BB-Idaho Left me, Relating to Religious History, or more Specifically Emanuel Swedenborg.  My Previous Post is about the Trinity, God's Wrath and God's Holiness.  This One is more about the Positives in Swedenborg's Theology and how the Basics Gospel Message does not have to be in Conflict with the Intellect.  The Basics are General Enough that there is a lot of Room for Various Forms of Intellectual thoughts and Ways of Understanding Things.  It is Only those who are Overly Dogmatic that cause Intellectual Conflict within those who Like to Think Things Through.

I am not One to Be Dogmatic about any Particular Theology among the Various Theologies that are Debated between those who Believe in Christianity.  That is as Long as there is Biblical Backing for whatever Theology is Proposed.  My Thinking is that Some Things are Obvious and some are not, so let that which is Less Obvious be Decided by Each Individual in their Own Way, in what ever Manner God Leads them.

May the Calvinists and Armenians Accept each other in Love and may God Reveal Truth to all of Us in His Own Way, yet we do Need to be Sure that what we Believe Matches with the Scripture, for if it does not, then the Belief can not Correctly be Called Christianity.

Anyway, since God's Holiness and God's Love is Actually Stressed more by the Church then God's Wrath, Swedenborg's Ideas about God's Anger, just by itself, is not really that Serious of a Conflict with the Christian Church.  His Idea about the Trinity and his Rejection of the"Born Again" Idea, though, are another Matter and this, no Doubt, was the Main Conflict that Caused the Lack of Acceptance of his Ideas by the Christian Church and the Trinity and Born Again Beliefs within the Church Still Stand Today.  Swedenborg's Doctrine on these Issues are a Serious Diversions from Christianity.  You can Read more about these Issues in my Previous Post.

I am Writing Now about some of the Positives within his Theology, though, for the Sake of Showing that the Christian Message can be Compatible with the Intellect.

So Laying that Conflict aside for Now, let's Look Now at some of what Swedenborg Said that I Find Way more Interesting than Controversial.  For Example, I Really Liked this Statement from the Linked Article...

"As we grow spiritually, our will, or emotions become God and neighbor centered.  Our understanding teaches our emotions how to love intelligently."

What a Beautiful Description of the Sanctification Process.  The Focus is on Growth and Understanding (a Process and I have no Trouble at all Viewing that as an Emotional process).  Some may not Like his Focus on the Emotions, yet I do not Find this Particular Idea to be in Conflict with the Christian Church at Large.  Pentecostals are Highly Emotional and Focus more on this Aspect then Other Christian Churches.  In a lot of Ways, it is much more Healthy to Focus on the Emotions, rather then on Trying to Force the Will through the Legalism of Works.  That is Basically what the Mood and Spirit of the Message of Grace, rather then Works, is all about.  God is Patient with the Flesh (Selfish, Unsanctified Emotions) and Offers Grace to us During the Sanctification Process.  The Sanctification Process Takes Time and that is the Whole Reason Why Grace is Necessary.

So Many of Swedenborg's Ideas have more to do with Sanctification, then with the Initial Action of Conversion.  The Sanctification Idea, though, is not an Original One, for it is Both Biblical and Christian.  Many of his Ideas are not in Conflict with Modern Day Christianity.  Here is another Good Quote from the Linked Article...

"Our rational mind is formed by study of the Bible, theology and by our life's experience.  This wisdom works on our emotions and modifies them into spiritual loves."

The Focus on the Mind is not an Idea that Goes against the Scripture, for it says...

"And be not conformed to this world, but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God."  (Romans 12:2, KJV)

Also, Any Verse that Focuses on the Reading and Studying of Scripture is a Mind Focused Scripture and Here are a Few of those...

"Study to show thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth."  (2 Timothy 2:15, KJV)

"Thy word have I hid in mine heart, that I might not sin against thee."  (Psalm 119:11, KJV)

"This is my comfort in my affliction, for Thy word hath quickened me."  (Psalm 119:50, KJV)

"Thy word is a lamp unto my feet, and a light unto my path."  (Psalm 119:105, KJV)

"So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God."  (Romans 10:17, KJV)

"That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word."  (Ephesians 5:26, KJV)

"You have already been cleansed by the word that I have spoken to you."  (John 15:3, NRSV)

I was Surprised in my Word Search, how many of the "Word" Related Verses that I Remember are from Psalm 119.  This Fact Inspired me to Read this Psalm again and though it is Quite Long, it is also a Really Neat One, for the Theme of it is not just Love for God, but Love for His Precepts, Statures and Laws.  In Other Words, the Love of Service and Obedience to God, as well as a Love for his Word.  It's Like Saying, I not Only Love You, but I also Love Serving You and I not Only Love You for Who You are, but also for "Your Words", or for what You have to Say.  I Love Your Laws.  I Love Your Words.  I Love what You have to Say.  I Love what You Stand for.  I even Love Obeying Your Laws.  That's sort of a Paraphrased Description of the Theme of this Psalm.  I Found it to be Quite Powerful and I was Moved when I Read it.

Anyway, Back to the Point, the Hearing and Reading of the Word is an Activity of the Intellect and doing this Helps us to Not Sin, Comforts, Quickens, Guides, Builds Faith, Sanctifies and Cleanses.  The Love of the Law that is Mentioned in Psalms 119 Describes the Full Maturity of our Love and Yes, this Love is Emotional.  This is not at all Unlike what Swedenborg said in what I Quoted above and Here are the Quotes again, with my Emphasis Added....

