eHedonism: Episode #13
by Motte Brown on 04/18/2008 at 6:39 PM
 iTunes | FeedBurner/RSS |
It's tax week. And we begin this episode of The Boundless Show with a chat on refunds and rebates. The ladies have all kinds of suggestions on how to spend my money. What about you? What will you be doing with your hard earned money?
Roundtable -- 3:35
Dr. Neil Clark Warren launched eHarmony in 2000 with a goal of helping Christian singles build long-lasting relationships by finding their soul mates. But in 2005, Dr. Warren took a decidedly secular turn with his service and it seems to have culminated with an advice site that gives people tips on one night stands and looking great while crashing at your boyfriend's house. As Lisa says in this week's roundtable, "This is not your mother's eHarmony." And we think it's important to expose eHarmony's hedonistic ways to singles who still believe it's a "Christian" dating service.
Culture -- 19:05
What do lightning, crystals and aliens have in common? They're all theories Darwinians have come up with to explain how life began. And though it sounds a bit ridiculous, you'd better not question it if you have a career in academia. Tom Neven explains that that's essentially what Ben Stein's new movie "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed" is all about. Timely stuff because the movie opens tonight. Go see it!
Hungry Years -- 34:05
This week, Steve Watters brings us a Hungry Years that I guarantee everyone can relate to. I know because we all say things we regret. We all say things that we immediately feel ashamed of because they were said out of anger, selfishness or pride. Here, Steve gives us some great advice on taming the tongue like, "A closed mouth gathers no feet." Awesome.
Inbox -- 38:45
Listen ladies. You have something men want. Actually, you have a lot of things men want. And some men will take and take and take until you stop giving them access "to your heart, to your emotions, and to your time and availability." That's what this week's Inbox is about. Sort of. Anyway, don't miss this one because Candice doesn't hold anything back in this segment.
And remember, you can get to The Boundless Show via either iTunes or Feedburner (our RSS feed).
1. Adam T. said the following at 7:33 PM on Apr 18:
Tom's explanation about the misconceptions surrounding 'Expelled' is great.
P.S. - tell Lisa A. I'd totally date her. ;)
2. Anonymous said the following at 9:26 PM on Apr 18:
Regarding "Expelled" and the ID controversy:
To be fair, I do see some hypocrisy in the Intelligent Design movement, as many of its advocates are known to try to please both Christian groups and the scientific community by framing their theories as religious or non-religious depending on their audience. But the issue of scientists being possibly "persecuted" because of their lack of belief in evolution is still there-- it might not be widely known or even common, but I won't be surprised to hear that it can exist. [For example, I've heard anecdotal evidence where certain college professors (supposedly) would refuse to write letters of recommendation for Creationists.]
==> Thankfully, I haven't experienced it myself, but I would encourage those who are facing it to consider Martin Luther King-style civil disobedience against such "persecution." (I must confess that I used to dream that it be nice if there were a scientist who believes in Creationism who's shrewd enough to be able to get the Nobel Prize in one of the sciences, so that he/she can declare upon receiving the prize that he/she is a Creationist, just to make a very politically incorrect statement. After all, if that could ever be done, the scientific community would either have to give in or start make sure that no Christian "undercover agent" enters the academia, which they can't do thanks to the First Amendment. Of course, such an idea is akin to a conspiracy theory, and I've since learned that we must let God be our justifier rather than trying something like this.)
==> But here's another idea: if we're praying for terrorists per this post, why not pray for leading evolutionists such as Richard Dawkins and Eugenie Scott as well?
3. Angie said the following at 9:26 PM on Apr 18:
It's funny,I just cancelled my eHarmony subscription yesterday for all of the same reasons you guys discussed in the podcast today. A total waste of time and money pretty much sums it all up.
4. Christina said the following at 9:52 PM on Apr 18:
As far as Expelled goes, its not simply limited to Evolution where views contrary to the popular culture are shunned and shut down simply because they CHALLENGE. Where is intelligence allowed?
5. Nicole said the following at 10:25 PM on Apr 18:
I can't hear this discussion (no sound on my computer) but would love to see someone blog on Expelled. I just returned from seeing it!
