Christianity

[Dontaskme]

But it seems we do, so then that's just the nature of it.

WHY would it SEEM that way, to you?

Because there is only NATURE

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.

If you want the abuse to stop, then you have to stop making abusers in the first place...for every child who is born could well turn out to become an abuser...that's the risk nature takes everytime it knowingly imposes a life on another being.

Nature is the only creator of it's own destiny as and through knowledge. If you know abuse, then the only way to stop abuse is by choosing to not create an abuser in the first place. When you impose a life on another being, you have no way of knowing if that being turns out to be a child abuser.... did Hitler's mother at the time of her childs conception know Hitler was going to be who he has been known to be...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.

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...that is my logic, and will not be moved to change that logic.

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.

At present, we do not seem to care about abuse, else we'd stop creating potential abusers.

[Belinda]

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.”

[Alexis Jacobi]

I like Dr. Peterson. He's a rare voice of sanity in a largely insane world. And he's doing some very interesting thinking about spiritual matters lately...
Here's one you might enjoy.

Those who have followed Peterson, and those who have followed the *movement* that developed, more or less, around his own public teaching activities and his position within a center-leaning Dissident Right politics, have of course seen that video.

Jordan Peterson, for what looks to be a whole group of interconnected reasons, had a severe breakdown. I am sure if Peterson himself fully understands what happened (though perhaps his understanding has increased). Myself, I would not *trust* such a maudlin display, a far too public display, of what looks be be his process of turning to Christian belief. To me it looked self-exploitive and there was something oddly masochistic in it. Also, Jordan Peterson often bursts into tears as he delivers his sermon-like teachings to the throngs that come to see him.

I would not criticize his sensitivity, which is moving in a way (to be vulnerable has a legitimate rhetorical function in the art of communication that he has undertaken and is part of the 'package' that he offers), and I guess my perception is that he got in way over his head and his 'mission' seemed to have subsumed him. It is as if his personal process became a public event -- but it cannot be denied that he turned his teaching process into a business, and thus into a public commercial-philosophical spectacle.

[Alexis Jacobi]

They're distinct concepts. If you've never found reason to take a look at Systematic Theology, you wouldn't have reason to realize how precise these concepts actually are. They're not nearly so fuzzy as it appears you imagine they are. There are able scholars who have literally gone through every Scriptural mention of them, evaluating their respective nuances and implications, and arriving at quite firm definitions of terms.

Obviously, you and I can't do all that here: a good book on Systematic Theology is a really big, heavy tome. But it's worth knowing that such things exist, and that the philosophical work has been done on these things to create the kind of precision of discussion that you seem to be imagining not to be there.

Not to nit-pick too much but, at least in respect to the Oxford Companion to Christian Thought, redemption and salvation are notions that deeply connect one with the other.

One of the benefits, among numerous benefits of course, of engaging with you here is that it helps me to clarify a general sense I have had and which is not decreasing but increasing. I would express it like this: the more that I examine Early Christianity the more I recognize, and the more it seems undeniable to me, that even the early Christian movement was not *one thing* alone but a current of numerous different things. One could say "Yes, but Jesus Christ is One Thing and thus the revelation of Jesus Christ must be not a 'current' of different things, but one intended thing". I think that your position, IC, attempts to establish itself within this position. So salvation, for you, can be acutely defined, but though your reference to *what it is* is presented as thorough and let's say absolute, nevertheless you cannot quite spell it out. So you, and in this sense like everyone, attempt to define something with a 'systematic approach' that remains, and perhaps must remain, elusive.

So in this sense I would say that your 'version' of Christianity -- and if I say such a thing it is by no means deprecating -- is similar to all the versions of Christianity, and one need only turn one's gaze back the the first and second century to see the degree to which different people, with different emphasis, defined Christianity in varying ways. I thought this morning that your version would correspond with the version of Christian belief known as Ebionism or Nazaraenism. These sects (I do not know what else to call them) later became vilified by the *power-structure* that developed so that, one might say, what was most original and fundamental to Christianity, came to be understood as heretical and dangerous to a developing orthodoxy.

But that other trend, the developing orthodoxy, is the *school* that came to define a structural Christianity that can be compared to the *system*, as it were, expounded in the Apostolic Constitution. It is a rigorous, declarative, assertive document that seeks, as no one could deny, to take possession as it were of the message and the meaning of the Christian Revelation. Such will always, then as now, involve power-struggles. The heretics are a useful foil for the concretizing of the doctrines of the 'responsible' and those who wield authority.

In the sense that I am now speaking, and given the predilection of different persons, one could choose to advance in varied number of different directions as one defined, for oneself, one's relationship to the figure of Jesus Christ. This to me seems a simple fact. It is not even controversial or in any case it should not be. One could feel attraction to a mysticism and even an interpretation of modern day monasticism and find any number of sources that would support that choice and direction. Or, one could accent and emphasize a Christian activism that would have a great deal in common with modern progressive-political activism. You could legitimately define a Christian path that involved vegetarianism and *purification* as one's own spiritual path of discipline. The possibilities are in fact endless. Because all of these tendencies are, in fact, part-and-parcel of those first *currents*. These involve 'the confusion of peoples' that the naughty Houston Chamberlain identified (in his controversial but very interesting book The Foundations of the Nineteenth Century).