"As we grow spiritually, our will, or emotions become God and neighbor centered.  Our understanding teaches our emotions how to love intelligently." 

"Our rational mind is formed by study of the Bible, theology and by our life's experience.  This wisdom works on our emotions and modifies them into spiritual loves."

I Actually Liked Swedenborg's Ideas about Sanctification Enough that it made me Feel Sad that he did not also believe in the Trinity and in the Basic Gospel Message, Including the Idea of Being "Born Again".  It's too Bad that he Rejected these things because his other thoughts are Truly Excellent and not Out of Line with Christianity, or more Specifically, the Christian Idea of Sanctification.  Ideas such as; Balancing Self Love with Love for our Neighbors, being Created to be Useful to the World and to our Neighbors, the Good of Working to be Useful to Society and of Loving Useful Work; are not Ideas Unique to Swedenborg.  They are Very Basic Christian Ideas and Even his Ideas about Symbolism in Nature is not Out of Line with Christianity.  I've Heard Lots of Sermons along those Lines.

Yes, the Sun Represents God, or sometimes I've heard the Giver of Light, Described, not as the Sun, but "the Son".  That is God's Son, Jesus.  And Yes, the Light Represents Truth.  Jesus Compared Faith to the Mustard Seed (Matthew 13:31-32) and the Tree is a Symbol of Stability and Strength (Psalms 1) and the branches of the Vine are Symbols of something that is Connected to, Nourished by and Firmly Grounded in God (the Vine), and that can not Bear Fruit without God (John 15:1-8 and Further if Desired).

And Swedenborg is also not the Only One who has Ever Used Symbolism to Interpret the Old Testament Stories of the Bible.  That's Common and Very Christian.

When I came to the Part of the Article that Talked about "Rebirth", however, I realized that there was a Fairly Big Problem, yet Perhaps that will Need to be the Subject of Part Three.  For Now, I'm just Going to say that it is not about Reincarnation, but it is not about the Christian Concept of Being Born Again Either.  Stay Tuned.

Can We Trust Religious History?/Trinity/God's Wrath/Holiness/Swedenborg

Well, I'm now Allowing BB-Idaho to Inspire me to do a Post Based on the Last Link that he Left me and Here is the Link.  It is about the Theology of Emanuel Swedenborg, which BB Claims is Quite a "Different Kind of Christianity".  So Far, it Looks Like this is going to be the First in a Series of about Three Posts.

What has Frustrated me in the Past about Links that Relate to Religious History is that they Continually Give Credit to People who Hold so Called "New Ideas" that in Reality are not at all New.  This was how I felt about the Previous Link that BB Gave me, in which Saint Augustine was given Credit for the Original Sin Idea, rather then the Original Biblical Writer, Paul.  This Idea did not Originate with Saint Augustine, but with Paul and this Belief was Held by those in the Early church, when the Original Apostles that Knew Christ Personally were Still alive, Long before Saint Augustine was Born in 354 AD.

When I was Reading the Linked Article in this Post about Swedenborg, my First impression was that he too had been Given Credit for Some Things that may not have Really been all that New.  At First, I Thought that the Ideas of Swedenborg were Actually Quite Similar to those of Christianity and In Fact, Most of them are.  He may have a Unique Way of Explaining Things and he may have his Own Unique Emphasis on Certain Ideas, yet the Part of his Ideas that are not in Conflict with the Church are also not New.  As I Read the Article a Second Time, I Realized that it is what he has Decided not to Accept that has Caused the Conflict between him and the church.  The Conflict is not in what he has Included, but in what he has Excluded, such as the Christian Idea about the Trinity and about Salvation. 

Aside from the Trinity and the Basic Gospel Message Conflicts, that which is Really Good in this Article is Good because it was already Supported by Scripture, was very Possibly already a Christian Idea and had been for Centuries.  To say that all of these ideas are New, that the Modern Day Church has Rejected Every Part of his Beliefs and that Aside from the Trinity Idea and his view of the Basic Gospel Message, all of his Ideas are Unique from Present Day, or Even Traditional Christianity, is Misleading and gives Swedenborg Far more Credit then he Deserves.

You see, not all Christians are Shallow.  There are some that are Thinkers and to Assume Otherwise is to Miss a Big Chunk of what Christianity has to Offer.

A lot of Historical Writings can not be Trusted because they Misrepresent the Ideas of "Modern or Contemporary Christianity", Claiming that these Wonderful "New Ideas" of the People who these Articles are Honoring were not and are not "Accepted by the Traditional or the Current Christian Church".  They Confuse what is New and Controversial and what is not.

This Reminds me of a Verse in Ecclesiastes...

"The thing that hath been, it is that which shall be; and that which is done is that which shall be done: and there is no new thing under the sun."  (Ecclesiastes 1:9, KJV) 

The Trinity, though, is an Issue of Controversy, so much so that Groups that Reject it, such as Mormons and Jehovah Witnesses, are often Referred to by the Mainstream Church as Cults.  There are also Other Reasons for this, yet I'm not Going to Get into that Right now.  In Fact, I don't even want to Get into a Lengthy Discussion of all of the Bible Verses that Support the Deity of Christ and therefore the Trinity Right Now, Except to say that Jesus Claimed to be God Often enough that He was Accused of Blasphemy and this was the Reason He was Crucified.

