Christianity

For all things philosophical.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 13396
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm

Re: Christianity

Post by henry quirk »

Dontaskme wrote: Mon Jan 17, 2022 5:00 pm
henry quirk wrote: Mon Jan 17, 2022 4:56 pm The secret of a happy marriage? Separate bathrooms

Yep. Separate bathrooms in the same house.
And probably separate beds...and houses... :D

Well that has been one of my experiences anyway, with a certain boyfriend, not married to him.
I was married: it's one life, two people.

It's fidelity.
Dontaskme
Posts: 12733
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm

Re: Christianity

Post by Dontaskme »

henry quirk wrote: Mon Jan 17, 2022 5:03 pm
Dontaskme wrote: Mon Jan 17, 2022 5:00 pm
henry quirk wrote: Mon Jan 17, 2022 4:56 pm The secret of a happy marriage? Separate bathrooms

Yep. Separate bathrooms in the same house.
And probably separate beds...and houses... :D

Well that has been one of my experiences anyway, with a certain boyfriend, not married to him.
I was married: it's one life, two people.

It's fidelity.
I agree, but both partners have to want the same fidelity for their marriage to last a life time...the father of my children left us all, he wasn't as committed to fildelity the way I was....but I'm in a much better place now because of his leaving, funny how that works as well..it's another form of love...loving yourself.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 15200
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Christianity

Post by Immanuel Can »

Alexis Jacobi wrote: Mon Jan 17, 2022 4:28 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: Mon Jan 17, 2022 3:44 pm Well, you may think that love of God cannot possibly have anything to do with the kind of love you're talking about; but it can. What it does, is it takes the unreasonable element out of our expectations. The only truly durable, totally committed love, is the one we receive from God; this frees us up, in our aspirations, to love the fallible human being in front of us, without demanding that he provide for us that committed, total love that only God can actually provide. It makes us reasonable, sensible, fair...and committed, because our oath is not to ourselves or our own feelings, nor to our partner, nor even to the crowd on hand at the wedding -- it's an oath to God, between him and me, regardless of all the other things. And thus, the kind of total commitment required to make love durable becomes possible to me. And it's the change in me, not my partner, that's most important. For each person can only commit himself/herself...you cannot make another person committed.
The topic of the failure of the marriage relationship is an interesting one. I think it fair to say that the breakdown in, say, the success of marriage goes along with various other breakdowns which seem, definitely, to be related to the breakdown in the *belief in* the general structure of Christian ethics, but moreover metaphysics.
That's astute, I think.
Maybe this is obvious for many, but maybe it is not so obvious to some?
Quite so. The most important thing one can have in loving somebody long-term is the settled conviction that they are especially committed to the values one holds oneself...values in which one believes passionately, whatever else may come. Then, one can admire their convictions and remember what they are about, even when one is annoyed with their person, and then one can get through it.

But we have been told that the highest value is something like "our own happiness." And nobody is anywhere near so committed to that goal as we are. Moreover, it's actually a shallow, selfish goal, unworthy of the kind of belief and commitment of which a human is capable. So short-term self-centered values like that will just not do.
If a relationship -- the man-woman relationship, with family-life as the object of it, and the raising up of children within value-structures -- is undermined, one has to ask why it is undermined. That undermining has a function.
Oh yes...especially today.

And today there's a special reason for hating marriage among the Neo-Marxists. It's that the destruction of the nuclear family and the scrambling of sex roles leaves a populace angry, adrift, permanently unhappy and alienated -- in short, the perfect lumpenproletariat revolutionaries. So no wonder today's Left is so hateful about marriage and sex roles, and calls them "oppressive." They shore up social stability and the social fabric, and make people content. Neo-Marxists do not want that.
It should be pretty obvious that most people have whole other sets of criteria as to why they are with any other person at all. *Serial monogamy* has become a norm in this situation. You find someone to be with for a rather short period of time, but for reasons of pleasure and enjoyment on the whole, not because you were joined in marriage to then produce children with whom all together some sort of interconnected, civil-sacred life is lived. That entire function has been wiped away for many and perhaps for most.
Yep. I'm with you.
For 'love to become durable' the entire reason why people even get into marriages has to be reexamined. "Why even bother?" say many. And there is a good deal of sense in this when the actual situation is seen.
No wonder we're seeing a plague of abandoned women and fatherless children. We've told everybody it doesn't matter what kind of "family" you have. And men are, to use their terms, "going their own way" because they've been told they're worthless, deadbeat oppressors anyway. Who would want to join oneself permanently with a definition like that?
The there is what Johnny Cash said: "The secret of a happy marriage? Separate bathrooms".
Johnny is "on the spot" with that comment. :D My wife and I don't have separate bathrooms...but two sinks...well, I don't know how a marriage can survive without them.

Well, that, and a coffee maker.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 15200
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Christianity

Post by Immanuel Can »

Dontaskme wrote: Mon Jan 17, 2022 4:53 pm Having said that, I've never shied away from hard work and total commitment toward relationships in my life, like the ones I've had with my own children whom I raised single handedly with total unconditional love, and commitment without flailing or flinching away from the huge responsibilty, which I accepted was all mine since I was the one who wanted to bring them into existence.
I wasn't raised by a single mother, but my best friend was. His father died at around 45, of a sudden heart attack. And for me, his mother became my second mother. I was so often in their house I became a surrogate son.

She was a woman of huge courage and integrity. And she worked harder than anyone I can imagine to raise four children...two of each. She was a heroine, in my eyes. I can't say enough about her. I would even say that a large part of what I am today was due to her.

But if she had ever had one wish, I know what it would have been...her husband back. No question. For however hard one works as a single mother, it's a brutal task...and no woman is a man, just as no man is a woman. So there's a lot that just cannot be compensated for, no matter how nobly one tries.

Today, people mock the nuclear family. But any single parent can tell you first hand what I'm sure you can also tell us: it's very hard. It's not the same thing. It's necessary where there's been abuse, or alcoholism, death, or something like that; but it's no path anybody in their right mind should ever choose casually. It's too hard on the kids and the remaining partner.

It is not unreasonable or unfair to wish for better.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 15200
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Christianity

Post by Immanuel Can »

henry quirk wrote: Mon Jan 17, 2022 5:03 pm I was married: it's one life, two people.

It's fidelity.
People will say that's old fashioned and idealistic.

