What Defines And Drives A Relationship

[Guest end3]

 

So you know where I am coming from, I believe God is the manifestation of love and understanding through a relationship.

 

End3 27 October 2014 12:01PM  post #181

 

 

I just don't love y'all to the level it overcomes my shortcomings.....justifiably.

 

So you believe that "god" is the manifestation of love and understanding through relationships; but the love (manifestation of "god") you have for us is insufficient to be of any use to yourself or any of us.  By extention, therefore, "god" (manifestation of love) is of no use to yourself or any of us.

 

Congratulations, End3, you just completely destroyed your own argument.

 

No, you have heard of sin. And my lacking to generate that agape love for you makes the Bible more valid in my opinion.....offers and explanation for reality. Have never read in the science texts about "I can't fathom you're that stupid and I can't seem to generate any empathy for you" explanation.

[Guest end3]

 

Science doesn't have all the answers peeps. As soon as you can come to grips with that the better. Granted it brings you security in this time of rejecting the other, but it's like a pendulum that has swung to far to the other side.....too much of a good thing is not good. Embracing science as the end all is much like embracing fundamental Christianity.

 

I don't think anybody here thinks science has all the answers.  I'm quite sure you cannot name anybody who does.  Same thing for science as the end all.  

 

So basically you are defeating in idea nobody holds.  Congratulations on your mighty victory.  Now with that out of the way do you have anything to say that applies to people here?

 

Ok, then why have I heard the "prove it" question a zillion times? If you acknowledge that science doesn't hold all the answers, then why keep relying on science for the answer?

[Guest end3]

 

Science doesn't have all the answers peeps. As soon as you can come to grips with that the better. Granted it brings you security in this time of rejecting the other, but it's like a pendulum that has swung to far to the other side.....too much of a good thing is not good. Embracing science as the end all is much like embracing fundamental Christianity.

Seems you have a good grasp of the pendulum swinging too far.  But are you able to see it in yourself?

 

Eh, like I alluded to earlier, my contempt is for know-it-alls. Many here qualify.

[Roz]

Now we're all know-it-alls.  I don't know everything in the universe.  I don't know a fraction of 1% of all knowledge in the universe, and I suspect that's the feeling of every skeptic here.

 

We just have evidence (hint: non-biblical evidence) that the bible is not factually accurate.

 

Why should we take John 17 at face value?  It assumes a great many things, not the least of which is jesus being real.  Prove that yaweh is the real deity and that jesus was indeed his son (to separate your religion as the true religion from Islam).  Then I'll be open to your original hypothesis.

[mymistake]

 

 

Science doesn't have all the answers peeps. As soon as you can come to grips with that the better. Granted it brings you security in this time of rejecting the other, but it's like a pendulum that has swung to far to the other side.....too much of a good thing is not good. Embracing science as the end all is much like embracing fundamental Christianity.

 

I don't think anybody here thinks science has all the answers.  I'm quite sure you cannot name anybody who does.  Same thing for science as the end all.  

 

So basically you are defeating in idea nobody holds.  Congratulations on your mighty victory.  Now with that out of the way do you have anything to say that applies to people here?

 

Ok, then why have I heard the "prove it" question a zillion times?  

 

 

Because you are operating on a bankrupt world view and you want to see others operate on it as well.

 

 

 

If you acknowledge that science doesn't hold all the answers, then why keep relying on science for the answer?

 

Because science is better than any alternative method for finding truth.  It is, by a huge margin, the best method we have.

[florduh]

If you acknowledge that science doesn't hold all the answers, then why keep relying on science for the answer? 

 

Because the only real answers we do have came from observation, experimentation and rationality - you know, science.

 

All religions claim to offer answers, but many such "answers" are demonstrably wrong, and all the guesswork and wishful thinking has not brought us medical breakthroughs, space travel or computers; it just provides conflicting opinions with no facts.

[Roz]

End, anyone can see we've had our differences.  But why pose this question to Ex-C in the first place?  Why not an inter-faith forum or a general christian forum?