This Article Confused me a Little because on the One Hand, it States that Swedenborg Rejected the Idea of the Trinity, yet on the Other Hand, it Explains Swedenborg's Belief that "God Came Down to Earth as Jesus.", that Jesus was "Fully Divine" and that "God brings Healing Love to us in our Own form."  To me, this is an Unexplained Contradiction and it Makes me Wonder if Swedenborg was just Frustrated with the Way that the Trinity was Explained Specifically by the Lutheran Church that he was a Part of.

There have always been Different Theologies and Different Ways of Interpreting Things and this Includes Various Ways of Understanding the Trinity, Godhead.  The idea that Christ is, In Fact, God, though, is Key to Christian Theology.  The Way I Understand the Trinity is that there are Three Aspects to God, just as there are Three Aspects to every Person, that is the Mind (the Connection to the Physical Body), Soul and Spirit.

Sigmund Freud Divided the Person into the Trinity of the Ego, Super Ego and Id.  This is Similar to the Soul (the Will or Ego), the Conscience (the Super Ego, the Spirit or the Part of us that can be Connected to God if we are Willing) and the Id or Flesh (the Sin Nature, which is also a Part of our Temporal, Corruptible, Mortal Body).  The Descriptions of Freud of the Three Parts of the Trinity within the Person may be Different then the Descriptions of the Three Parts of the Person, as Described within the Bible, yet the Fact that they both Described a Trichotomy Indicates that there is a Trinity Reality within the Person that has Inspired Freud's Thoughts.  Because of this Trinity within us, it is not Really so Hard to Imagine People Talking to themselves, nor to Imagine Jesus Talking to the Father.  The Difference is that all Three of the Parts of the Human Person are Trapped Inside of the Human Body.  The Trinity that Makes up the Godhead, though, is not so Restricted because God is Huge and has the Ability to be Everywhere at Once.

Since the Trinity is Hard to Understand, it is not Surprising that there are some who have Rejected it, rather than Trying to Find an Explanation that they can Wrap their Head Around.  In my Opinion, though, this is Intellectually Lazy, as well as Arrogant.  It is Lazy because, though Difficult, the Trinity Idea is not Impossible to Understand and it is Arrogant, because Assuming that we Ought to be able to Understand Everything about something as Massively Huge and Powerful as God is, well, just Plain Foolish.

The Next Subject in Question is God's Anger or Wrath, an Idea that Swedenborg Rejected.

When I First Read this Article, I was doing so, Giving Swedenborg the Benefit of a Doubt, and Focusing on Similarities with Christianity, rather then Differences.  Because of this, I Over Looked, at First, the Fact that he had Basically Rejected the Basic Gospel Message that Christians Teach is the Key to Salvation.  After Reading the Article a Second Time, I Realized that he does not Accept the Idea of Being Born Again, as is Described within the Christian Church.  The Reason for the Rejection of this Idea, though, Appears to be his Aversion to the Idea of God's Wrath.

In Order to Reject the Idea of God's Anger or Wrath, One has to Deal with the Definitions of the Biblical Words that are Translated as Anger and Wrath.  I don't have Time for such a Study at the Moment, yet for the Most Part, God's Wrath is not what is Stressed in Christian Churches.

My Understanding of the Basic Gospel Message is more Based on God's Holiness, then on His Wrath.  Since God is Holy and Pure, He is not Able to Tolerate Impurity and that is why Sin Blocks our Fellowship with Him.  Generally, the Way this is Explained is with a Picture of two Cliffs on Either Side of a Canyon.  Since God is Holy and Man is not, there is a Great Canyon that Divides us from His Presence.

The Consequence of Our Sinfulness is Death, but when Christ Died on the Cross, His Blood was Able to Cleanse us and Justify us and this is why in the Picture of the two Cliffs and the Canyon, the Cross is Pictured as the Bridge that Allows us to Cross the Great Canyon that Divides us in our Sinfulness from God in His Holiness.

The Bible says, though, that...

"But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness unto him; neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned."  (1 Corinthians 2:14, KJV)

and

"No man can come to Me, except the Father which hath sent Me draw him and I will raise him up at the last day."  (John 6:44, KJV)

And this is Why there are some who will Never Understand this Message.

Part 2 - Sin, Karma, Santification, Laws & Grace

This is a Continuation of the Previous Post. The First was about the Definition of a Few Salvation Words and how the Focus of Christianity is not on Works, but on the Condition of the Heart.  This Post will Explain Sanctification, as well as the Natural Reap What you Sow Law, Contrasted with the Law of Grace.  Here is the Comment from Satyavati again that I have been Responding to.  This Time, I will Quote it in it's Entirety.  The Bold Emphasis was Added by me.

Satyavati devi dasi said...
"That would imply that the process is such:

"1. Admit or confess
"2. Get cleansed from sin (karma is a different thing and for me it is more accurate to use the original words)
"3. Everything's hunky dory.

"Now, this would imply that you can go on and do whatever you like now and it'll all be just washed under the bridge, no problem.

"Of course this isn't true.  In fact, according to the Bible, it's basically impossible NOT to sin, if you're human, so at this point, I have to ask what happens to all those post-salvation sins?  Do you just keep claiming Jesus over and over?  Does he come back endlessly and wash it all up?   Personally, I'd think eventually he'd get pretty tired of that; salvation is not cheap and not to be used as an excuse to go on and do whatever awful things you want to do.

"The way we view karma is as a law, independent of other things.  Consider the law 'every action has an equal and opposite reaction'.  The thing with laws is that they operate regardless of belief so that part doesn't really come into it.