I say it's just true. True things tend to become old fashioned, and good things tend to be idealized.
Nick_A
Posts: 5906
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2012 1:23 am

Re: Christianity

Post by Nick_A »

henry quirk wrote: Mon Jan 17, 2022 4:56 pm The secret of a happy marriage? Separate bathrooms

Yep. Separate bathrooms in the same house.
Very true. Consider Matthew 15: People are dull so don't really get it
Peter said, "Explain the parable to us."
16
"Are you still so dull?" Jesus asked them.
17
"Don't you see that whatever enters the mouth goes into the stomach and then out of the body?
18
But the things that come out of the mouth come from the heart, and these make a man `unclean.'
19
For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false testimony, slander.
20
These are what make a man `unclean'; but eating with unwashed hands does not make him `unclean.'"
What comes out of the heart; its excretions, are the source of human evil. Separate bathrooms and an area for personal contemplation of what has become of human nature through the quality of our excretions is beneficial in the pursuit of understanding.
Alexis Jacobi
Posts: 769
Joined: Tue Oct 26, 2021 3:00 am

Re: Christianity

Post by Alexis Jacobi »

This is, I think, a telling part of The Influence of Greek Ideas and Usages Upon the Christian Church.

I placed bold emphasis on those parts that seem important to me. He is speaking about the early centuries of the assimilation of Christianity in the Greek and surrounding world (1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th centuries):
The answer, in short, to the main question which has
been before us is that Christianity came into a ground
which was already prepared for it
. Education was widely
diffused over the Greek world, and among all classes of
the community. It had not merely aroused the habit
of inquiry which is the foundation of philosophy, but
had also taught certain philosophical methods.

Certain elements of the philosophical temper had come
into existence on a large scale, penetrating all classes of society
and inwrought into the general intellectual fibre of the
time. They had produced a certain habit of mind.
When, through the kinship of ideas, Christianity had
been absorbed by the educated classes, the habit of mind
which had preceded it remained and dominated
. It
showed itself mainly in three ways:

1. The first of these was the tendency to define. The
earliest Christians had been content to believe in God
and to worship Him, without endeavouring to define
precisely the conception of Him which lay beneath their
faith and their worship. They looked up to Him as their
Father in heaven. They thought of Him as one, as
beneficent, and as supreme. But they drew no fence of
words round their idea of Him, and still less did they
attempt to demonstrate by processes of reason that their
idea of Him was true
.

But there is an anecdote quoted
with approval by Eusebius from Rhodon, a controver-
sialist of the latter part of the second century, which
furnishes a striking proof of the growing strength at
that time of the philosophical temper. It relates the
main points of a short controversy between Rhodon and
Apelles. Apelles was in some respects in sympathy
with Marcion, and in some respects followed the older
Christian tradition. He refused to be drawn into the
new philosophizing current; and Rhodon attacked him
for his conservatism:

“He was often refuted for his
errors, which indeed made him say that we ought not to
inquire too closely into doctrine; but that as every one
had believed, so he should remain. For he declared that
those who set their hopes on the Crucified One would be
saved, if only they were found in good works. But the
most uncertain thing of all that he said was what he said
about God. He held no doubt that there is One Prin-
ciple, just as we hold too: but when I said to him,
'Tell us how you demonstrate that, or on what grounds you
are able to assert that there is One Principle
,'....he
said that he did not know, but that that was his convic-
tion. When I thereupon adjured him to tell the truth, he
swore that he was telling the truth,that he did not know
how there is one unbegotten God, but that nevertheless
so he believed. Then I laughed at him and denounced
him, for that, giving himself out to be a teacher, he did
not know how to prove what he taught.”


2.The second manifestation of the philosophical habit
of mind was the tendency to speculate, that is, to draw
inferences from definitions, to weave the inferences into
systems, and to test assertions by their logical consistency
or inconsistency with those systems
. The earliest Chris-
tians had but little conception of a system.
The incon-
sistency of one apparently true statement with another did
not vex their souls. Their beliefs reflected the variety
of the world and of men's thoughts about the world.

It was one of the secrets of the first great successes of
Christianity. There were different and apparently irre-
concilable elements in it. It appealed to men of various
mould. It furnished a basis for the construction of
strangely diverse edifices.


But the result of the ascendency of philosophy was,
that in the fourth and fifth centuries the majority of churches
insisted not only upon a unity of belief in the fundamental facts of
Christianity, but also upon a uniformity of speculations in
regard to those facts.
The premises of those speculations
were assumed; the conclusions logically followed: the
propositions which were contrary or contradictory to
them were measured, not by the greater or less probability
of the premises, but by the logical certainty of the conclusions;
and symmetry became a test of truth.


3. The new habit of mind manifested itself not less
in the importance which came to be attached to it. The
holding of approved opinions was elevated to a position
at first co-ordinate with, and at last superior to, trust in
God and the effort to live a holy life.
There had been
indeed from the first an element of knowledge in the
conception of the means of salvation. The knowledge
of the facts of the life of Jesus Christ necessarily precedes
faith in him.


But under the touch of Greek philosophy,
knowledge had become speculation : whatever obligation
attached to faith in its original sense was conceived to
attach to it in its new sense : the new form of knowledge
was held to be not less necessary than the old.
The Western communities not only took over the
greater part of the inheritance, but also proceeded to
assume in a still greater degree the correspondence of
ideas with realities, and of inferences about ideas with
truths about realities.


It added such large groups to
the sum of them, that in the dogmatic theology of Latin
and Teutonic Christendom the content is more Western
than Eastern.
But the conception of such a theology
and its underlying assumptions are Greek. They come
from the Greek tendency to attach the same certainty
to metaphysical as to physical ideas. They are in reality
built upon a quicksand.

There is no more reason to
suppose that God has revealed metaphysics than that
He has revealed chemistry.
The Christian revelation is,
at least primarily, a setting forth of certain facts. It does
not in itself afford a guarantee of the certainty of
the speculations which are built upon those facts. All
such speculations are dogmas in the original sense of the
word. They are simply personal convictions. To the
statement of one man's convictions other men may assent:
but they can never be quite sure that they understand
its terms in the precise sense in which the original framer
of the statement understood them.


The belief that metaphysical theology is more than
this, is the chief bequest of Greece to religious thought,
and it has been a damnosa hereditas [an inheretance
that is more a burden than a benefit]. It has given to
later Christianity that part of it which is doomed to
perish, and which yet, while it lives, holds the key of
the prison-house of many souls.
Age
Posts: 10960
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Christianity

Post by Age »

Dontaskme wrote: Mon Jan 17, 2022 11:24 am
Dontaskme wrote: Mon Jan 17, 2022 9:39 am But it seems we do, so then that's just the nature of it.