 

What's the purpose for asking an audience to take a holy book's passage seriously when the audience can readily cite erroneous things within it?

 

You've stated you run a lab.  I'd hazard a guess and say you've got a graduate degree in the sciences.  You know full well how the scientific method's applied.  

 

You're asking EX-christians to take for granted a holy book and use that book to prove the god who's mentioned in that book is real and that he interacted with humans.  Bible proving the bible because...?, when we all know Koran proving the Koran is circular reasoning.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

 

 

So you know where I am coming from, I believe God is the manifestation of love and understanding through a relationship.

 

End3 27 October 2014 12:01PM  post #181

 

 

I just don't love y'all to the level it overcomes my shortcomings.....justifiably.

 

So you believe that "god" is the manifestation of love and understanding through relationships; but the love (manifestation of "god") you have for us is insufficient to be of any use to yourself or any of us.  By extention, therefore, "god" (manifestation of love) is of no use to yourself or any of us.

 

Congratulations, End3, you just completely destroyed your own argument.

 

No, you have heard of sin. And my lacking to generate that agape love for you makes the Bible more valid in my opinion.....offers and explanation for reality. Have never read in the science texts about "I can't fathom you're that stupid and I can't seem to generate any empathy for you" explanation.

 

Ah, yes, the old "I'm sinful and broken" defense.  We do what we choose to do in this life, End3.  We say the words we choose; we commit the actions we choose to commit.  We are who we are, and that is what drives us to do the things we choose to do.  If it's important to you, you'll find a way to do it; if it's not important, you'll find an excuse, like "sin" for example.

 

You might think the bible offers an explanation of reality because it affords you the opportunity to hide behind "sin" for all your shortcomings, faults, and flaws.  But the reality is, those shortcomings, faults, and flaws are part of who you are.  You can man-up to them and strive to change; or you can make excuses and hide behind "sin".  One path will lead you toward becoming a better person (which you claim to desire); the other... Well, let's just say that so long as nothing changes, nothing changes.

[mymistake]

 

 

 

So you know where I am coming from, I believe God is the manifestation of love and understanding through a relationship.

 

End3 27 October 2014 12:01PM  post #181

 

 

I just don't love y'all to the level it overcomes my shortcomings.....justifiably.

 

So you believe that "god" is the manifestation of love and understanding through relationships; but the love (manifestation of "god") you have for us is insufficient to be of any use to yourself or any of us.  By extention, therefore, "god" (manifestation of love) is of no use to yourself or any of us.

 

Congratulations, End3, you just completely destroyed your own argument.

 

No, you have heard of sin. And my lacking to generate that agape love for you makes the Bible more valid in my opinion.....offers and explanation for reality. Have never read in the science texts about "I can't fathom you're that stupid and I can't seem to generate any empathy for you" explanation.

 

Ah, yes, the old "I'm sinful and broken" defense.  We do what we choose to do in this life, End3.  We say the words we choose; we commit the actions we choose to commit.  We are who we are, and that is what drives us to do the things we choose to do.  If it's important to you, you'll find a way to do it; if it's not important, you'll find an excuse, like "sin" for example.

 

You might think the bible offers an explanation of reality because it affords you the opportunity to hide behind "sin" for all your shortcomings, faults, and flaws.  But the reality is, those shortcomings, faults, and flaws are part of who you are.  You can man-up to them and strive to change; or you can make excuses and hide behind "sin".  One path will lead you toward becoming a better person (which you claim to desire); the other... Well, let's just say that so long as nothing changes, nothing changes.

 

 

 

What did I tell ya?  To the fundie everything is evidence of God/Christianity/The Bible.  Apparent Bible contradiction?  That only proves the Bible even more!  Jesus fails to shine through the Christian?  It's even more proof that Jesus is real!  Christianity fails in every measurable way?  Thus Jesus.