"There's different kinds of karma, and they all carry their own baggage.  That's too involved for here.

"There are instances in the Bible that point to a belief in reincarnation. People asked John the Baptist whether he was Elijah. Of course, Elijah was dead and gone, so that would mean that they believed that he could be reborn again in a different body. Also, the man who was born blind: they asked who had sinned, he or his parents, that caused him to be born blind. Asking whether the man had sinned would presumably imply a previous lifetime, unless you'd like to posit that he sinned whilst still in utero."

July 21, 2011 3:28 PM 

To Pick Up where I Left Off, I will now be Responding to this Quote...

"so at this point, I have to ask what happens to all those post-salvation sins?"

The Process that Occurs after Salvation is Called Sanctification and is a Process in which we are Gradually Being Cleansed and Washed of our Sins.  This is Illustrated in Romans “For if you are living according to the flesh, you must die; but if by the Spirit you are PUTTING TO DEATH the deeds of the body, you will live. (Romans 8:13, NASB)

In this Verse, Deeds or Actions are Mentioned, yet the Phrase, “Putting to Death”, is from the Greek Root, “Thanatoo”, which Means to Mortify, Kill or Put to Death, yet in this Verse, the Tense Used Contains an Implication of a Process.   The New American Standard Bible is the One that the Most Got this One Right, by Using the Correct Tense of the Word, “Putting to Death”, rather then "Put to Death" (NRSV & NIV) or “Mortify” (KJV)

Quoting Satyavati again... 
“Do you just keep claiming Jesus over and over?  Does he come back endlessly and wash it all up?  Personally, I'd think eventually he'd get pretty tired of that.”

My Response:
In a Sense, Yes.  He does Keep Cleaning it up, but He doesn’t get Tired of it, because He Loves us and if we are Willing to Submit to the Sanctification Process, then Over Time, there will be Improvement.

Satyavati: 
"Salvation is not cheap and not to be used as an excuse to go on and do whatever awful things you want to do.”

Me:
That is Absolutely Correct and also Biblically Accurate, just as I Explained in the Previous Post.

Satyavati:
“The way we view karma is as a law, independent of other things.  Consider the law 'every action has an equal and opposite reaction'.  The thing with laws is that they operate regardless of belief so that part doesn't really come into it.”

Me:
There is such a Law that is Described in the Bible...

“Do not be deceived; God is not mocked, for you reap whatever you sow.” (Galations 6:7, NRSV)

As to the Second Part of your Words, though, Satyavati, Laws do not Actually "Operate Regardless of Belief".  For Example, Once when we were Shoveling Snow off of the Roof of my In-Laws, I Slipped and Feel off a Ladder.  According to the Laws of Slippery Ice and Gravity, I should be Dead Right now, or at the Very Least, Seriously Injured, yet somehow, Miraculously, the Ladder was Caught on the Step.  To Better Picture this, the Ladder Slipped Off the Deck and was Caught on a Step.  That is, One of the Legs of the Ladder was Caught on the Step and the Other was Still Suspended in the Air.  With Ice that Slippery, there is no Way that the Ladder should have Remained Up Right and yet it did.  I Ended Up Up Side Down with one of my Legs Caught in One of the Rungs of the Ladder.  The Ladder Remained Up Right, I did not Hit the Ground, aside from Shock and Fear, I was Unharmed.

This Experience Defied the Laws of Gravity and Slippery Ice and most Spiritual People would Consider this an Act of a God or some sort of Guardian Angel.  For some Reason God Decided to Spare me.

There is another Law at Play here, which is the Law of Grace, yet Grace is not for Everyone, for “God opposes the proud, but gives grace to the humble." (1 Peter 5:5b, NRSV).  For some Reason, God Extended Grace to me and Spared me from the Natural Laws of Gravity and Ice, so you see, Satyavati, it is not True that Things such as Belief and also Grace do not “Come into Play”.  The Law of Reaping and Sowing is Similar, for Sometimes God Steps in and Offers Grace.  Does this Always Happen?  No.  Sometimes God Allows us to Experience the Natural Consequences for Our Actions.

Here is another Example from my Own Life.  Earlier in my Life, I was Caught up in a Certain Sin.  In my Sin, I was Taking Considerable Risks that should have come with Far Greater Consequences then they did, yet Somehow I was Spared and my Consequences were Minimal.  Why?  I Think it was because God Knew some of the Insinuating Circumstances, as well as my Own Level of Maturity at the Time.  In Time, through the Process of Growth and Sanctification, I Improved in my Ability to not Sin.  There was a Time, though, in which I “Back Slid” and Regressed into some of my Old Ways.  This Time, though, God decided not to Protect me from some of the Consequences that are more Serious.  Why?  Because I should have Known better.  This was an Old Lesson that I should have Left in the Past and I was a Fool to Return to this Old Pattern of Sin.

I’ll Deal with the Reincarnation Issue Later.  I’ve Said Quite a Bit for now.

Sin, Karma, Salvation Words & Condition of Heart

This Post, as well as the Next One, will be Written in Response to a Comment that was Submitted in the Comment Thread of the Next Post Down and here are the First Few Lines of that Comment...

Satyavati devi dasi said...
"That would imply that the process is such:

"1. Admit or confess
"2. Get cleansed from sin (karma is a different thing and for me it is more accurate to use the original words)
"3. Everything's hunky dory.

"Now, this would imply that you can go on and do whatever you like now and it'll all be just washed under the bridge, no problem."