Age wrote: Mon Jan 17, 2022 10:37 amWHY would it SEEM that way, to you?
Because there is only NATURE
OF COURSE there is ONLY Nature. There is OBVIOUSLY NOTHING that is UNNATURAL.
Dontaskme wrote: Mon Jan 17, 2022 11:24 am Nature knows the concept of abuse, and so every time nature makes love to itself, it is knowingly creating the possibilty of creating another abuser.
But ONLY 'you', adult human beings, CAN, and DO, abuse 'things'.

REALLY, you NEED to consider your choice of 'words' a bit better.

Also, is 'nature', itself, a 'concept' or a 'physical thing', to you?

Furthermore, let us NOT FORGET that you ACTUALLY WROTE:
So to me, I cannot see the point in living this repeat and rinse reality...over and over again. But it seems we do, so then that's just the nature of it.

So, what you SAID and CLAIMED is that you cannot see THE POINT 'in living this (so-called) "repeat and rinse reality". I then asked you, in relation, to WHY does it SEEM like there is a "repeat and rinse reality", to you? (Especially considering the Fact that there is absolutely NO 'repeat' ANYWHERE.)

I await your answer to THIS question.
Dontaskme wrote: Mon Jan 17, 2022 11:24 am If you want the abuse to stop, then you have to stop making abusers in the first place...
But 'I', Nature, just CHANGE 'physicality' in shape and form. And, the ONLY abusers in Life are 'you', adult human beings.

'adult human beings' make 'children' and 'children' are NOT abusers. children, however, grow up to be adults, who are abusers. Adult human beings make future abusers by teaching children the Wrong 'things' in Life, and children NATURALLY follow and copy what 'you', adults, TEACH.
Dontaskme wrote: Mon Jan 17, 2022 11:24 am for every child who is born could well turn out to become an abuser...
EVERY child who lives to adulthood becomes an abuser. LEARN WHY 'you' ARE 'an abuser', and ONLY THEN 'you' CAN CHANGE, properly AND correctly, and THEN 'abuse' can FINALLY be STOPPED and PREVENTED from EVER reoccurring AGAIN.
Dontaskme wrote: Mon Jan 17, 2022 11:24 am that's the risk nature takes everytime it knowingly imposes a life on another being.
Nature, Itself, KNOWS of NO such thing.

Are you ABLE to explain just HOW Nature, Itself, could KNOW the 'concept of abuse'?

If yes, then WILL you explain just HOW Nature could?
Dontaskme wrote: Mon Jan 17, 2022 11:24 am Nature is the only creator of it's own destiny as and through knowledge.
Nature is ETERNAL. Knowledge has only existed since human beings came into Existence. Which, in the scheme of things, is relatively a NOTHING period of time.
Dontaskme wrote: Mon Jan 17, 2022 11:24 am If you know abuse, then the only way to stop abuse is by choosing to not create an abuser in the first place.
Abusers are ONLY created by 'you', adult human beings. TEACHING children Wrong 'things' as being Right 'things' is what is creating children to grow up to become abusers.

So, 'you' can keep creating children, themselves, FOREVER MORE, while just STOP creating and making abusers out of them. SIMPLE REALLY.
Dontaskme wrote: Mon Jan 17, 2022 11:24 am When you impose a life on another being, you have no way of knowing if that being turns out to be a child abuser....
But THERE IS.

I KNOW EVERY human being born, up to when ALL of 'you', adult human beings, Truly CHANGE for the better of ALL, then ALL of those children WILL turn out to be child abusers. Just like 'you' ARE.
Dontaskme wrote: Mon Jan 17, 2022 11:24 am did Hitler's mother at the time of her childs conception know Hitler was going to be who he has been known to be...
Who, has that HUMAN BEING known as "hitler" here, "been known to be"?

Did your own mother, at your own conception, know that you were going to be a 'child abuser'?

In fact do you even know that you are a 'child abuser'?

Further to this how many of 'you', adult human beings, even know that 'you' ARE 'child abusers'?

And out of those ones who of 'you' are going to ADMIT this OPENLY?
Dontaskme wrote: Mon Jan 17, 2022 11:24 am the answer is probably no, else she maybe would have not bothered to participate in the action of procreation...which always comes with a risk, as we cannot control the actions of another human being.
But 'I' CAN control the behaviors of 'you', human beings. 'you' just need to LEARN who and what 'I' am, EXACTLY.
Dontaskme wrote: Mon Jan 17, 2022 11:24 am We can only know the concept of 'risk' after we are born to know such concepts. That's why if we know we have been born to know concepts, then we can stop ourselves from being born by not making more of ourselves...and only then will abuse stop...
Abuse can and WILL be STOPPED.

But making more children does NOT mean that 'you' have to make them become 'child abusers' like "yourselves" ARE.

Just TEACH children 'what is ACTUALLY Right in Life', and then they will NOT grow up to become 'child abusers', and then abuse WILL be STOPPED.
Dontaskme wrote: Mon Jan 17, 2022 11:24 am that is my logic, and will not be moved to change that logic.
Here is a PRIME EXAMPLE of BELIEFS, at work.
Dontaskme wrote: Mon Jan 17, 2022 11:24 am Here I'm talking about the one who claims to know...if the claim is true, that the human being is indeed a KNOWER...then only that knower can stop knowing what it claims to know...and it can do that by not imposing more knowers into existence via the process of known procreation.
But NO one, as far as I KNOW, has CLAIMED that 'the human being' is indeed a KNOWER. As far as I am AWARE the EXACT OPPOSITE is what has been CLAIMED here. Unless, OF COURSE, 'you', "dontaskme", are indeed CLAIMING that 'the human being' is indeed a KNOWER. Is this what 'you' are CLAIMING here?
Dontaskme wrote: Mon Jan 17, 2022 11:24 am At present, we do not seem to care about abuse, else we'd stop creating potential abusers.
At present, in the days when this is being written, 'you', adult human beings, are NOT YET even AWARE that 'you' are ALL 'child abusers'.