The object being, I gathered, to clarify-out some essence; to arrive at it; to struggle to get it.

It may be interesting to note here that as I proceed further into The Influence of Greek Ideas and Usages Upon the Christian Church that the Greek reception of these ideas did not necessarily help to clarify them, or fine-point them, and in at least one example of a questionable or negative outcome Hatch describes Neo-Platonism as "that splendid vision of incomparable and irrecoverable cloudland in which the sun of Greek philosophy set".

Ouch! (But the book is very helpful and very detailed in describing the Greek influence, which was very real indeed, and not negatively.)

Salvation has generally been defined as liberation from the dark, determined, fallen world of *this, our world* and release, by God's grace, into an eternal life beyond this world -- and that means into a supposed and predicted other-world. And I think this is the version that best describes your own version of salvation, IC. And the notion of 'redemption' is, quite literally, that God offered to pay the price. It is not necessarily that anything is *fuzzy* to me, though I can definitely and fairly say that those early centuries embody a 'confusion of peoples' and thus a 'confusion of concepts' about what, in fact, is actually being talked about.

There is nothing that has necessarily become any clearer nor any more obvious or clearly defined today, if the truth be told. In fact I would say that if we were honest (about the surrounding world) everything is falling more and more into profound confusion and chaos as a result. Just try to extract yourself! I do not mean to say that a given person cannot find some 'sound platform' to carry out their own life. But there is huge differences of opinion and vast powers vie to capture people into defined ideological currents.

What do I take away from this -- personally? You have to make your own choices. You can, if this is your predilection, choose to follow an outlined and developed plan and a structure of belief that you merely need to adopt and follow. Or, you can choose to investigate the whole complex issue yourself and, as a result of struggle, then be able to say "No, I think it is thus-and-such" and then choose to live it out. But to one degree or another, and this is just a fact, someone or something is vying to get hold of you, and to set you on following some version, which amounts to an interpretation, of what Christianity is (against what it is declared not to be).

It is very curious, in this sense, that here on this forum -- generally the denizens here are opposed to religious belief and see the whole mess as unreal and primitive -- it is all couched in the terms of a battle. But it seems to be a vast synthesis of the entire problem just as it was (more or less or in any case to significant degree) as it was in the first century.

There is an alternative! Don't despair! We can turn back to the Golden Era of American musicals and find a way to live within them. Is the Mysterium Tremendum there? Oh please let it be there . . .

"Hot dog! Hallelujah!"

♬ . . . Good Morning, Good Morning! . . . ♬

[Immanuel Can]

[quote=Dontaskme post_id=555613 time=1642413006 user_id=12017
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.
[/quote]
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."

Almost no relationships work, especially today. But even in those that do, it takes a colossal effort. We tell ourselves that love should be "easy," or "natural," or painless; but it's not. It's so easy to like somebody today, and find a reason to dislike or even hate them tomorrow. That is because naturally, we're all selfish creatures, with ourselves at the center of our own universes. Put two of those together, and it's inevitable that at some point they'll start to fight. And feelings just don't last.

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 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...

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. 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.

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.

[Immanuel Can]

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. 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."

[Immanuel Can]

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...

That's not what Nietzsche is talking about. He means much more than mere survival. He means domination of others, and control of one's own options. He thinks all of life is this sort of bitter struggle for power. But Nietzsche saw many people who only have enough power to "stay alive," and he sneered and called them "slaves." So survival...well, he considered that the bare minimum. "Power" for him, is always beyond that.

[Alexis Jacobi]

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.

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."

I am not, I do not think, saying those things particularly. I know that he broke down and he himself describes it as 'mental illness'. I mentioned Peterson more because he is a large player in the present.

It is possible that whatever happens to him, or is happening, if it results in the conversion that seems to be taking place, could be a *positive thing*. But it could also be something else. I am not trying to unfairly criticize Jordan Peterson nor the conversion we have been talking about. I am simply trying to see it, to the best of my capability, for what it seems to be.

It is not that I am cynical to say that Peterson is at times susceptible to maudlin display. He simply is.

Nor did I say that he was not sincere, or that he does this (or anything) for effect.

He's certainly paid one heck of a price for putting his beliefs so frankly.

While I definitely agree that Peterson put himself out on the line, I am also aware that as a result of his publishing, his lecture circuit, and his TV appearances, he became quite wealthy. (I have nothing per se against that of course. He himself said it takes a great deal of effort -- work and struggle -- to make money at what he chose to do). And when wealth accumulates for a public personality, and one within high controversy, the business-aspect cannot but either have great influence or become primary.

In this sense Peterson became an entertainer (or a YouTube 'influencer' and a marketer of ideas, however good and necessary) and at this point he has a brand to protect and develop. As does Shapiro and Candice Owens and many others.

So if I am pointing out anything it is just that this sort of thing is going on. Those that gain through their activism, and turn their platforms into businesses, then become commodities that are exchanged in our rather absurd present.