[Guest end3]

Ah, yes, the old "I'm sinful and broken" defense.  We do what we choose to do in this life, End3.  We say the words we choose; we commit the actions we choose to commit.  We are who we are, and that is what drives us to do the things we choose to do.  If it's important to you, you'll find a way to do it; if it's not important, you'll find an excuse, like "sin" for example.

 

You might think the bible offers an explanation of reality because it affords you the opportunity to hide behind "sin" for all your shortcomings, faults, and flaws.  But the reality is, those shortcomings, faults, and flaws are part of who you are.  You can man-up to them and strive to change; or you can make excuses and hide behind "sin".  One path will lead you toward becoming a better person (which you claim to desire); the other... Well, let's just say that so long as nothing changes, nothing changes.

And you think there is no physiology in there anywhere? Why not just tell Jeff, Jeff, don't be manic or depressed. We've been down this road.

 

I understand what you are saying.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

 

Ah, yes, the old "I'm sinful and broken" defense.  We do what we choose to do in this life, End3.  We say the words we choose; we commit the actions we choose to commit.  We are who we are, and that is what drives us to do the things we choose to do.  If it's important to you, you'll find a way to do it; if it's not important, you'll find an excuse, like "sin" for example.

 

You might think the bible offers an explanation of reality because it affords you the opportunity to hide behind "sin" for all your shortcomings, faults, and flaws.  But the reality is, those shortcomings, faults, and flaws are part of who you are.  You can man-up to them and strive to change; or you can make excuses and hide behind "sin".  One path will lead you toward becoming a better person (which you claim to desire); the other... Well, let's just say that so long as nothing changes, nothing changes.

And you think there is no physiology in there anywhere? Why not just tell Jeff, Jeff, don't be manic or depressed. We've been down this road.

 

I understand what you are saying.

 

Jeff has a legitimate diagnosis of a legitimate disorder.  "Sin" is not a disorder; it is an excuse.  That is the difference.

 

And, yes, there is physiology involved; but eletrochemical pulses in your brain are just that.  They are not "sin".  "Sin" is an excuse.

[Guest end3]

 

 

Ah, yes, the old "I'm sinful and broken" defense.  We do what we choose to do in this life, End3.  We say the words we choose; we commit the actions we choose to commit.  We are who we are, and that is what drives us to do the things we choose to do.  If it's important to you, you'll find a way to do it; if it's not important, you'll find an excuse, like "sin" for example.

 

You might think the bible offers an explanation of reality because it affords you the opportunity to hide behind "sin" for all your shortcomings, faults, and flaws.  But the reality is, those shortcomings, faults, and flaws are part of who you are.  You can man-up to them and strive to change; or you can make excuses and hide behind "sin".  One path will lead you toward becoming a better person (which you claim to desire); the other... Well, let's just say that so long as nothing changes, nothing changes.

And you think there is no physiology in there anywhere? Why not just tell Jeff, Jeff, don't be manic or depressed. We've been down this road.

 

I understand what you are saying.

 

Jeff has a legitimate diagnosis of a legitimate disorder.  "Sin" is not a disorder; it is an excuse.  That is the difference.

 

And, yes, there is physiology involved; but eletrochemical pulses in your brain are just that.  They are not "sin".  "Sin" is an excuse.

 

How and why is it legitimized.

[FreeThinkerNZ]

 

How and why is it legitimized.

 

The medical diagnosis process is based on the scientific method. You have the question around the wrong way (as usual).  It is not the process of medical diagnosis that should be questioned; it is your assertion that the concept of sin excuses your bad behaviour, that should be questioned.  Please at least try to stay on topic.

[duderonomy]

Ok,  I've read the entire thread and I think I'm ready...debunk what now?

[Guest end3]

 

How and why is it legitimized.

The medical diagnosis process is based on the scientific method. You have the question around the wrong way (as usual).  It is not the process of medical diagnosis that should be questioned; it is your assertion that the concept of sin excuses your bad behaviour, that should be questioned.  Please at least try to stay on topic.

 

nice deflection....answer the questions please

[FreeThinkerNZ]

 

 

How and why is it legitimized.