6. Philip said the following at 6:55 PM on Apr 19:
The claim that Tom makes that Intelligent Design is science is an important one. It is not science according to the standard definition, which is based on a pragmatic not religious basis, and the argument that the definition should be weakened such that it is science has not been successfully made.
Regarding the supposed persecution of Sternberg the facts don't bear it out. The worst results from his circumventing proper procedure to get publication of a creationist paper in his journal were unkind things said about him in private emails. At the Smithsonian he retained access to specimens and had his position extended, and he remained an employee of NIH. He'd agreed to the room change before the offending paper was published. See here for more and check the rest of the site for rebuttals of other parts of the movie.
Its been interesting following how the producers of Expelled have tried to prevent non-supporters attending pre-release screenings, including, as Tom mentions, PZ Meyers, who was one of the scientists deceived into giving an interview and so actually appears in the film.
7. Lisa A said the following at 7:25 PM on Apr 19:
I just came back from seeing "Expelled!" with friends. We all gathered afterward to discuss it, and wow, what a discussion! Our parting thoughts were, "So, what do we do to open dialogue on this with our Darwinian friends? And are we in relationship enough with these folks to do so? If not, what can we do to change that?" It's unfortunate that most of my friends hadn't heard about the film until I mentioned it to them.
I still haven't received a response from eHarmony re: the deletion of my account. I'll let you know if I do. I guess the company has received quite a few contacts and cancellations. Power to the people!
Finally, thanks for the compliment, Adam T. Was it the gun, the skull ring or the eHarm anger that won you over? :)
8. Tom Neven said the following at 9:25 PM on Apr 19:
Philip (#6)
A lot of what passes for “science” these days is also not science according to the standard definition. The entire premise behind scientific naturalism, for that matter, is scientifically untestable. If you want to use science to describe the inner workings of a cell, fine. After all, Michael Behe and others do that. If you want to then extrapolate from that and say that it all started through natural means (the “lightning bolt in a mud puddle”) and proceeded through natural means, please (a) show me the scientific evidence for that and (b) devise an experiment where we can test it and (c) provide a means of falsifying it. And please, no “evolution will eventually prove itself.” That’s worse than the “God-of-the-gaps” theory.
Let’s look at the evidence by the investigation of the Office of Special Counsel and not a biased web site to see if you’re right. I encourage everyone to read the results of the investigation and see if Philip is right. Please, everyone, read through the sample e-mails in the OSC findings and see if Sternberg was subjected solely to have "unkind things said about him."
Among other things the Smithsonian did to Sternberg, tactics right out of junior high school, included taking the name plate off his office door, forcing him into increasingly smaller offices until he was forced to work in a common work area, restricting his access to research samples, and using government employees in conjunction with non-government employees to investigate Sternberg’s church and religious beliefs. Please, Philip, tell us all how Sternberg’s charges are not borne out by the fact.
And it's laughable that you say Sternberg didn't follow proper procedures. The Smithsonian violated all standards of academic integrity by trying to pressure Sternberg into revealing the names of his peer-reviewers, in complete violation of all academic standards. (Just imaging the persecution and harassment they would be due for.) Then Sternberg was told that he should have looked for peer reviewers who would have rejected the article. In fact, the peer reviewers offered substantial criticism and suggested changes, all of which Sternberg and the author did. As part of the OSC investigation, Dr. Roy McDiarmid, President of the Council of the Biological Society of Washigton, reviewed the peer-review file and concluded that all was in order and that Sternberg’s decision to publish was justified
There’s way more here, all supported by the investigation of the OSC.
Please, Philip, please, justify this behavior against Dr. Sternberg. And please, cite some objective sources, not a biased web site that itself plays fast and loose with the facts.
9. Jo said the following at 2:19 AM on Apr 20:
Does anyone else think Candace's advice in the inbox section was kinda... harsh? I mean I agree that the gal hasn't handled it all that well, and Candace may well be right in her assessment of the situation, but if the guy *is* shy/uncertain/whatever, backing off completely isn't going to make him chase after her, it's going to confuse and hurt him if he's had no warning that it's a 'cut and run' situation for her. Surely she could do that whole 'define the relationship' thing that Boundless always talks about, and *ask* him what the deal is? The advice to 'sever all connections' without warning and see if he misses her enough to do something about it - that just sounds like cruel game-playing to me.
