Lobowolf

Is it "extreme" among Christians (in the USA, at least) to believe in salvation through faith? I thought that was pretty much tenet #1.

I think that I've phrase this part of the sub-thread poorly, and I apologize to the extent that I've sort of hijacked and criticized a point you were making. I do agree with your point about the relative importance of the literal stories themselves vs. the lessons to be taken from them; I just feel that I should acknowledge that the position is very likely colored by the fact that I don't believe the stories themselves.

I can certainly see that for those who are already Christians and who wish to apply the teachings to their lives, but I can't believe that many clergy find it more important than the question of nonbelievers first accepting Jesus and becoming saved. Not being a Christian myself, that involves a bit of speculation; however, I do have good friends who are Christians, and I'm pretty confident in speaking for them at least as far as opining that the most important question, by far, is to become "saved," or "born again," or (insert your favorite phrase).

That's only "surely" true if you accept a non-Christian worldview as your starting point. If, on the other hand, your worldview includes, for instance, the idea that only through accepting Jesus as a divine savior can you be granted eternal salvation, then if the story leads one to believe "Wow, this Jesus guy really IS something more than just human," and as a result gains that salvation, that's probably more important than sharing your toys for the [relatively] insignificant 70 or so years that you're here. This all goes back to the idea about the burden of proof being on the positive rather than the negative. What sense can it make to start with a worldview that someone is a divine savior? It makes much more sense to start with a worldview that no (particular) person is a divine savior, and only change your mind when sufficient evidence is presented that someone is. I think it's a separate issue, more specifically the logical fallacy of assuming the conclusion, or "begging the question." The assertion that the allegorical lesson in Biblical stories is "more important" than their literal meanings is, of course, true...if you evaluate it from the perspective that the literal meanings aren't true. Whether or not you should accept Biblical stories as true is incidental to the point; either way, the point is that the claim that the symbolic meaning is "more important" is simply at heart a restatement of the position that the symbolic meaning is all there is. I think that the stories themselves do go directly to your point. If you (2,000 or so years ago) heard that Jesus was the son of God and had miraculous powers, you'd probably say that doesn't comport with your worldview, and (correctly) point out that the burden of proof was on anyone asserting that to be true. So then you see (or hear about) him walking on water, or healing lepers by touch, and you choose whether or not to find that to be compelling evidence.

That's only "surely" true if you accept a non-Christian worldview as your starting point. If, on the other hand, your worldview includes, for instance, the idea that only through accepting Jesus as a divine savior can you be granted eternal salvation, then if the story leads one to believe "Wow, this Jesus guy really IS something more than just human," and as a result gains that salvation, that's probably more important than sharing your toys for the [relatively] insignificant 70 or so years that you're here.

For an absolute beginner, I agree. And even for something less than "absolute." But in my opinion, as I see it, players who should be progressing to "advanced beginner" or "intermediate" are still clinging too tightly to rules at the expense of developing judgment, e.g. C players at the local club who are coming up on life master and still base all opening decisions on Rule of 20 - no accounting at all for tens and nines being better than threes and twos, aces and kings being worth more than their "equivalent" in queens and jacks, honors in long suits, etc.

Why restrict it to evolutionary debates?! This would be good in the MSC. "Bob likes 5♠, but he believes in Noah's Ark." Or "10 voted to pass, while only 8 voted to double, but we're scoring double as 100 and pass as 80, because all 8 doublers are evolutionists, while 6 of the 10 passers believe in intelligent design."

That's probably true, but relying on the guidelines probably slows down the development of those instincts. I come down on the side of trying out your judgment, even if it's a short-term loser. See what works and what doesn't, and try to figure out why.

Does that undercut the credibility of his position, in your view?

I keep forgetting about irony & the internet. Yeah, I was. Not about the law, but about using it in that fashion.

But not an explanation...so in a pinch, ask your RHO "What did his 3C mean?" Then you might get the response, "He didn't bid 3C; he opened 1D then rebid 2H."