The medical diagnosis process is based on the scientific method. You have the question around the wrong way (as usual).  It is not the process of medical diagnosis that should be questioned; it is your assertion that the concept of sin excuses your bad behaviour, that should be questioned.  Please at least try to stay on topic.

 

nice deflection....answer the questions please

 

Pot... kettle... black.   I know, you really, really, love deflecting questions but it has gotten really, really obvious.

 

A reminder... the burden of proof is on the one making the claim.  

[Guest end3]

 

 

 

How and why is it legitimized.

The medical diagnosis process is based on the scientific method. You have the question around the wrong way (as usual).  It is not the process of medical diagnosis that should be questioned; it is your assertion that the concept of sin excuses your bad behaviour, that should be questioned.  Please at least try to stay on topic.

 

nice deflection....answer the questions please

 

Pot... kettle... black.   I know, you really, really, love deflecting questions but it has gotten really, really obvious.

 

A reminder... the burden of proof is on the one making the claim.

 

Right, Prof made the claim bipolar as a legitimate disorder....the burden of proof is on Prof.

[bornagainathiest]

 

 

 

 

Here's one back for you. It's impossible for it to be anything other than subjective.

 

Why do you believe that?

 

The sum total is defined by humanity. We good now?

 

 

Nope.

 

Instead of painfully stretching this out any further End, I'll give you the answer.

.

.

.

No part of the argument is subjective at all.  None of it.  

None of it depends on any subjective belief on my part, your part or anyone else's part.  

 

The first statement, "BAA is a man" is objectively true for everyone.

That statement doesn't depend on what anyone subjectively believes is true.  All the objective evidence confirms that I am a man.  There is no objective evidence that indicates that I am anything else.  To argue that I am anything else than a man is to argue against what is observed, what can be tested and what can be proven.

 

The second statement, "All men die" is objectively true for everyone.

For the same reasons as the first statement.

 

The conclusion, "Therefore, BAA will die" uses the content of the first two statements, puts them together and arrives at the only possible logical conclusion.  BECAUSE BAA is a man (objective statement) and BECAUSE all men die (objective statement), at some time in the future, BAA will die (objective conclusion).

.

.

.

Are you good with this?

 

No, I'm not good with it. Every interpretation is and was defined by humanity. It's an agreement to some level of certainty of things humans subjectively defined. Unless you can document that we are here outside of our own perception.

 

 

No, End.

 

Reality existed before humans gained the ability define anything or agree about anything.

It operates independently of our beliefs or definitions.  Reality doesn't become what we agree it is, what we believe it is or what we believe it should be.  Reality exists independently of us, doesn't need us and takes no notice of us.

 

Our subjective perception of reality is not reality itself.

Our subjective beliefs about reality are not reality itself.  Nothing we subjectively believe or even collectively agree about reality can force it to change itself in any way.  

 

Reality itself defines how we can interpret it and stay alive.

Those people who mistakenly thought they could change the way gravity works by believing otherwise are dead.  Faulty beliefs about reality get you killed by reality, because it doesn't respect what you believe about it.  The flow is in one direction only.  Either we interpret reality in ways that agree with it or it kills us.

 

You can even test this by taking Mark 16 : 18 literally and drinking the kool-aid.

 

Or by loading every chamber of the revolver, before playing Russian Roulette.

 

Or by ignoring the 'Don't Walk' signs.

.

.

.

Anyway, there's no further point in my staying in this thread... except perhaps for some comic relief.

Therefore, I recommend this link.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_falling

It should help you gain mastery over gravity by believing that it doesn't apply to you.

 

I'm gone.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

 

 

 

Ah, yes, the old "I'm sinful and broken" defense.  We do what we choose to do in this life, End3.  We say the words we choose; we commit the actions we choose to commit.  We are who we are, and that is what drives us to do the things we choose to do.  If it's important to you, you'll find a way to do it; if it's not important, you'll find an excuse, like "sin" for example.