10. Adam T. said the following at 8:46 AM on Apr 20:
Finally, thanks for the compliment, Adam T. Was it the gun, the skull ring or the eHarm anger that won you over? :)
It's your charming personality. :)
11. Tami said the following at 9:58 AM on Apr 20:
Jo, I agree with your assessment. Not every guy reads Boundless and knows how to take the lead. :) Who knows what the guy's background is with regard to rejection, hurt, etc. that's causing him to hold back on a closer relationship, or hold onto the friendship for fear of totally losing her. I guess we (and Becca, of course ;) could be praying for clarity and that he would step forward with his true feelings, whatever they are.
12. P&P said the following at 10:05 AM on Apr 20:
"If you want to then extrapolate from that and say that it all started through natural means (the “lightning bolt in a mud puddle”) and proceeded through natural means, please (a) show me the scientific evidence for that and (b) devise an experiment where we can test it and (c) provide a means of falsifying it."
One look at the back of my refrigerator will give all the proof you need to believe in evolution.
Snark aside, I've always been taught that you have to have nothing but facts. As belief in G-d is something that varies from person to person, let alone culture to culture, teaching the idea that some almighty being is responsible for everything without first proving the very existence of such an entity is not scientific.
13. Catherine said the following at 10:32 AM on Apr 20:
As a committed Christian, I am frustrated by the views found in Expelled. Science should enlighten our faith and our understanding of God's universe. This intense opposition to evolutionary biology is not only misguided- but damaging to our integrity on the national stage. We must stand for the values that matter- if the Pope can fit evolution into his Christian worldview, I think we need to at least consider that we can too.
Here is Scientific American's response to Expelled and the arguments it raises. Scientific opposition to ID is not based on discrimination against Creationists- ID fails to present a theory that can stand up to critical investigation.
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=six-things-ben-stein-doesnt-want-you-to-know&page=3
14. Adam said the following at 1:12 PM on Apr 20:
Jo,
I was wondering the same thing myself. Jesus told us that if we have something against our brother, we are to go to him, show him his fault, and, if he repents, we have won our brother. The Bible doesn't tell us to run away and hide when there are issues that need to be addressed in the Christian church, but rather, to lovingly confront the other believer.
In fact, Jesus told us to work for reconcilation, and to not even offer sacrifices until we are reconciled to our brother. This is expecially true in light of the fact that it is obvious that we do not know what this man is thinking. If you do not seek to be reconciled to him, and to find out *what* he is thinking, then there is no foundation for doing anything.
Imagine if one day the police show up at your door, and you are arrested for a murder you didn't commit. Then imagine the person who accuses you at the trial admits that he didn't actually see you murder this person in the bathroom, he only saw you walking into the restroom with a knife that was just purchased at the sporting goods store, and then he proceeds to say that he thought that, since it was a possibility, you should be punished.
Indeed, all that has been shown is that it is a *possibility* that this man is playing with her heart. However, merely showing that it is possible that someone has done something does not prove he should be treated as if he is, any more than the suspect in a murder case should be treated as if he were guilty.
I think my main concern would be honesty in this whole situation. If this person is a fellow believer in Jesus Christ, then, as Jesus himself said, we are called to be honest with one another, not to hide what is wrong by pulling away.
God Bless,
Adam
15. Adam said the following at 1:16 PM on Apr 20:
Also, I wanted to say that I enjoyed the section on the movie. I will probably be going to see it myself.
The interesting thing is that this censoring is not the first time that this has happened in science. If anyone reads Thomas Kuhn's The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, Kuhn discusses the fact that this is inherent in the field of science, and, in reality, all academic disciplines I had studied. These paradigm shifts just seem to be more violent in the natural sciences.
God Bless,
Adam
16. Rebekah said the following at 2:45 PM on Apr 20:
I don't know if this is the best place to post this, but I have a technical problem/comment. I am a podcast member since the second episode or so, and the last two podcasts are unplayable in I-Tunes. Is this something with my computer or are other people experiencing this? Would it be possible to also post the mp3 of the program on the website so I can listen to this week's program? That's what I did last week, and the MP3 worked great. I've missed my weekly fix :(.