'you', adult human beings, STILL have quite some MORE learning AND understanding to do FIRST.
Age
Posts: 10960
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Christianity

Post by Age »

Belinda wrote: Mon Jan 17, 2022 11:41 am Immanuel Can wrote to Alexis Jacobi:
You spoke earlier of a view of life driven by the will to power. That is, indeed the situation of mankind without God. Power...his own power...becomes man's only possible goal and idol, and life turns into a struggle for the domination of some by others. That's a nasty, bitter world.
Need for power to stay alive is basic to both fear and love. When fear is added to basic need for power then there is nastiness and bitterness. When love is added to basic need for power then there is peace and prosperity. Remember Judges 14:14 “And he said unto them, Out of the eater came forth meat, and out of the strong came forth sweetness. And they could not in three days expound the riddle.”
WHEN is there a 'need for power', in relation to just 'staying alive'?

PRESUMING there is some 'basic need for power' FIRST, and THEN adding 'love' to 'it' seems like just ANOTHER way to 'try to' "justify" or "rationalize" ones 'love of power'.

To me, there is NO ACTUAL 'need' 'for power', in Life. BUT, if ANY one would like to EXPLAIN WHERE, HOW, and WHY there is ANY 'need' 'for power' in Life, then 'I am ALL ears', as some say.
Age
Posts: 10960
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Christianity

Post by Age »

Immanuel Can wrote: Mon Jan 17, 2022 3:44 pm
Dontaskme wrote: Mon Jan 17, 2022 10:50 am I have been let down by my expectation ..and is why I chose to go it alone. Just like God is alone. And that's the only marriage that worked for me, the one I have with my self. That's the bliss right there, there is no bliss to be found in another....because where there is other, there will always be expectation that may or may not be fulfilled, in other words, the idea of otherness is the lie we are all spoon fed from cradle to grave...if that makes sense.
There was a question I used to ask to some teenagers I knew.

I used to ask,

"Why, when you want to get married, do they make you...
  • dress up in your best clothes
  • arrange a banquet, with all your friends and family, and anybody else important to you
  • make you go to some "sacred" place, or some official secular place that is invested with authority
  • make you swear by whatever you regard as "sacred" to be committed to that person "til death do you part"
  • Seal it with a ring with a diamond in it
  • Make a huge show of your joining, proclaiming it to the public
  • Take half of your stuff if you break your word later?
I would wait while they tried to formulate an answer. But they never seemed to have one. They never thought about it before, usually.

Then I would lean forward and whisper fiercely, "Because it's HARD." :shock:
LOL Talk about the 'conned' continuing the CON.

What is SUPPOSEDLY "HARD" about just FOLLOWING a 'ritual'?

The REASON WHY 'they' MAKE 'you' do the SAME is because 'they' do NOT KNOW ANY BETTER.

When, and IF, 'you' EVER work out ALSO what the word 'marriage' refers to, EXACTLY, within biblical text, then 'you' will ALSO SEE just how MUCH 'you' have been CONNED.
Immanuel Can wrote: Mon Jan 17, 2022 3:44 pm Almost no relationships work, especially today. But even in those that do, it takes a colossal effort.
I find creating Peace in 'relationships' EXTREMELY SIMPLE and EASY. In fact, I found creating non peace in 'relationships' much MORE COMPLICATED and HARD.
Immanuel Can wrote: Mon Jan 17, 2022 3:44 pm We tell ourselves that love should be "easy," or "natural," or painless; but it's not.
LOL Here is a PRIME EXAMPLE of one who has absolutely NO IDEA NOR CLUE what 'love' IS, EXACTLY.
Immanuel Can wrote: Mon Jan 17, 2022 3:44 pm It's so easy to like somebody today, and find a reason to dislike or even hate them tomorrow.
WHY is that EASY for 'you', "immanuel can"?

Does it have ANY thing to do with your EXTREMELY JUDGMENTAL VIEWS, and CONDESCENDING WAYS, of "others"?
Immanuel Can wrote: Mon Jan 17, 2022 3:44 pm That is because naturally, we're all selfish creatures, with ourselves at the center of our own universes.
LOL
LOL
LOL

Here is a GREAT EXAMPLE of the so-called "christian" who has BEEN TOTALLY CONNED.
Immanuel Can wrote: Mon Jan 17, 2022 3:44 pm Put two of those together, and it's inevitable that at some point they'll start to fight. And feelings just don't last.
STOP being SO JUDGMENTAL, and STOP BELIEVING that 'you' are better than "others" are, "immanuel can", and then 'you' will ALSO STOP BELIEVING that it is 'inevitable' to FIGHT with "others".

It REALLY is Truly SO SIMPLE and EASY to NOT 'fight' and JUST be PEACEFUL, instead. That is; ONCE 'you' learn HOW-TO.
Immanuel Can wrote: Mon Jan 17, 2022 3:44 pm Still, we look at others, and want them to owe us that -- a kind of commitment we may not ourselves be willing to invest at all.
And 'you', "immanuel can", ARE a PRIME EXAMPLE of doing this.
Immanuel Can wrote: Mon Jan 17, 2022 3:44 pm And in a strange way, we feel we are owed it...that not getting it is a tragedy of the first order, and that really, we have a right to hope for that...
When 'you' LEARN WHY 'you' are like that and DO THAT, then CAN STOP being like that and STOP DOING THAT.
Immanuel Can wrote: Mon Jan 17, 2022 3:44 pm And in a sense, maybe we do. But the love that does not quit and does not depend on feelings is not possible to human beings qua human beings.
Talk about being CONNED, to RIDICULOUSNESS.

LOL so, to you, True Love is NOT possible to 'you', human beings. Talk about a "self-justification" for CONTINUALLY doing the Wrong 'things' in Life.
Immanuel Can wrote: Mon Jan 17, 2022 3:44 pm We can muster enough love to commit to somebody we still have some feelings for, somebody who still "does something" for us, or maybe even enough to hang on for no other reason than that it's more trouble than it's worth to break up. But beyond that, we pretty much can't go.
If one ONLY commits to SOME, and/or ONLY has feelings for SOME, then this is PROOF that that one has NOT YET experienced NOR learned what True Love IS, EXACTLY.
Immanuel Can wrote: Mon Jan 17, 2022 3:44 pm The kind of love we all deeply know we need is not available from each other.
LOL
LOL
LOL

ONCE AGAIN, the CONNED passing on THE CON.

Which is MORE PROOF of EXACTLY how the brain works, and which is WHERE the 'devil' RESIDES and more specifically in the BELIEF-system. AS can be CLEARLY SEEN, and PROVED True here.

Immanuel Can wrote: Mon Jan 17, 2022 3:44 pm But Scripture says this:
And as expressed like only thee Truly CONNED could say it.