 

You might think the bible offers an explanation of reality because it affords you the opportunity to hide behind "sin" for all your shortcomings, faults, and flaws.  But the reality is, those shortcomings, faults, and flaws are part of who you are.  You can man-up to them and strive to change; or you can make excuses and hide behind "sin".  One path will lead you toward becoming a better person (which you claim to desire); the other... Well, let's just say that so long as nothing changes, nothing changes.

And you think there is no physiology in there anywhere? Why not just tell Jeff, Jeff, don't be manic or depressed. We've been down this road.

 

I understand what you are saying.

 

Jeff has a legitimate diagnosis of a legitimate disorder.  "Sin" is not a disorder; it is an excuse.  That is the difference.

 

And, yes, there is physiology involved; but eletrochemical pulses in your brain are just that.  They are not "sin".  "Sin" is an excuse.

 

How and why is it legitimized.

 

What kind of question is that?  

 

Aren't you supposed to be the manager of an analytical lab?  Unless the lab you work for is located at the Answers in Genesis headquarters then I would expect you to understand the scientific method and how it applies to medical and psychological diagnoses.  

 

A simple examination of the AMA website or the APA website should be able to clear up the confusion you are currently hiding behind.

 

Do your homework, now, End3.  No more excuses.

[FreeThinkerNZ]

 

 

 

 

How and why is it legitimized.

The medical diagnosis process is based on the scientific method. You have the question around the wrong way (as usual).  It is not the process of medical diagnosis that should be questioned; it is your assertion that the concept of sin excuses your bad behaviour, that should be questioned.  Please at least try to stay on topic.

 

nice deflection....answer the questions please

 

Pot... kettle... black.   I know, you really, really, love deflecting questions but it has gotten really, really obvious.

 

A reminder... the burden of proof is on the one making the claim.

 

Right, Prof made the claim bipolar as a legitimate disorder....the burden of proof is on Prof.

 

Wrong again.  Go back and read what he said.  You are using your beliefs about "sin" as an excuse for your bad behaviour.

 

Go and read the DSM V section on bipolar disorder, while you're at it.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

 

 

 

 

How and why is it legitimized.

The medical diagnosis process is based on the scientific method. You have the question around the wrong way (as usual).  It is not the process of medical diagnosis that should be questioned; it is your assertion that the concept of sin excuses your bad behaviour, that should be questioned.  Please at least try to stay on topic.

 

nice deflection....answer the questions please

 

Pot... kettle... black.   I know, you really, really, love deflecting questions but it has gotten really, really obvious.

 

A reminder... the burden of proof is on the one making the claim.

 

Right, Prof made the claim bipolar as a legitimate disorder....the burden of proof is on Prof.

 

Um... actually the claim that bipolar is a legitimate disorder was made and proven a long time ago... by scientists of all people.  So, I am under no obligation to prove what they have already proven.  If you had even the most rudimentary understanding of how science actually works, you'd already know this.

 

Just for shits, though, here's some night table reading for you:

 

http://www.apa.org/topics/bipolar/

 

http://www.nimh.nih.gov/health/publications/bipolar-disorder-in-adults/index.shtml?wvsessionid=wv8bc8ae0503f14d29b08f948267fe3228

 

http://www.webmd.com/bipolar-disorder/guide/what-is-bipolar-disorder

 

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/37010.php

 

http://www.nami.org/Content/NavigationMenu/Mental_Illnesses/Bipolar1/Home_-_What_is_Bipolar_Disorder_.htm

 

http://www.psychologytoday.com/basics/bipolar-disorder

[Guest end3]

 

 

 

 

Ah, yes, the old "I'm sinful and broken" defense.  We do what we choose to do in this life, End3.  We say the words we choose; we commit the actions we choose to commit.  We are who we are, and that is what drives us to do the things we choose to do.  If it's important to you, you'll find a way to do it; if it's not important, you'll find an excuse, like "sin" for example.