17. MJ said the following at 2:52 PM on Apr 20:
Catherine and Philip,
Neither evoulution nor ID are good theories in regards to understanding the origins of life period. No one knows. There are some valid points for evoulution but the idea of one species mutating into another especially idea of apes becoming humans is no more than horrible misapplication of natural selection and survival to the fittest. As a student for anthropology, this misapplication has been used to support what we know now as social dawrinism and cultural hegemony aka imperialism.
18. Jacob said the following at 3:15 PM on Apr 20:
Adam (@ #15)
I'm glad I'm not the only one who has read Kuhn.
Catherine (#13)
You have it backwards...our faith should illuminate our science. Scientific knowledge isn't anything different than any other kind of knowledge. If some Jesus Seminar "scholar" tells you that Jesus really wasn't God, are you going to buy his "science" or tell him to take a long walk off a short pier?
I'm not really a big fan of documentaries, but I think I might have to see this one.
19. BDB said the following at 6:47 PM on Apr 20:
Tom Neven (#8) wrote:
>>If you want to use science to describe the inner workings of a cell, fine. <<
Ha! Then when you get into cell biology, you find out that several things happen by "induction." What is induction? Well, we're not yet sure how that works...
On the creationism issue, I had one (1) conversation with my advisor about it back when I was a Biology major. He basically just said that I needed to understand how evolution worked as the organizing principle of Biology - he agreed that the field of biology had nothing to say about the origins of the universe. It may have helped that the chair of the physics department (downstairs) was getting his Master's degree in Theology. That physics professor edited a good book called, Science and Christianity: Four Views.
Ironically, it sits on my shelf next to, Psychology & Christianity: Four Views. That might apply to the whole eHarmony thing. One view is that determinism is the organizing principle of psychology...well, eHarmony is supposed to use 29 deterministic things, eh? Pity I'm not a determinist...
(And Nicole, yes, it makes it difficult for me to have a "rational" conversation with a "Publc Choice" theorist...)
Lisa A. (#7) wrote:
>>Finally, thanks for the compliment, Adam T. Was it the gun, the skull ring or the eHarm anger that won you over? :)<<
Well, did I hear correctly that you budget well enough that you bought you own house? That got my attention...
Jo (#9) wrote:
>>Does anyone else think Candace's advice in the inbox section was kinda... harsh? <<
Yes. There is another possibility that was not discussed - he may not know he's supposed to initiate. I'm not kidding. If you look at the secular world, it is FULL of messages saying that women should initiate. Unless this guy has been reading the Boundless Line or Elisabeth Elliot, he may be terribly confused about what he's supposed to do.
It's very easy for a Christian guy to recognize the pitfalls of "dating" and try to find another way. But if he doesn't have an older man mentoring him on this subject, he might not know what to do other than be respectful.
It was a mistake to send the friend - that's taking the initiative. But If this guy really has all the necessary Christian character, and you've already invested four years, it's a shame to change the rules with no explanation.
This is when the value of mentors comes in. It's also where church leaders can help mediate a misunderstanding.
First, you need a Christian man you both know. This needs to be someone who understands the whole male-initiation thing. Send the older guy to the younger guy. It might be best if he called him up and said, "Can we talk about Becca for a few minuts?" If he's just playing her, he'll probably decline. But if he's confused, let the older guy explain the concept, and then ask if he understood what he was doing over the last four years.
Once he understands the concept, THEN Candice's advice is appropriate. If if this is someone whose parents aren't Christians and he is, or if his dad is passive/missing, then her silence will likely be interpreted as, "Go away," not "Fish or cut bait."
A respectful person who is shy will very, very likely interpret it as "Go Away," and want to be respectful, even though they don't know what happened.
20. BDB said the following at 7:02 PM on Apr 20:
P&P wrote:
>>One look at the back of my refrigerator will give all the proof you need to believe in evolution.<<
Really? What did your refrigerator evolve from?
21. BDB said the following at 7:06 PM on Apr 20:
Here is the link to the MP3.