This is written as though what is said is ABSOLUTELY and IRREFUTABLY True, which may be the ACTUAL CASE. But, what is ABSOLUTELY and IRREFUTABLY True is that there will exist, in the days when this was written, INTERPRETATIONS that were ABSOLUTELY and IRREFUTABLY False, Wrong, and/or Incorrect.

Anyway, let us now take a LOOK AT what "the scripture says".
Immanuel Can wrote: Mon Jan 17, 2022 3:44 pm "For one will hardly die for a righteous person; though perhaps for the good person someone would even dare to die. But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us." (Romans 5:7-8) and again, "In this is love, not that we loved God, but that He loved us and sent His Son..." (1 John 4:10)
As I WAS SAYING, there IS absolute AND irrefutable Truth in this. But the INTERPRETATIONS and ASSUMPTIONS that 'you', human beings, like the one as "immanuel can" MAKE will NOT ALLOW 'you' to SEE what thee ACTUAL absolute AND irrefutable Truth IS, here.
Immanuel Can wrote: Mon Jan 17, 2022 3:44 pm Now, I know what you might say to that. You might say, "There goes IC again, talking about God instead of what I'm talking about. When is he going to get off his hobby horse and listen to what I'm actually talking about?" Fair enough?

Well, you may think that love of God cannot possibly have anything to do with the kind of love you're talking about; but it can. What it does, is it takes the unreasonable element out of our expectations. The only truly durable, totally committed love, is the one we receive from God; this frees us up, in our aspirations, to love the fallible human being in front of us, without demanding that he provide for us that committed, total love that only God can actually provide. It makes us reasonable, sensible, fair...and committed, because our oath is not to ourselves or our own feelings, nor to our partner, nor even to the crowd on hand at the wedding -- it's an oath to God, between him and me, regardless of all the other things. And thus, the kind of total commitment required to make love durable becomes possible to me. And it's the change in me, not my partner, that's most important. For each person can only commit himself/herself...you cannot make another person committed.

If love is ever to be really durable, it's because of this equation. Without it, life is too hard, and people are too disappointing, for things to survive the vicissitudes.
Considering the Fact that that might NOT BE what they were saying AT ALL, you write enough words to get out what you WANTED TO SAY, INSTEAD.

Here is MORE EXAMPLES of just how MUCH the people, in those days when this was being written, REALLY WERE committed to "them self" ONLY, and REALLY did NOT have the True Love of "others" AT ALL. They could NOT STOP "themselves" from WANTING to BE HEARD for ANY moment to just GAIN CLARITY FIRST of what the "other" was ACTUALLY SAYING and MEANING.
Age
Posts: 10960
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Christianity

Post by Age »

Immanuel Can wrote: Mon Jan 17, 2022 3:50 pm
Alexis Jacobi wrote: Mon Jan 17, 2022 1:41 pm Jordan Peterson, for what looks to be a whole group of interconnected reasons, had a severe breakdown.
A man can break down and lose his senses. But sometimes, a man can break down, recover, and come to his senses. I don't think either of us is in a position to say which this is.
Myself, I would not *trust* such a maudlin display,
Ah, you're too cynical.

I believe him to be sincere.
So, it could be now said, 'Ah, you're too conned'.

And, because you BELIEVE him to be sincere, to you, he could NOT be ANY thing else BUT "sincere". So, to you, absolutely EVERY thing he says and does WILL BE "sincere". Well, to you, anyway.
Immanuel Can wrote: Mon Jan 17, 2022 3:50 pm I don't think he does what he does for effect, because if he did, he would have long ago chosen for himself a much easier, less controversial route than he chose. I think he actually believes what he says. He's certainly paid one heck of a price for putting his beliefs so frankly. In fact, especially early in this phase of his career, there was a very real chance he'd lose everything and be publicly disgraced for his stand against things like compelled speech and sexual blurring. A man doesn't easily put that much on the altar...unless he really thinks there's no other choice.

You may say, "I think he's losing it," and you're free to think so; but I don't think it's fair to say, "He doesn't mean it."
Age
Posts: 10960
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Christianity

Post by Age »

Lacewing wrote: Mon Jan 17, 2022 4:47 pm
Alexis Jacobi to Belinda wrote: Sat Jan 15, 2022 2:57 pm My present position is that the reality in which we find ourselves (this world, this kosmos, the universe) is so outlandishly impossible, and yet so seemingly complete and real, that whatever put it into motion could have put, and I think likely did put, any number of 'realities' into motion. In this sense, to employ the common metaphor, the mind of God is infinite. There are no limits that could be placed on *it*. Anything is possible!
The vast creativity, expression, and potential that we can observe and be aware of (if we are not singularly focused on certain stories), suggests to me...

> there is a great web of connectivity we are part of
> there is always so much more than any particular position or (as you put it) lens of perception

So why wouldn't we be capable of perceiving and living in ever-increasing and broader dynamic ways if we were open to that? Why would there be a single structure or template for anything?
Would this include the 'single structure' or 'single template' of, "There is NOT One Truth" or "There is NOT One Reality" also?

Or, is your OWN 'single structure', or 'single template', "lacewing" NOT included?

By the way, WHY would there be a 'single structure' or 'single template' for ANY 'thing' is BECAUSE there is ONLY One single Truth, or ONLY One single Reality, for ANY thing. So, that is WHY.

That 'you', human beings, in the day and age of when this was being written, have NOT REACHED KNOWING what those single Truths ARE, YET, then it is GREAT ADVICE of 'yours' to be OPEN to that there is MORE than you KNOW, so far. But, HOLDING your OWN 'single structure' or 'single template', like, for example, the one that HOLDS that; "There is NO single Truth", is just EXPRESSING CONTRADICTION, at its best, and is just SHOWING how HYPOCRITICAL your REALLY ARE.
Lacewing wrote: Mon Jan 17, 2022 4:47 pm
Alexis Jacobi to Mr. Can wrote: Sat Jan 15, 2022 5:24 pm When someone, anyone, describes *what is seen*, we have to focus on the nature of the one doing the seeing.
Yes! And yet you(?) insisted that I must focus on ideas instead of those who project them?

A lot of insight can be gained about ideas and claims by noticing the payoffs gained by their creators. And we don't have to be serious about it. The games that people play can be seen as very funny... even when people are taking themselves very seriously.
VERY True. When 'you', people, LOOK AT just how ABSOLUTELY ABSURD 'you' can be and ARE, then 'you' will be ABLE to REALLY laugh AT "yourselves" and then move FORWARDS.