 

You might think the bible offers an explanation of reality because it affords you the opportunity to hide behind "sin" for all your shortcomings, faults, and flaws.  But the reality is, those shortcomings, faults, and flaws are part of who you are.  You can man-up to them and strive to change; or you can make excuses and hide behind "sin".  One path will lead you toward becoming a better person (which you claim to desire); the other... Well, let's just say that so long as nothing changes, nothing changes.

And you think there is no physiology in there anywhere? Why not just tell Jeff, Jeff, don't be manic or depressed. We've been down this road.

 

I understand what you are saying.

 

Jeff has a legitimate diagnosis of a legitimate disorder.  "Sin" is not a disorder; it is an excuse.  That is the difference.

 

And, yes, there is physiology involved; but eletrochemical pulses in your brain are just that.  They are not "sin".  "Sin" is an excuse.

 

How and why is it legitimized.

 

What kind of question is that?  

 

Aren't you supposed to be the manager of an analytical lab?  Unless the lab you work for is located at the Answers in Genesis headquarters then I would expect you to understand the scientific method and how it applies to medical and psychological diagnoses.  

 

A simple examination of the AMA website or the APA website should be able to clear up the confusion you are currently hiding behind.

 

Do your homework, now, End3.  No more excuses.

 

I am just asking to what standard they are comparing to claim "disorder"? What quantification or even measured qualification are we talking about? How is this different that some illegitimate diagnosis? We have to be disfuntional to some agreed quality? Is there a legitimate test or is this consensus?

[Guest end3]

 

 

 

 

 

Here's one back for you. It's impossible for it to be anything other than subjective.

 

Why do you believe that?

 

It's pointless without human interpretation.

 

The sum total is defined by humanity. We good now?

 

 

Nope.

 

Instead of painfully stretching this out any further End, I'll give you the answer.

.

.

.

No part of the argument is subjective at all.  None of it.  

None of it depends on any subjective belief on my part, your part or anyone else's part.  

 

The first statement, "BAA is a man" is objectively true for everyone.

That statement doesn't depend on what anyone subjectively believes is true.  All the objective evidence confirms that I am a man.  There is no objective evidence that indicates that I am anything else.  To argue that I am anything else than a man is to argue against what is observed, what can be tested and what can be proven.

 

The second statement, "All men die" is objectively true for everyone.

For the same reasons as the first statement.

 

The conclusion, "Therefore, BAA will die" uses the content of the first two statements, puts them together and arrives at the only possible logical conclusion.  BECAUSE BAA is a man (objective statement) and BECAUSE all men die (objective statement), at some time in the future, BAA will die (objective conclusion).

.

.

.

Are you good with this?

 

No, I'm not good with it. Every interpretation is and was defined by humanity. It's an agreement to some level of certainty of things humans subjectively defined. Unless you can document that we are here outside of our own perception.

 

 

No, End.

 

Reality existed before humans gained the ability define anything or agree about anything.

It operates independently of our beliefs or definitions.  Reality doesn't become what we agree it is, what we believe it is or what we believe it should be.  Reality exists independently of us, doesn't need us and takes no notice of us.

 

Our subjective perception of reality is not reality itself.

Our subjective beliefs about reality are not reality itself.  Nothing we subjectively believe or even collectively agree about reality can force it to change itself in any way.  

 

Reality itself defines how we can interpret it and stay alive.

Those people who mistakenly thought they could change the way gravity works by believing otherwise are dead.  Faulty beliefs about reality get you killed by reality, because it doesn't respect what you believe about it.  The flow is in one direction only.  Either we interpret reality in ways that agree with it or it kills us.

 

You can even test this by taking Mark 16 : 18 literally and drinking the kool-aid.

 

Or by loading every chamber of the revolver, before playing Russian Roulette.

 

Or by ignoring the 'Don't Walk' signs.

.

.

.

Anyway, there's no further point in my staying in this thread... except perhaps for some comic relief.

Therefore, I recommend this link.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_falling

It should help you gain mastery over gravity by believing that it doesn't apply to you.