22. Sarah22 said the following at 7:07 PM on Apr 20:
"Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed," a rare documentary opening in wide release, debuted at No. 9 with $3.1 million." - Yahoo Entertainment
I went to see Expelled last night and really enjoyed it; I liked the questions it asked and the ignorance that it showed in the evolutionist’s narrow closed minded world view. I couldn't help but to keep coming back to the thought: "If you don't even believe in God how can you hate Him so much?" – I also found it interesting how angry and agitated the evolutionists were compared to the pro-ID crowd of whom many did not even claim to be “religious”. Mostly I felt sorrowful for those who shared their stories of turning away from God after “discovering science”, and when Dawkins read a paragraph from his book I felt sick to my stomach that someone could deny their creator in such a grossly rebuking manner...I also couldn’t help wondering how you could draw up such elaborately hateful details about a God you don’t even believe exists...oh wait, he did say there was a 1% chance...
I also was glad to hear the tie-in with the Hitler and abortion (although brief). Margaret Sanger (found of Planned Parenthood) was very into Eugenics among other things and a believer in Darwinism...just shows some of the “wonderful” role models in history that evolution has inspired...
Also...to the person who commented that we need to add evolution to our "Christian world view" because the Pope has...well, I'd just like to say that when you can show me evolution in the bible I'll add it to my beliefs.....until then it's out with the garbage...FYI the whole purpose/idea of the Pope ("God on earth" to many people) doesn't fit into my beliefs either, so his opinion doesn't mean a whole lot to me and shouldn’t to you either just because it’s coming from the Pope...unless it can agree with the Bible I’m not interested...
23. Nicole said the following at 8:05 PM on Apr 20:
I saw Expelled friday night. I enjoyed it. ID is a scientific theory (just as much as the aliens and crystals mentioned in the movie) it should be allowed to have its place. It's not proven, just like any other explanation for the beginning of life. One guy in the movie says something to the extent that to do the research you have to assume intelligent design but you can't mention it then. It's sad you can't use that in your findings then. It's a basic assumption.
Also, science isn't the only place where academic freedom is limited. I am getting my PhD in economics and have been warned that overtly conservative topics and findings for my dissertation should be avoided or my job options will be limited. I also have a conservative political blog that I write under a false name because of the same reason.
So academic freedom is really a misnomer. It's much too easy to keep someone quiet and discriminate against them in the academic world.
24. BDB said the following at 8:40 PM on Apr 20:
The link to the "camping" article was back up. Well. I see your point. Lovely.
25. Catherine said the following at 10:05 PM on Apr 20:
As far as Kuhn goes, i think its too complicated to explain a full rebuttal here- but ID would have to explain evidence that could not be explained by evolution PLUS explain all of the things evolution explains to qualify as an idea that deserves a paradigm shift. and be testable. ID doesn't and so dismissing it as doctrine in the disguise of science isn't unfair. As for faith informing science- to what limits? isn't that how we imprisoned galileo and claimed that the earth "must" be the center of the solar system? Am I supposed to teach that native americans are descended from Israelites in classrooms with a majority of Mormons because this is in their scriptures? We have to teach critical thought, not indoctrination.
evolution does fail to explain some things at the moment. but so does the classic theory of gravity. assuming that our faith can answer those questions in a scientific way is unfair to both religion and science. As for the Jesus Seminar- this is where your analogy breaks down. There you are saying that they are trying to deny the possibility of a question that must be answered with faith alone. I don't try to bring people to Christ with scientific arguments- I talk about the meaning of Jesus and its relevance in my life right now. If science and religion are miscommunicating in Expelled its because they are speaking in completely different ways about the natural universe.
As for apes becoming humans- this is also a misunderstanding. At one time, we had a more ape-like ancestor (just stroll through the bone rooms in South Africa's museums for one day to see how much we still don't understand about human origins.). Modern apes are another branch off of this point in primates.
26. BB said the following at 6:44 AM on Apr 21:
Can some one post the RSS feed? I remember it was in previous episodes but those have passed from the Recent Posts tab on the left.