Doing STUPID 'things' is just as NATURAL for the adult human being animal as being the MOST INTELLIGENT animal is for the young human beings IS.

Lacewing wrote: Mon Jan 17, 2022 4:47 pm
Alexis Jacobi to Mr. Can wrote: Sat Jan 15, 2022 5:24 pm A 'righteous God' is a God absolutely outside of human issues and problems. In this sense a 'righteous' God must be an absolutely intelligent God, and thus knows that in one way or another, in one moment or another, all souls can be reached.
Yes! This is what I see/think, as well. So, I must wonder about men who fabricate a structure/idea based on their own limitations, and then insist that IT defines and rules over all, as an all-knowing, all-powerful creator of all.
Do you ALSO 'wonder' about the human being who fabricates the structure/idea that "There is NO single Truth", which is OBVIOUSLY based on their OWN limitations? Or, you do NOT wonder about this one?

Do you ALSO 'wonder' about the human being that fabricated that structure/idea and who also INSISTS that IT defines and rules over ALL other structure or ideas? Or, you do NOT wonder about this either?

Also, thee ALL-knowing and ALL-powerful Creator, which OBVIOUSLY DOES define and rules over ALL and is thee Creator of ALL, does ACTUALLY EXIST. But 'It' exists in a shape and a form, and in a way, that most of 'you', human beings, are just NOT YET AWARE of, in the days when this is being written.

Your OWN BELIEF "lacewing" that has created the structure or idea, which is based on your very OWN limitations, that one such thing could NOT exist does NOT mean that 'It' does NOT exist. What this MEANS is that 'you', "your" 'self', are just NOT YET OPEN enough to SEEING what thee ACTUAL Truth IS.
Lacewing wrote: Mon Jan 17, 2022 4:47 pm And they (themselves) are the uniquely divine interpreters of it, while casting themselves as being in service to its greatness.
OF COURSE NONE of 'them' are the so-called "uniquely divine interpreters' of 'It'. This can be PROVED True over and over again, and again. But for ANY one to even just consider that ANY one of 'them' was a 'uniquely divine interpreter' is FOOLISHNESS, in the EXTREME. So, there is NO 'need' to HARP on about this. But let us NOT FORGET that EVERY one is EQUALLY the SAME in relation being in so-called 'service' to thee one and ONLY One, and that absolutely EVERY one has absolute EQUAL ACCESS to thee one and ONLY One.

And, that is it is ONLY through EVERY one's SHARED 'version' of thee one and ONLY One's Truth WHEN and WHERE thee One and ONLY Truth IS REVEALED and becomes SEEN.
Lacewing wrote: Mon Jan 17, 2022 4:47 pm Such madness/delusion tangled up in ego and desperation is fascinating (and can be horrifying). Such does not reflect the clarity or broadness of sight of a god, at all. Rather it represents man who is willingly and willfully accepting or utilizing deception (and lies) and denial to sustain whatever delusion serves that man.
And, EXACTLY what 'you' are doing here, "lacewing", is a PRIME EXAMPLE of 'this', IN ACTION.
Lacewing wrote: Mon Jan 17, 2022 4:47 pm Although I don't think it matters that some serve/comfort/inspire themselves in this way, I think there's value in pointing out the destructive and false nature it may demonstrate/utilize at times.

I find it fascinating that there is much that Mr. Can does not get about what you say. He is so locked-in to a narrow channel which he seems to suggest is the only channel that matters.
Is is a POSSIBILITY "lacewing" that 'you' ALSO are 'locked-in' to your OWN very narrowed channel, which you seem to, and do, suggest is the ONLY channel that matters?

You, after all, do continually CLAIM that your OWN single structure or template is thee ONLY true, right, and correct ONE.
Lacewing wrote: Mon Jan 17, 2022 4:47 pm His reflections of God seem very small and contrived to me (which are actually reflections of himself).
"immanuel can's" reflections of God are OBVIOUSLY VERY small, VERY narrowed, VERY short-sighted, and VERY delusional, to say the least. But, "immanuel can's" reflections here are NOT the ONLY very small, narrowed, and short VIEWED ones.

Lacewing wrote: Mon Jan 17, 2022 4:47 pm Just as you find value in engaging with that in your own way by ignoring his lack of acceptance/awareness -- I, too, engage with it in a way that entertains me. Perhaps we share the hope (whenever we interact on this forum) that we can come up with the right words or triggers that will stimulate broader thinking.
What words, or triggers, do 'you' ENVISION "lacewing" could stimulate 'you' to broader thinking and seeing?

Or, do you BELIEVE WHOLEHEARTEDLY that 'you' have the MOST BROADEST of 'thinking' and/or 'seeing'?
Lacewing wrote: Mon Jan 17, 2022 4:47 pm I think it's worthwhile to consider that people on this forum see many different views of this Universe we share, and to notice how self-serving or rigid/closed or 'locked-in' any such views might be, and to question what the point/agenda of that might be in a Universe of such vast potential? Why do we choose to champion certain notions? What is the payoff, and what does that tell us?
WHY do you PROPOSE these questions to "others", especially when they could be DIRECTED at 'you' considering that 'you' do the EXACT SAME 'thing' that 'you' continually CLAIM "others" do?

Also, I suggest just LOOK AT 'those views' that 'we' ALL SHARE, and then 'you' will SEE, and then FIND, what thee One ACTUAL Truth IS, EXACTLY.

Finding and SEEING Truth REALLY is this SIMPLE and EASY.

By the way, thee ANSWERS to those questions you pose here could be answered, by 'you', which if you did answer Truly Honestly and OPENLY, then you will FIND that your answers would be the SAME for EVERY one "else". But, you would have to FIRST NOTICE, and ADMIT, just how self-serving or rigid/closed, or 'locked-in', your views might be, and then to ask "yourself" the same questions you posed here.
Lacewing wrote: Mon Jan 17, 2022 4:47 pm Are we able to see familiarity or shared meaning between ideas, or are we compelled to scramble to some imaginary 'top', 'knowing' position?
I have been ABLE to SEE thee ACTUAL 'familiarity and shared' VIEWS, and meaning between ideas. I have also been WATCHING and OBSERVING, especially 'you', "lacewing" and "immanuel can" here, both showing that 'you' each have the 'only true' 'knowledge', and both 'you' feeling 'compelled' to scramble to being in the 'top' 'knowing position'. Which, by the way, has and is extremely entertaining to SEE, especially considering what thee One and ONLY Truth IS, EXACTLY.