(The Rest of this Comment will be Addressed in my Next Post, for this will be a Two Part Response.) 

July 21, 2011 3:28 PM

For now, my Goal is to Respond to Satyavati's Statement, "Now, this would imply that you can go on and do whatever you like now and it'll all be just washed under the bridge, no problem."

What she is Saying is Implying the Absence of Effort, yet the Bible Actually has Two Key Words that are Used in Relation to Salvation.  One is "Confess", which is from the Greek Word "Homologeo", which not Only Means "Confess, Acknowledge and Profess", but also "Covenant and Promise".

In Part, this is just a Covenant Sealed in Christ's Blood, that if we Believe in Him, He will Forgive us of Our Sins, yet there are Other Words that Imply Man's Side of the Covenant.

The Word, "Repent", for Example, in the Greek ("Metanoeo"), is a Military Term that Means "About Face", or "a 180 Degree Turn in the Opposite Direction".  "Repent" also Means to Think Differently, Reconsider or "Change Ones Mind" and in the Context of Salvation, this Means to Change One's Mind about Our Sin and Agree with God that this Behavior is Wrong.

Satyavati Requested Original Language, so here it is.  Besides, my Entire Audience is Intelligent, so why not do this in a more In Depth and Intelligent Manner?

Another Word that Needs to be Defined is the Word "Believe".  In the Famous John 3:16, the Word, "Believe" is from the Greek Word, "Pisteuo", which Means not Only Believe, but also "to have Faith in, Entrust or put in Trust with (espec. one's Spiritual Well-Being to Christ)".

The Truth of the Matter is that a lot of these Words have been Watered Down.

And then there is another Famous Passage in Ephesians...

"8) For by grace you have been saved THROUGH FAITH, and this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God--, 9) not the result of works, so that no one may boast."  (Ephesians 2:8-9, NRSV)

So Often the Focus is on the Words "Grace" and "Gift", rather then on "Faith".

"Faith" is from the Greek Word "Pistis", which Again means not Only "Persuasion, and Conviction of Truth", but also "Reliance Upon" and not Only "Assurance, Belief and Faith", but also Loyalty or "Fidelity".

The way I have Heard Concepts such as Belief, Trust and Faith Explained is with the Illustration of Someone with a Wheel Barrel on a Tight Rope.  You Can Believe all that you Want to that this Person can Wheel the Wheel Barrel Across the Tight Rope, but you don't Really Believe until you are Willing to Get into the Wheel Barrel.

What Ephesians 2:8-9 Actually Means, though, is that it is "Faith", a Heart Attitude, not "Works", the actual Actions, that Saves us.  In my Opinion, what is at the Heart of the Gospel is the Idea that Heart Attitudes are what Count, not the Perfection of our Behavior.

Other Verses that Bring this to Light are the Ones that Focus on the Mind, rather then on Behavior, for it is Impossible to Change or even Improve on Behavior in any Lasting Way without Dealing with the Condition of the Heart and Mind…

“Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed, by the renewing of your minds, so that you may discern what is the will of God--what is good, and acceptable, and perfect.”  (Romans 12:2, NRSV)

“To set the mind on the flesh is death, but to set the mind on the Spirit is life and peace.”  (Romans 8:6, NRSV)

And the Salvation Message is not Complete without also Looking at Verses such as...

"because if you confess with your lips that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved." (Romans 10:9, NRSV)

It is not Correct to Focus on the Second Part of this Verse and not the First.  Lord is a Title of Great Respect and Authority.  Some Other Verses to Consider are in James...

"17) So faith by itself, if it has no works, is dead.......20) Do you want to be shown, you senseless person, that faith apart from works is barren?.......26  For just as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is also dead." (James 2:17, 20, & 26, NRSV)

Read the Entire 2nd Chapter of James for the Context.

Also, Even Paul Said, “1) What then are we to say?  Should we continue in sin in order that grace may abound?  2) By no means!  How can we who died to sin go on living in it?”  (Romans 6:1-2, NRSV)

To Further Complicate the Issue there is a Group of Christians, Known as Calvinists, who Focus on Grace, as well as Predestination (God's Part) and another Group of Christians, Known as Armenians, who Focus on Faith (Man's Part).  Satyavati may not have Realized that her Arguments are Mainly Against the Calvinists, not the Armenians.

Both of these Ideas Need to be Kept in Balance, for Man can not Live a Perfectly Holy and Pure Life without God's Help (God's Grace), yet God will not Force Purity on someone who is not willing to Accept His Help (Man's Choice).

More will be Coming Later in Response to the Rest of Satyavati's Comment.

Why do Bad Things & Suffering Happen to Christians?

Today I'm Thinking about one of Radar's Posts again...

Do Bad Things Happen to Christians because they are Bad?

He was Trying to Lead into a Discussion that is a Little more Deep and Personal, yet the Commenters on his Blog at Times Tend to be a little Rude and Insulting and do not Appear to have the Emotional Strength and Maturity to Handle Subjects that are Deeper then that of either an Intellectual Competition or a Brutal Insulting Match.  At Least that's how it Seems.  You will see what I Mean, if you Read the Comments.

My Blog is Safer.  I Assure you that, especially on this Post, I will not allow any Insulting.  If any come in, I will simply not Post them.  Discussion about Emotional Issues can not be Allowed to be Diluted in that Way.

I Liked Radar's Post and also his Closing Comment, which I will Share in a Minute.  I'm Going to have to Go and Read that Post Again now, since I've Made my Own Post of it.  For Now, I just Remember him saying...  (The Bold Print Emphasis is Mine.)