27. Justin T. said the following at 9:27 AM on Apr 21:
Regarding eHarmony's "fall from grace" with that little article they posted... I find it a bit amusing that Focus has suddenly decided eHarmony isn't a good environment anymore. I remember hearing Neil Warren being interviewed on the radio show a couple years back and hearing glowing endorsements from Dr. Dobson about the whole thing.
Anyway, now that eHarmony's true colors have been revealed (or recognized), are there any better alternatives? (other than finding dates somewhere other than the internet, of course...)
28. David said the following at 10:44 AM on Apr 21:
There is a link for the MP3 at Feedburner, which Motte links at the end of his post.
29. CCSurfer said the following at 11:33 AM on Apr 21:
For me, it was the skull ring.
And the fact that you're a fellow product of the California educational system. Talk about a long, strange trip...
30. Ally said the following at 12:05 PM on Apr 21:
Lisa & the rest of the Boundless team:
Thank you for clearing up some misconceptions about eHarmony. I've got a mid-twentysomething female friend who joined eHarmony about a month ago. We had a conversation just the other day about her frustration with the types of men that she was being matched up with -- that they weren't Christian or just didn't seem to prioritize their faith. I had told her that I'd heard it was the "Christian dating service" and better for Christians than match.com, etc. And all I know about online dating is from ads and friends who've tried it!
It just goes to show what a "good job" eHarmony's marketing department has done since I was fooled and under that impression. I'm glad Boundless has brought this to light, and I will be sharing the podcast with my friend.
31. Jeni said the following at 12:42 PM on Apr 21:
The "one night stand" article from Eharmony is completely disurbing, especially considering the Christian roots of the company. The timing of the article is creating an inner conflict for me. I'm giving the big "E" a whirl for the 4th time right now. This has been the most positive experience I have had with this site. Here are my considerations for staying with Eharmony at least through this membership:
*I've prepaid for 3 months, they've already got my money and I've got about 1/2 the membership time remaining.
*I have received more matches with similar values this time than the 3 previous times I've tried it. (Maybe this means there are more men on the site now. Maybe it means I'm a better match this time around.)
*Unfortunately, "E" does not indicate that it is a Christian site these days.
*I have encountered members on other "Christian" online dating sites who are looking for a one night stand.
*I have met people who proclaim to be Christians in singles groups, churches and social situations who consider one night stands good for all. It seems you have to filter out those with less than Christian values in all situations.
32. Lisa A said the following at 12:44 PM on Apr 21:
CCSurfer (#29):
That I'm a product of the CA public schools is evidenced by my frequent use of "whatever" and "you know" on the show.
I'm working on it, people...I'm working on it! :)
33. Philip said the following at 6:18 PM on Apr 21:
Tom, the issue isn’t whether evolution isn’t science (which I’d be willing to argue against another time), but why creationism/ID should be considered science. It is entirely appropriate for scientists to oppose pseudoscience.
The report is supposed to be independent, but that doesn’t stop it being biased, so it is worth seeing whether its conclusions are supported by the evidence. I’ve looked through the entire appendix of evidence and it supports the following, eg. see the Coddington 2/15/05 email.
The creationist paper was inappropriate for the journal and Sternberg avoided normal editorial process to get it published.
While it is true that Sternberg was moved, it was part of a wider reorganisation before the article was published.
Sternberg’s master key was replaced by a key that still gave him access to all he needed, and this was part of a wider tightening of security.
34. BDB said the following at 6:27 PM on Apr 21:
Lisa A. (#32) wrote:
>>That I'm a product of the CA public schools is evidenced by my frequent use of "whatever" and "you know" on the show.<<
You'll, like, need to, like, tell us, like, where you're, like, from.
35. R said the following at 12:10 AM on Apr 22:
BDB said,
>> If you look at the secular world, it is FULL of messages saying that women should initiate. Unless this guy has been reading the Boundless Line or Elisabeth Elliot, he may be terribly confused about what he's supposed to do. <<
BDB: Don't forget the Bible includes the story of Ruth initiating to Boaz. Even Boundless is inconsistent when it says that DTRs can be initiated by women as well.
36. Regular poster who wishes to be anonymous said the following at 6:26 AM on Apr 22:
I have something to add to the thread started in comments #9, #11, & #14...