Which 'you', two, could NOT be ANY FURTHER AWAY FROM, by the way.
Lacewing wrote: Mon Jan 17, 2022 4:47 pm The ego can be a creepy beast to deal with. Does one use it to try to control and dominate a 'field' -- or does one use it as a 'character' at play in a vast playing field? When we take ourselves and our notions too seriously, it seems that we become servants of those creations, which cannot be allowed to fall if we identify/validate ourselves through those creations.
'you', "lacewing", are AGAIN SHOWING a PRIME EXAMPLE of this misbehaving.
Lacewing wrote: Mon Jan 17, 2022 4:47 pm
Alexis Jacobi to Mr. Can wrote: Sat Jan 15, 2022 5:24 pmI think in some sense I evince here a greater faith than you in God's power.
Yes! I (too) sense a greater potential than any god of human creation.
But having a greater 'faith' than you in God's power is NOT the same as sensing a greater potential than ANY 'god' of human creation.

Also, how could there even be ANY thing of 'greater potential' than an ALL-knowing AND ALL-creating of EVERY thing God?

Your CLAIM here, ONCE AGAIN, seems Truly CONTRADICTORY and HYPOCRITICAL
Lacewing wrote: Mon Jan 17, 2022 4:47 pm Such an idea is completely dismissed by most theists because their idea of God is limited to what they can place labels and stories on.
So, how, EXACTLY, is a 'God-idea', created by human beings, which CAN KNOW EVERY 'thing' and CAN CREATE EVERY 'thing' be limited in ANY way?

Maybe when you RID "your" 'self' that the human being created 'God', which CAN create EVERY thing and know EVERY thing is limited in some way, then you will STOP with this PERSISTENT and RIDICULOUS 'notion' that this God is somehow limited in some way.
Lacewing wrote: Mon Jan 17, 2022 4:47 pm Anything beyond the rigid, self-serving ideas/positions is some sort of blasphemy, apparently.
What do you call ANY thing that is beyond your OWN rigid, self-serving idea/position that, "There is NOT one Truth"?
Lacewing wrote: Mon Jan 17, 2022 4:47 pm Yet, consider how absurd and somewhat horrific it is to limit this idea of God in such human ways, and to create our own idol which is essentially self-glorifying even if we try to project the image 'out there' somewhere -- meaning that we do not allow there to be MORE than ourselves!
Consider just how absurd and somewhat horrific it is to limit the idea that the idea of God is limited in some such human way? To have this idea that the idea of God is limited means that that one is not allowing there to be MORE than "them" 'self'.
Lacewing wrote: Mon Jan 17, 2022 4:47 pm
Alexis Jacobi to Mr. Can wrote: Sat Jan 15, 2022 5:24 pm But I predicate my sense of the value of Christianity on a wider foundation. I seem to be far more -- what is the word? -- tolerant of human foibles, of man's incapacity to live up to the demands of extreme idealism.
I suggest that there are always 'wider views' for us to become aware of -- and when we lock-down on certain ideas, we essentially shutdown on that which is broader. Small 'truths' vs. larger 'truths'.
LOOK, there will ALWAYS be MORE 'things' to learn AND understand and this is just an OBVIOUS Fact, which NO here would even be disputing would they?

So, if ANY one has a fixed view or if they are locked down on or by certain ideas, which STOPS or PREVENTS them from having a 'wider' or 'bigger field of' view, then they can NOT become MORE AWARE of some particular 'things'. But let us NOT FORGET that it is 'you' here "lacewing" who has an EXTREMELY 'narrowed view' and who IS 'locked down' by a certain idea you have.
Lacewing wrote: Mon Jan 17, 2022 4:47 pm Can we operate on 'foundations' without being so tied to, or blinded by, them? Can we consider them, rather, like stepping stones through a dynamic Universe?
You ask these questions, but pose them to "others", on the False premise that they do NOT relate to you.

The ANSWERS are OBVIOUS, so the QUESTIONS are MOOT, REALLY.

If you do NOT YET KNOW the answers ALREADY, then WHY NOT?
Lacewing wrote: Mon Jan 17, 2022 4:47 pm All of my experiences and views are part of my toolbox for dealing with an ever-shifting world.
But thee 'world', itself, does NOT shift from thee One that 'it' ACTUALLY ALWAYS IS.

Learn and KNOW what this One Truth IS, then you will LEARN and ALSO KNOW that there ACTUALLY IS One Truth, contrary to what you BELIEVE and MAINTAIN is true.
Lacewing wrote: Mon Jan 17, 2022 4:47 pm I don't need a specific story that explains it all. :)
Absolutely NO one 'needs' a specific story that explains it all, EITHER.

To ASSUME or BELIEVE ANY one does, just SHOWS how NARROWED thinking and viewing some people REALLY ARE.

There is, by the way, A 'story' that DOES explain 'It' ALL, which is ALSO evolving within a continually learning and evolving 'knowing' creature, known as the 'human being'. Furthermore, thee 'story' that DOES explain 'It' ALL can ONLY, obviously, be made up of One Truth ONLY.
Lacewing wrote: Mon Jan 17, 2022 4:47 pm I am dynamic and diverse, like all else in the Universe I'm part of... and clearly that works (in whole) with an undefinable perfection that reaches well beyond the limits imagined, perceived, and defined by man. It is such limits that I think philosophers would be wise to question.
'you', "lacewing", are REALLY 'fixated' by the 'limits' imagined by human beings. 'you' are in fact so 'fixated' on 'this' that this 'fixation' of 'yours' is 'limiting' 'you' to what thee ACTUAL Truth REALLY IS.
Lacewing wrote: Mon Jan 17, 2022 4:47 pm What if we notice and explore what is possible, rather than arguing over the nebulous notion of 'what is true'?
When, and IF, 'you', "lacewing", EVER did START NOTICING and EXPLORING what IS POSSIBLE, rather than just "arguing" over your OWN 'nebulous notion' of 'what is true', then 'you' WILL FIND and SEE that there are SOME 'things' that ARE ACTUALLY IRREFUTABLY True. And, it is these 'things' that ACTUALLY make up thee One and ONLY Truths.
Age
Posts: 10960
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Christianity

Post by Age »

Dontaskme wrote: Mon Jan 17, 2022 4:53 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: Mon Jan 17, 2022 3:44 pm
The kind of love we all deeply know we need is not available from each other. But Scripture says this:

"For one will hardly die for a righteous person; though perhaps for the good person someone would even dare to die. But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us." (Romans 5:7-8) and again, "In this is love, not that we loved God, but that He loved us and sent His Son..." (1 John 4:10)

Now, I know what you might say to that. You might say, "There goes IC again, talking about God instead of what I'm talking about. When is he going to get off his hobby horse and listen to what I'm actually talking about?" Fair enough?