"We live in a world that is full of sin.  Because Adam and Eve sinned, then sin and death came to the world and we all must suffer from this.  There will be accidents and there will be evil.  There is a law of reaping and sowing - if you work hard, you most likely succeed, if you goof off, you probably don't.   If you are faithful in marriage, you will not get an STD, as long as your mate is also faithful.  If you drive carefully you probably won't be in an accident - unless some careless person smashes into you.   Sometimes while driving down a highway, I consider that each new car coming down the road could suddenly swerve into my path and quite possibly kill me and everyone with me.  Usually we all stay in our lanes and avoid smashing each other."

Here is the Clincher in Relation to the Question of Suffering.  Pain is in the World because God Allows Free Choice and yet the Consequence of that Privileged is that Sometimes we Suffer Because of Someone else's Sinful Choices, Carelessness and at Times, even Cruelty.  Why does God Allow Cruel People to Exist?  To Really make this Question Complete, we have to Include the Pain that is caused Deliberately by those who have no Conscience, Murderers, Rapists and the Like and not just the Pain of Cruel Speech or Careless Driving.

I've often been Frustrated myself with the Fragile Way in which we are Created.  Emotions are Far too Strong and Hearts are Far too Easily Broken.  Why, for Example, should the Crime of another Create Scars that will Last a Life Time.  Perhaps the Sexual Abuse of Children should not have this Effect and yet it does.  There is Very Little that can be Said in Order to Answer this Question, except that Life on Earth is Temporary and Life in Heaven will be Eternal.  I do Know One Thing.  Being Continually Angry about the Issue does not Cause it to go Away.

That's what I have to say in Response to Radar's Post. 

Radar's Post, itself, is Very Good and I also Liked what is so Far, his Closing Comment.  Here is a Quote of the Last Four Paragraphs of this Comment, which I Felt were Truly Excellent.  The Bold Emphasis is Mine and I Added Links to some of the Scriptures that he Suggested... 

"So meet God while you are alive and find out how great He really is...or meet Him after you have died and find out how righteous He really is.  A Just God must punish sin.  You want Jesus to pay that price for you or will you take it upon yourself?

"See, the above is what bringing the Bible into the discussion is all about.  Read Romans chapters 4-10 and John from the beginning to say the end of chapter 10.  Consider what Jesus said in John 3:16-18 and what Paul wrote in Romans 10:9-13.  What did Romans 5:1 say?  Romans 6:23?  How about Romans 8:1?  Does the Son of God come to Earth and perform miracles, teach the Gospel, accept punishment and shame and death for no reason?  Why would God's Son separate Himself from a supernatural existence and live in a human body for 33-some years unless it was critically important?  We know when Jesus lived and died and we have eyewitness accounts of His miracles and his resurrection.

"Nothing is what naturalistic materialists give credit to for the existence of the entire Universe and everything in it.  The concept of nothing in place of God doesn't seem reasonable to me.

"Not for nothing did God's Son die for you."

Thanks, Radar.  I Could not have Said that Better myself.

Defense Mechanisms and Confusion in Debate.

As I Continue to Talk about the Difficulty in Communicating on the Web, Perhaps I should Start with the Defense Mechanisms that have been Taught in Psychology Classes for Years.

Here is a Link to a Place in which they are Listed and Explained.  All I'm Going to do here is List Them by Name; Denial, Suppression, Reaction Formation, Projection, Displacement, Rationalization, Intellectualization, Undoing, Isolation of Affect, Regression and Sublimation.

Sublimation is the One that is the Most Healthy, but Many of these Defense Mechanisms Hinder Communication when Debating Emotional Issues.

Projection is a Really Big One, for it Leads to Blaming Other People of the Same Faults that we Possess Ourselves, which is in Reality a Hypocrisy.  It Reminds me of something that Grade School Children Sometimes say, "I Know you are, but what am I?"  I used to Chuckle when ever I Heard that and yet it has Truth to it for Sometimes what Someone Accuses of is more a Reflection on the Character of the Accuser, than on that of the Accused.

Displacement is also common.  I Like to Call this One, Scape Goating.  That is, you Take your Feeling Out on Someone Else, rather then the One who you are Actually Mad at.  If the Object of the Wrath can Realize and Remember that the Actual Frustration is Relating to something else and not Take this one Personally, then this Helps Alleviate the Problem, yet as Human Beings, we Often do React to these Things and this Makes the Communication more Confused.

Rationalization and Intellectualization is Actually a Form of Denial.

Aside from Sublimation, it is Better if we can Avoid these Defense Mechanisms while Debating Issues and Give Apologies when we Catch Ourselves doing it.

It's Funny, but it Seems to me that this List should also Include Identifying with the Aggressor.  This is when we Find Ourselves Acting Like and Becoming just Like Someone who we Hate.

Anyway, these are the Defense Mechanisms and they sure do mess Communication Up.  Whenever Possible, Facing and Dealing with Emotions Head on is the Best Way.  The Ability to do so is a Sign of Maturity.  Small Egos Require Defense Mechanisms, yet since we are Created in God's Image and He Loved us so much that he sent Christ to Die on the Cross for our Sins, we can have a Healthy sense of Self-Worth just Based on the Fact that we are Loved by the Creator of the Universe and having been Adopted as sons into God's Family, we are Royal Children of the King.