 

I'm gone.

 

[sdelsolray]

 

 

 

 

 

Ah, yes, the old "I'm sinful and broken" defense.  We do what we choose to do in this life, End3.  We say the words we choose; we commit the actions we choose to commit.  We are who we are, and that is what drives us to do the things we choose to do.  If it's important to you, you'll find a way to do it; if it's not important, you'll find an excuse, like "sin" for example.

 

You might think the bible offers an explanation of reality because it affords you the opportunity to hide behind "sin" for all your shortcomings, faults, and flaws.  But the reality is, those shortcomings, faults, and flaws are part of who you are.  You can man-up to them and strive to change; or you can make excuses and hide behind "sin".  One path will lead you toward becoming a better person (which you claim to desire); the other... Well, let's just say that so long as nothing changes, nothing changes.

And you think there is no physiology in there anywhere? Why not just tell Jeff, Jeff, don't be manic or depressed. We've been down this road.

 

I understand what you are saying.

 

Jeff has a legitimate diagnosis of a legitimate disorder.  "Sin" is not a disorder; it is an excuse.  That is the difference.

 

And, yes, there is physiology involved; but eletrochemical pulses in your brain are just that.  They are not "sin".  "Sin" is an excuse.

 

How and why is it legitimized.

 

What kind of question is that?  

 

Aren't you supposed to be the manager of an analytical lab?  Unless the lab you work for is located at the Answers in Genesis headquarters then I would expect you to understand the scientific method and how it applies to medical and psychological diagnoses.  

 

A simple examination of the AMA website or the APA website should be able to clear up the confusion you are currently hiding behind.

 

Do your homework, now, End3.  No more excuses.

 

I am just asking to what standard they are comparing to claim "disorder"? What quantification or even measured qualification are we talking about? How is this different that some illegitimate diagnosis? We have to be disfuntional to some agreed quality? Is there a legitimate test or is this consensus?

 

 

And what is your legitimate diagnosis?

[FreeThinkerNZ]

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ah, yes, the old "I'm sinful and broken" defense.  We do what we choose to do in this life, End3.  We say the words we choose; we commit the actions we choose to commit.  We are who we are, and that is what drives us to do the things we choose to do.  If it's important to you, you'll find a way to do it; if it's not important, you'll find an excuse, like "sin" for example.

 

You might think the bible offers an explanation of reality because it affords you the opportunity to hide behind "sin" for all your shortcomings, faults, and flaws.  But the reality is, those shortcomings, faults, and flaws are part of who you are.  You can man-up to them and strive to change; or you can make excuses and hide behind "sin".  One path will lead you toward becoming a better person (which you claim to desire); the other... Well, let's just say that so long as nothing changes, nothing changes.

And you think there is no physiology in there anywhere? Why not just tell Jeff, Jeff, don't be manic or depressed. We've been down this road.

 

I understand what you are saying.

 

Jeff has a legitimate diagnosis of a legitimate disorder.  "Sin" is not a disorder; it is an excuse.  That is the difference.

 

And, yes, there is physiology involved; but eletrochemical pulses in your brain are just that.  They are not "sin".  "Sin" is an excuse.

 

How and why is it legitimized.

 

What kind of question is that?  

 

Aren't you supposed to be the manager of an analytical lab?  Unless the lab you work for is located at the Answers in Genesis headquarters then I would expect you to understand the scientific method and how it applies to medical and psychological diagnoses.  

 

A simple examination of the AMA website or the APA website should be able to clear up the confusion you are currently hiding behind.

 

Do your homework, now, End3.  No more excuses.

 

I am just asking to what standard they are comparing to claim "disorder"? What quantification or even measured qualification are we talking about? How is this different that some illegitimate diagnosis? We have to be disfuntional to some agreed quality? Is there a legitimate test or is this consensus?

 

 

And what is your legitimate diagnosis?

 

He's not perfect, just forgiven, therefore he's not responsible for this shortcomings.  </sarcasm>