I'd have led a small spade, like the substantial majority, and considered it a close call over the majority choice 9♥. Oops. Guess that's why Justin has a star!

I don't think it'll happen, but we'll see. I think the launch will take place, there will be no intervention, and there will be much huffing and puffing (i.e. "stop launching rockets or else we'll tell you to stop again!")

Maybe Mikeh can make a post on the first of every month stating his position in opposition to Luke_Warm's and anyone who wants to can add a "me, too, wtp" post. Don't forget to invite the LOLs.

Problematic, possibly problematic, or much ado about nothing?! http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/ny...0,1831661.story

Sounds like a bad idea to me, too.

It's all in the framing of the question. I wasn't making the claim that the mainstream media has a liberal bias; I was imposing the burden of proof on Passed for asserting that it's "unchallenged foolishness" to believe that it does. The "biased media" question is inherently subjective enough to be subject to all manner of interpretation, of course. It's a perfect question to illustrate the "hooray for my side" notion of "accepting evidence to the contrary" of one's position. There are all sorts of studies out there that demonstrate exactly what the people conducting them want to demonstrate. Whatever the appropriate criteria are, you'd probably have to formulate them before the fact. Which candiates get the most press? Which candidate gets more photographs? Which candidate gets photographed smiling more often? What's the party affiliation of most of the writers? WHat's the party affiliation of most of the editors? Is the newsroom happy or unhappy when certain candidates win? Which candidate gets the most endorsements? Which positions get the most endorsements? Even then, to what extent is that "media bias" vs. marketing a product to its target audience. Orange County (CA) newspaper readers are different demographically than Los Angeles County readers; is it "bias" to cater to that? I think there are some useful ways to consider the question, and I think that different criteria will provide some useful evidence. For example, if Candidate A beats Candidate B by 1% of the popular vote, but Candidate A received 3 times as many newspaper endorsements (or endorsements in newspapers with 3 times the circulation) as Candidate B, I think that's suggestive of bias. If Candidate A appears twice as often, or appears more in "positive" stories than negatives ones, I think that's suggestive of bias, also. Or if photos of Candidate A always show him smiling, and photos of Candidate B always show him frowning. I also think, though, that it's really difficult to even conceive of it as an issue that's subject to conclusive proof.

I think there's a lot of truth in this post. I have a couple of close friends on the flip side, btw (Christians (intelligent, educated ones, even) who were not "brainwashed" since birth, but rather embraced Christianity from agnoticism, in one case, and from a sort of go-through-the-motions Judaism, in the other). I think to a large extent, it's a question not simply of "unwillingness to accept compelling evidence," but rather of what evidence one is predisposed to find "compelling." On both sides. I think human nature is such that (almost?) all of us lean toward accepting/embracing that evidence that reinforces our positions. Are there really unbiased people among us? Yes, we do (most of us, anyway) change our positions from time to time. But when an article like the one on the Pope and condoms comes out, I do think there's a natural reaction among people who oppose condom programs to say, "See!" and among people who don't to immediately point out the distinction because correlation and causation, and whatever flaws are inherent in the study. If the conclusion is the opposite, so are the people willing to accept the study at face value, for the most part. Not because they comprise a group that is more objective, but because of the ultimate conclusion. Those conclusions that go against are beliefs are scrutinized far more closely. I've seen it repeatedly, in many venues on many topics, throughout the entire spectrum from casual debate to higher education.

What's the evolution-level evidence that contradicts this position?

What's a 3-letter synonym for "virtually"?

I think you're starting to far advanced! How bout Nullo, Practice Finesse...

I'd just like to go on the record and take the other side of this one. I think it's fortunate when legal steps aren't taken against people for expressing their views.

For getting new players up to speed, I'm a fan of the Harry Lampert books (The Fun Way to Serious Bridge, and The Fun Way to Advanced Bridge).

I don't believe that efficacy is the main consideration for most people on either side of this debate.

I don't think so...if there were no stop cards, he would have said "skip bid" then corrected that. Same UI.