Manipulative Arguments

I Guess I've Written about the Manipulator before and One Very Common Response is that if Someone is Making me not Feel so Good about Myself, or Confused in some Way, then I should Stop Interacting with him.  Perhaps those who have told me that are Getting Tired of me Bringing Up the Subject, yet don't you see, I'm not Just Talking about "The Manipulator" anymore, but about those who Manipulate on the Web.

Manipulation can be Used in a Rather Cruel Way in the Context of Relationships and Friendship, yet it can also be Used in just Plain Arguing.

People Manipulate by Exaggerating the Facts, Appealing to the Emotions and Accusing and Pointing Fingers in a Hypocritical Way, when the Party (in Politics) or the Position (Everything Else), that they are Supporting is just as Guilty of the Same.

People Manipulate when they Change the Subject, rather than Talking about the Issue that is Being Brought Up by their Opponent.  Or when they Insist on Focusing on the Part of the Issue that is Stronger for their Own Point of View, while Avoiding that which is Less in Line with their Point of View.

People Manipulate when they Insult or Accuse their Opponent of Motives such as the Quest for Power or Ego, Hatred (Hate Speech) or some form of Phobia or Fear, (Xenophobia, Homophobia), rather than Giving a Rational Argument for their Position.

People Manipulate when they Misinterpret what their Opponent Says, Put Words in their Mouth and then Argue against something that was Never Actually Stated, Make it appear that there is Agreement, when there is not, or Try to Make their Opponent Appear Inconsistent because of something that they Never Actually Said.

People Manipulate when they Exaggerate what their Opponent Says in Order to Make it appear Foolish or like an Agreement with something that the Opponent in no Way Agrees with or Approves of.

People Manipulate when they Lie, Misrepresent the Facts or Exaggerate the Facts, while Speaking Authoritatively about that which they have Absolutely no Evidence for.

People Manipulate when they Redefine Words, such as Marriage, or in the Case of Evolutionism vs. Creationism, Species and even Words such as Confirm, Falsify, Assumption and even Science.

Manipulators will Make sure that the Definitions of the Words Used will Fit their Own Point of View Better then that of their Opponents and will Avoid Using any Words that their Opponents Introduce.  Such a Practice has Way more to do with Manipulation then with Truth.

Manipulators Apply Different Rules and Different Definitions to their Opponents, than they do to themselves.  In Friendship, this is Called the Double Standard, yet People do it in Politics as well and also even in Science, just as Evolutionists Expect more Proof from their Opponent then they are Willing to Offer themselves.

There.  Now Maybe I have Created a Can of Worms that will Cause my Blog to be Less Quiet, but Oh well.  Go Ahead and Talk and Tell me what you Think.

Blogging and People Reflections

My Blog is Often more Peaceful then the Rest of the Blogosphere and I guess you could Say that I Like it that Way.  Arguing can be so Tiring at Times.  And even I can be One of those who Doesn't Exactly Know when it is Time to Quit.  I Wonder what the Rest of you Think.  Is there an Appropriate Time to Turn and Walk Away and Stop Arguing with Idiots?

Speaking of the Word Idiot, I Used to be so Reluctant to Use that Word, but you Know what?  It is Sort of Like when a Person is Pushy in some Way and Hangs Around and will not Go Away.  Being Polite is not Enough, so a Person has no Choice but to be Rude in Order to Get the Message Across that I do not wish to Interact with you any more.  This doesn't Apply to Anyone on the Web Right Now.  It's just something that I've Come Across before in my Life.

There is Something Similar, though, that Occurs while Arguing on the Web.  When a Person Keeps Repeating a Totally Ridiculous Point Over and Over Again that Makes no Sense at all, I've Actually Gotten to the Point At Times in which I Feel that I have no Choice but to Use Words Like Stupid or Idiot or BS, for this is the Only Way to Get my Point Across that I'm Really not at all Buying This and I Really do mean Really.

Sometimes I Get the Feeling that People Say the Ridiculous on Purpose, in order to Persuade People to Doubt themselves and their Ability to Reason, so that the One Speaking the BS can get the Upper Hand.  I've Actually seen this sort of thing used as a Form of Manipulation.  Control Freaks will do this in Order to Maintain Control Over the Situation.

Again, I am not Directing this at Anyone.  I'm just Curious what People Think about what I'm saying.

There are Times in which I have Actually been Obsessed with Idiots.  I don't Know What it is.  Perhaps I'm Trying to Figure Something Out about them.  Why don't they Get it?  How can they Possibly be so Dumb?  And Do they Really Think that I'm That Stupid?

There is Another Phrase that I Never Used to Say, that I've Said a lot more Recently, and that is the Phrase, "You are Insulting my Intelligence."  Never Before have I ever had my Intelligence Insulted on such a Regular Basis, Prior to Entering the Blogging World.  Never Before have I Met such Idiots, as I have Met in the Blogging World.  At First, it was just one, yet more Recently, I've Found Out that there is an Idiotic Personality Type that Lurks in the Shadows of the Web.

People are Far more Insulting and Some of them are even Far more Cruel on the Internet than anyone that I have Ever Met in Person.  If Someone Drops by and Reads this who is New to Blogging, Heed the Words that I'm now Saying.  It might be Good to be a Little Less Trusting and do not Let your Guard Down too Early.

It's Funny, you Know, I'm Even Having Trouble Writing about Relationships, cause on the Internet, such is even more Difficult than in the Real World.  People have no Desire to be Civil.  All they want to do is Argue.