[Immanuel Can]

They're distinct concepts. If you've never found reason to take a look at Systematic Theology, you wouldn't have reason to realize how precise these concepts actually are. They're not nearly so fuzzy as it appears you imagine they are. There are able scholars who have literally gone through every Scriptural mention of them, evaluating their respective nuances and implications, and arriving at quite firm definitions of terms.

Obviously, you and I can't do all that here: a good book on Systematic Theology is a really big, heavy tome. But it's worth knowing that such things exist, and that the philosophical work has been done on these things to create the kind of precision of discussion that you seem to be imagining not to be there.

Not to nit-pick too much but, at least in respect to the Oxford Companion to Christian Thought, redemption and salvation are notions that deeply connect one with the other.

I didn't say they're not. I said they are.

But they're still also distinct. There's a reason why any Systematic Theology book will have two entries for them, not one. The term "salvation" is the larger, bracketing concept; "redemption" is a particular element or phase within salvation. And as concepts, they're clearly differentiable.

So salvation, for you, can be acutely defined,

It depends on one's hermeneutic.

If we are prepared to take Scripture as definitive, it not only can be acutely defined, it is acutely defined thereby. But if we insist on pulling in all the human accretions of every possible quasi-Christian theology that has appeared in 2,000 years or more, then we will find our definition will indeed never become precise. It will remain confused and cacophonic.

So in this sense I would say that your 'version' of Christianity -- and if I say such a thing it is by no means deprecating -- is similar to all the versions of Christianity, and one need only turn one's gaze back the the first and second century to see the degree to which different people, with different emphasis, defined Christianity in varying ways.

Again, the key thing is the hermeneutic. You have to ask yourself, "What is the correct procedure for discerning what a 'Christian' is?"

Is the procedure to try to boil some commonality out of all the many disparate sects, cults and hangers-on that have appeared in 2,000 years? And which sects do we include? Are the Unitarians, the Mormons or the JW's in, or out? What about the Ebionites or the Nazarenes, or the Gnostics? We don't even know that much, do we?

Out of such a welter of disagreement, nothing clear will ever emerge. So what many people do is lapse back into a vague "self-identification" criterion: any cult, sect or group that uses the term "Christian" is in, and only those that don't are out. We will never, in that way, know at all what a "Christian" t truly is.

So let me suggest a much more straightforward criterion: a "Christian" is whatever Jesus Christ said it is.

Why not that? After all, He's not merely the central Teacher professed by all, but also the chief role-model in the effort? And the very term invokes his teaching and example: so why not simply say, "Christ-ian," is whatever the Christ has declared/represented it to be?

And suddenly, things are much, much simpler.

There is nothing that has necessarily become any clearer nor any more obvious or clearly defined today, if the truth be told.

Well, it will all depend on your chosen hermeneutic, of course. Your hermenutic changes everything.

There's nothing spooky about selecting one's hermeneutic. "The Scientific Method" is itself a hermeneutic. It defines what counts as "science," and what does not, by pre-selecting criteria for relevance. That which is capable of being, and has been processed through the Scientific Method counts; other stuff gets relegated to another category, such as "tradition," "speculation," "superstition," "guess-making," "aspirations," and so on.

And even those who refuse to select a hermeneutic (ironically) have one. They have the hermeneutic of non-selectivity or universal inclusivity as their base assumption. So one cannot avoid this issue, even if one wished to...not that I suggest you do.

[Alexis Jacobi]

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.

Maybe this is obvious for many, but maybe it is not so obvious to some?

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. The core reason, or one of them, is that marriage is no longer sacramental. That is, a relationship that one enters into because it is one part of a larger system of relationships and investments, and is thus a real spiritual obligation. There is a whole set of contractual obligations set forth in sacramental marriage. When they are removed from the equation then the entire nature of the contract shifts. Gig-marriage for a gig-economy or something to that effect.

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.

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.

The there is what Johnny Cash said: "The secret of a happy marriage? Separate bathrooms".

[Lacewing]

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?

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.

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. And they (themselves) are the uniquely divine interpreters of it, while casting themselves as being in service to its greatness. 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.

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. His reflections of God seem very small and contrived to me (which are actually reflections of himself). 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.

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?

Are we able to see familiarity or shared meaning between ideas, or are we compelled to scramble to some imaginary 'top', 'knowing' position? 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.

I 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. 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. Anything beyond the rigid, self-serving ideas/positions is some sort of blasphemy, apparently. 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!

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'.

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? All of my experiences and views are part of my toolbox for dealing with an ever-shifting world. I don't need a specific story that explains it all. 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.

What if we notice and explore what is possible, rather than arguing over the nebulous notion of 'what is true'?

[Dontaskme]

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.
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. 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. 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... 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. That's the love I know exists. And I think that was the same love Henry was talking about once in a conversation. Yeah, I get the whole God love thing.


.

[henry quirk]

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.

[henry quirk]

The secret of a happy marriage? Separate bathrooms

Yep. Separate bathrooms in the same house.

[Dontaskme]

The secret of a happy marriage? Separate bathrooms

Yep. Separate bathrooms in the same house.

And probably separate beds...and houses...

Well that has been one of my experiences anyway, with a certain boyfriend, not married to him.