Well, you may think that love of God cannot possibly have anything to do with the kind of love you're talking about; but it can. What it does, is it takes the unreasonable element out of our expectations. The only truly durable, totally committed love, is the one we receive from God; this frees us up, in our aspirations, to love the fallible human being in front of us, without demanding that he provide for us that committed, total love that only God can actually provide. It makes us reasonable, sensible, fair...and committed, because our oath is not to ourselves or our own feelings, nor to our partner, nor even to the crowd on hand at the wedding -- it's an oath to God, between him and me, regardless of all the other things. And thus, the kind of total commitment required to make love durable becomes possible to me. And it's the change in me, not my partner, that's most important. For each person can only commit himself/herself...you cannot make another person committed.

If love is ever to be really durable, it's because of this equation. Without it, life is too hard, and people are too disappointing, for things to survive the vicissitudes.

I totally agree with this, and understand what it is saying. I get it.

This is the love I am more familar with. It's the real and right love...so thanks for posting this.

I also agree that most people in life are too self-absorbed and distracted by the many other unique people on the earth to commit to just one person for life.
BECAUSE human beings are NOT meant to 'commit to just one person' ONLY.

Committing to thee One, known here as God, MEANS committing to EVERY 'one' EQUALLY and THE SAME.

It is from 'trying to' commit to only one "other" person, or a few "other" people, that that one is NOT then committing to God, which is what True Love INVOLVES. Having the LOVE for, and with, EVERY one is what committing to God MEANS and REFERS TO, EXACTLY.
Dontaskme wrote: Mon Jan 17, 2022 4:53 pm Having said that, I've never shied away from hard work and total commitment toward relationships in my life, like the ones I've had with my own children whom I raised single handedly with total unconditional love, and commitment without flailing or flinching away from the huge responsibilty, which I accepted was all mine since
I was the one who wanted to bring them into existence.
If there APPEARS to be 'hard work' ANYWHERE in 'relationships', then SOME 'thing' NEEDS to be CHANGED, and drastically.

'you', adult human beings, have REALLY been CONNED if 'you' BELIEVE 'relationships' are "hard work".

Also, are you ABSOLUTELY SURE that you ALWAYS had TOTAL 'unconditional love' for EACH and EVERY one of "your" children?

I FOUND that what thee ACTUAL Truth of 'things' IS is usually VERY DIFFERENT from what people IMAGINED or PERCEIVED it is.
Dontaskme wrote: Mon Jan 17, 2022 4:53 pm The fruits of my labor was that despite only having me to care for them their entire life right up until they were adult enough to care for themselves...they all turned out to be really nice people, successful and mentally well balanced.
How many children did you have?

Were they all to different fathers?

If no, then was the father NEVER around AT ALL, except, of course, ONLY at 'conception'?

Also, how long do you envision those 'mentally well balanced' persons will last for?

And, what do 'you' base 'successful' on, EXACTLY?
Dontaskme wrote: Mon Jan 17, 2022 4:53 pm So I know that relationships do and can work out extremely well when enough hard work and effort is put into making them work. None of them went off the rails, smoked or did drugs...luckily enough for me...
WHY 'luckily enough', for 'you'?

Are 'their' lives about 'you'?
Dontaskme wrote: Mon Jan 17, 2022 4:53 pm All I did is provide emotional stability for them, the result was that they were able to thrive perfectly supported by a trusting adult, until they were themselves ready to leave the nest.
Could a parent who Truly WISHED that they NEVER had 'that child' REALLY be 'emotionally STABLE' for 'that child'?
Dontaskme wrote: Mon Jan 17, 2022 4:53 pm That's the love I know exists.
OF COURSE 'that love' exists. BUT, there is a MUCH MORE POWERFUL and Truly FULFILLING Love, which ALSO exists.

And, because 'you' have NOT experienced 'this Love' "yourself", 'you' are NOT expected to KNOW of It, NOR to UNDERSTAND It, YET.
Dontaskme wrote: Mon Jan 17, 2022 4:53 pm And I think that was the same love Henry was talking about once in a conversation. Yeah, I get the whole God love thing.


.
LOL There is FAR MORE to LEARN and to UNDERSTAND regarding God AND Love.

And, what they ARE, EXACTLY, had NOT YET even been IMAGINED, by most, in the days when this was being written.
Age
Posts: 10960
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Christianity

Post by Age »

henry quirk wrote: Mon Jan 17, 2022 4:54 pm Alexis,

Marriage breaks (or never gets properly affixed) becuz of a lack of fidelity.

And I'm not talkin' about sex here.

Faithfulness, in your partner, in yourself, is the foundation. Love is fickle: it waxes and wanes and waxes again. Sumthin' deeper is required. A choice to be here, to be right here and nowhere else, is how marriage works and lasts.
'marriage', in which two sign a piece of paper for legal, or religious, reasons, is just ANOTHER CON, to keep 'you', human beings, where 'you' can be FAR MORE EASILY CON-TROLLED, and WATCHED.

Also, 'True Love' is NOT fickle and does NOT wax NOR wane.

But, then like the 'mind', 'love' also was NOT YET KNOW by the human beings, back in the days when this was being written. Thus, the RIDICULOUS CLAIMS like 'love is fickle'. This type of CLAIM was just AN EXCUSE, or ANOTHER ATTEMPT, to "justify" the Wrong that they inevitably did to "each other".
Age
Posts: 10960
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Christianity

Post by Age »

henry quirk wrote: Mon Jan 17, 2022 5:03 pm
Dontaskme wrote: Mon Jan 17, 2022 5:00 pm
henry quirk wrote: Mon Jan 17, 2022 4:56 pm The secret of a happy marriage? Separate bathrooms

Yep. Separate bathrooms in the same house.
And probably separate beds...and houses... :D

Well that has been one of my experiences anyway, with a certain boyfriend, not married to him.
I was married: it's one life, two people.
There is ONLY One Life, with MANY people.
henry quirk wrote: Mon Jan 17, 2022 5:03 pm It's fidelity.
What IS 'fidelity'?

Also, what does 'fidelity' ACTUALLY mean or refer to, to you?

If an individual commits to ONLY one "other" ONLY, then this is DOOMED to FAIL.
Post Reply