Am I Venting Right Now?  I don't Know if I'm Venting or Reflecting.  Perhaps it doesn't Matter.  All I know is that I Don't Really Want my Blog to Always be just about Arguing the Issues.  Sometimes I just Like to Talk about what Troubles me.

So What's your Story?  What is Troubling you?

Baraminology, Biological Classification & Definitions

I Think that my Previous Post (That is the One Just below this one) is One of my Absolute Favorites, yet it is Time to Move on.

In an Earlier Post, I Left this Link in Relation to the Change in the Definition of Species.  Actually, the Conservapedia (Species) says something Similar.  Let me Quote some of it for you.  The Bold Emphasis in all of the Below Quotes is Mine.

"Linnaeus, who introduced the classification system in the 18th century, originally intended 'species' to refer to the biblical creation 'kinds', but the modern definitions of species do not match the biblical kinds.  Despite this, many people, both Christians and evolutionists, believe that the idea of new species developing is inconsistent with the Bible.  However, creationary scientists accept that 'speciation' has been observed, although they deny that speciation can lead to the development of completely new features as predicted by evolutionists."

I Found a rather Interesting Statement in the Wikipedia, Under the Heading, Biological Classification (Wikipedia).  Here is the Quote...

"Modern biological classification has its root in the work of Carolus Linnaeus, who grouped species according to shared physical characteristics.  These groupings have since been revised to IMPROVE CONSISTENCY WITH THE DARWINIAN PRINCIPLE of common descent."

Don't you see?  That's just the Problem.  When ever the System and/or the Definitions are Revised, it is to Improve Consistency with Darwinism, not with the Idea of Evolutionary Limits Between Kinds.  The Whole Idea of Evolutionary Limits just Keeps being Pushed Aside, Mostly because that is not what the Atheists want to Believe.  The Definitions are just as Biased as the Science.

This is Why the Creationists have Created their Own Classification System Known as Baraminology.  The Word Baramin comes from Two Hebrew Words; Bara - Created and Min - Kind.

These Words in the Strong's Concordance are Spelled just a Little Differently, but they are the Same Words.  Min is Actually Spelled Miyn; Same Word; They just Simplified the Spelling.  The Literal Hebrew Meaning, from the Strong's Concordance is "to Portion Out, a Sort or Kind"

This Word is Found in Genesis 1:24, "And God said, 'Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind (Miyn), cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind (Miyn), and it was so.'" (KJV) 

Bara is Actually Spelled Bara' and it Corresponds to the Word in the Very First Verse in the Bible.

Gen 1:1 - "In the beginning God created (Bara') the heaven and the earth."

So there you have it Bara' Miyn; Created Kinds.  See the Conservapedia (Baraminology)  for a More Detailed Definition.  I'd Like to Quote Part of it for you, though.

"Based on the Biblical criterion for kinds, creationists deduce that as long as two creatures can hybridize with true fertilization, the two creatures are (i.e. descended from) the same kind.  Also, if two creatures can hybridize with the same third creature, they are all members of the same kind.  The hybridization criterion is a valid operational definition, which could in principle enable researchers to list all the kinds.  The implication is one-way—hybridization is evidence that they are the same kind, but it does not necessarily follow that if hybridization cannot occur then they are not members of the same kind (failure to hybridize could be due to degenerative mutations).  After all, there are couples who can’t have children, and we don’t classify them as a different species, let alone a different kind."

The Word  Degenerative (Mutations) is Key, for Darwinists Assume that Mutations Create Something New, yet they do not.  As Radar was Explaining, in Breeding, Genetic Information is not Progressive.  When we Breed a Certain Pure Breed Dog, we Loose Information, we do not Gain it.  In the Breeding of Samoyed's, for Example, all Genetic Information is Lost, Except for Long Hair, White and the other Characteristics of the Breed.  The Only Way to Get the Lost Information Back, is to Breed the Samoyed with some other Breed of Dog, yet even this is not the Adding of New Information, cause all the Genetic Information that is Present is Still Related to Dogs and there is Nothing New Added that will Move the Dog Information in the Direction of Cat, instead of Dog.  No New Information is Ever Added and this is why Evolution between Kinds is not Possible.

There is One More Word that I want to Define here and that is Macro-Evolution.  The Conservapedia (Macroevolution), Acknowledges that the Idea is just a Theory and Here's more of it Quoted Below...

"Macroevolution is the theory that natural selection, mutations, and genetic drift can, given enough time, lead to the creation of new clades, which are groups of organisms consisting of a single common ancestor and all the descendants of that ancestor."

Evolutionists will Call Something as Small as Speciation (in Accordance with their Biased Definition of Species) Macro-Evolution, yet what they are Actually Hoping to Prove is so Very Much Bigger than that, since they Believe that all Organisms Descended from the Same Ancestor, the Original being the Simplest Form of Bacteria.  This, however, is not what the Bible Says and  the Biblical Explanation has in no Way been Disproved, for The Actual Natural Selection and Evolution between Biblical Kinds has Never been Observed. 

When I Shared at Least some of this on a Comment Thread on Radar's Blog, One of the Commenters Mentioned that the Conservapedia is Biased, yet I get such a Kick Out of it when Liberals call what is Conservative Biased, but will not Acknowledge that their Sources are Biased as well.  The Wikipedia is no Less Biased than the Conservapedia.  The First Leans Liberal and the Second is more Conservative.  Besides, since Baraminology is a Conservative Idea, I thought it much Better to use a source that was Conservative, rather than a source that was Biased against the Idea.