I agree with all of you. I don't think that disappearing with no explanation is really going to get her very far. As I have been in a similar position, I do have some advice, specifically about some steps that she could take if she is going to have a conversation to let him know what is going on and to let him know that either they have something together or they don't and if they don't--she is completely severing ties with him.
Please don't go into this conversation blindly. It probably isn't going to go well because it lacked preparation and you may not have thought of some of his "objections" (like what if he says that he says that their "may be" a chance for a relationship).
Recommendations:
1. Read up to prepare for the conversation
Recommended reading includes reading about confronting difficult issues and how to address them face to face "Boundaries Face to Face" by Cloud and Townsend, "Boundaries in Dating" by Cloud and Townsend, and "Doing Things Right in Matters of the Heart" by John Ensor for a look at Biblical roles for men and women.
NOTE: The book by Ensor is a bit conservative for my tastes as the author does interject some of his own opinion in the middle of more concrete truths. However, he makes it obvious what is his opinion and what is drawn from Scripture. Despite this, I still think that it is a worthy read.
2. Bring this to the Lord in Prayer
Pray for the guy, that God would open his eyes to what he is doing and that God would bring Godly men into his life to encourage him in the area of marriage.
Pray that God would prepare this guy's heart for this difficult conversation.
Pray that God would work on your heart to gain a realistic perspective and to begin the process of pulling away from him emotionally. Specifically, pray that God would provide you with the relational support that you need despite the outcome of the conversation, grace to get through the difficult conversation, and the wisdom to be able to be appropriately detailed in your conversation.
3. Prepare for the conversation with a Godly Female Adult Mentor
As this is going to be extremely difficult, please seek out a trusted married, Godly female adult mentor. Hopefully this person can help as a sounding board as you prepare for the content of the conversation (guided by "Boundaries Face to Face" of course). Also, she can pray for you. If you tell her in confidence, unlike your friend, I am assuming that she would hold your confidence.
4. Plan the Time/Location Delicately
Becareful where you meet to have this tough conversation. You DO NOT want to be at the corner bistro where all of your friends stop by as being interruped during this conversations could be not only embarrassing, but also a complete deal breaker. Please go somewhere where you will not be interruped by anyone that you know.
Also, be conciencious of the time from his perspective (and from yours for that matter). Don't decide to have the conversation at 2am if he has to be at work at 8am or on Saturday night if he is a pastor and has to be at church in the morning. If you can't see straight before 8am, don't have the conversation at 6am over coffee. It is a recipe for bad things to happen...
This is all that I've got space for right now...
HOPEFULLY THE BOUNDLESS FOLKS WILL RECOGNIZE THAT WHEN WOMEN GET PUT INTO THE CHALLENGING ROLE OF NEEDING TO HAVE THE DIFFICULT CONVERSATIONS, THEY NEED SOME ADVICE ON EXACTLY WHAT STEPS TO TAKE TO PLAN AND ACTUALLY HAVE THAT CONVERSATION WHILE NOT OVERSTEPPING THEIR GENDER BOUNDS OR TAKING THE LEADERSHIP ROLE IN THE RELATIONSHIP (I.E., DIRECTION ON HOW TO EXECUTE A "PULLING A RUTH" CONVERSATION). I KNOW THAT THIS IS EXTREMELY DIFFICULT, BUT I DO NOT BELIEVE THAT IT IS IMPOSSIBLE. THIS TOPIC WOULD BE AN EXCELLENT TOPIC FOR EITHER AN ARTICLE OR AN ADDITIONAL BOUNDLESS BLOG.
37. Adam said the following at 12:44 PM on Apr 22:
Catherine,
As a committed Christian, I am frustrated by the views found in Expelled. Science should enlighten our faith and our understanding of God's universe. This intense opposition to evolutionary biology is not only misguided- but damaging to our integrity on the national stage. We must stand for the values that matter- if the Pope can fit evolution into his Christian worldview, I think we need to at least consider that we can too.
Here is Scientific American's response to Expelled and the arguments it raises. Scientific opposition to ID is not based on discrimination against Creationists- ID fails to present a theory that can stand up to critical investigation.
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=six-things-ben-stein-doesnt-want-you-to-know&page=3
The reason we can't fit it into our worldview is because it is inconsistent with the scriptures which give us our worldview.
I would also say that science doesn't enlighten our faith, but, unless you presuppose the truths found in God's word, you can't do science, period. That is why Paul says that all men know God, and yet they suppress the truth in unrighteousness.
God Bless,
Adam
38. Elizabeth said the following at 4:36 PM on Apr 22:
"Does anyone else think Candace's advice in the inbox section was kinda... harsh?"
No. I thought she was right on, and her refreshing honesty is one of my favorite things about this podcast.
39. Lisa A said the following at 7:33 PM on Apr 22:
BDB (#34):
Bay Area. Totally.
40. BDB said the following at 7:50 PM on Apr 22:
Lisa A. (#39) wrote:
>>Bay Area. Totally.<<
Oh. I understand why you left for a Red State...
41. A Regular Reader from the SF Bay Area said the following at 10:13 PM on Apr 22:
Lisa A and BDB... Hey now! Watch it! :)
Some of us may be Whole Foods-shopping, raw food-eating, Salon-reading, hybrid-driving, Earth Day-celebrating Nader fans.
But not all. ;)
42. CCSurfer said the following at 11:11 AM on Apr 23:
I agree with #41:
Growing up, it was actually a lot of fun being the only Christian punk in Emeryville. It really hones your debate skills and ability to construct a bulletproof argument.
I had a skull ring, too.
43. BDB said the following at 11:17 AM on Apr 23:
ARRFTSFBA (#41) wrote:
>>But not all. ;)<<
Yeah, well, my uncle teaches at UC Berkeley...when I met my aunt's family, I suddenly realized that they were both the most liberal in their family and they found each other...my aunt's famiy attends Calvary Chapel...
Hey, let's have a topic on earthquakes so the West Coast people can poke fun at the folks who are scared of a 5.2...it's not like it's a volcano.
44. CCSurfer said the following at 2:27 PM on Apr 23:
Some of us may be Whole Foods-shopping, raw food-eating, Salon-reading, hybrid-driving, Earth Day-celebrating Nader fans.
But not all. ;)
I concur. Growing up as the only Christian punk in Emeryville was pretty fun, and it really hones your debate technique and ability to structure a bulletproof argument.
And I had a skull ring, too...
45. Rachael said the following at 4:32 PM on Apr 23:
Well, according the St. Helens link (comment 43), that one was a 5.1. I don't think I've ever been scared in an earthquake, but I've not been in any huge ones. I'd imagine it'd scare people a lot more if they lost people they loved in an earthquake or lived in or were keenly aware of areas that have been devastated by earthquakes or other natural diasters. It's probably better to have at least a slight element of fear, though. Because if another earthquake were to happen here in the NW (US) I think I'd probably assume things would be fine and might not react quick enough. You just never know...
46. BDB said the following at 7:01 PM on Apr 24:
Rachael (#45) wrote:
>>Because if another earthquake were to happen here in the NW (US) I think I'd probably assume things would be fine and might not react quick enough. You just never know...<<
Well, if it's a 5 and not volcano-related, you'll be fine. If it's a 6, stuff will fall off shelves and walls may crack. If it's a 7, you get the last San Francisco quake...
I find the new "Lahare" warning signs amusing. Seems like "flash flood" would be a better way for people to understand they need to move to higher ground if Rainier erupts. But I digress...
Hey, look at that. We had a 3.9 under my house on 3/9. I thought it was a truck.
47. Rachael said the following at 12:05 AM on Apr 25:
I don't have earthquake #s downpat, but I thought the bigger deal was how close to the surface they are. I must've been in the same state as a 6.8 before. I don't remember if I was in the city where it was of that magnitude or not. Somehow my memory fails me in some regards. Weirdness. CA people are probably more used to them. I think when I was on vacation in CA I at least slept through one. And I've been in Japan - in one place I lived I lived way high - like on the 11th or 13th floor or something. I think during an earthquake in Japan I was talking or chatting with my mom in America wondering what to do or telling her it was going on... Will have to confirm w/ her sometime...hmmm...I don't even know how many times I've fainted or how many car accidents I've been in for sure. Who will want to marry me :) But some things I remember all too well. So weird.