the Sibbie
New member
That's a great question, Nineveh!
I wonder which Jesus thinks is more important? :think:
Tolerance vs Godliness
- Thread starter Nineveh
- Start date
I wonder which Jesus thinks is more important? :think:
firechyld
New member
I got the impression it was more about honouring in the sense of honouring a loss, not honouring in the sense of a celebration.
*shrug* There's nothing new or overly radical about these beliefs, and there's certainly nothing new about the actual rituals. I'm just a little surprised to see them in this context...
One Eyed Jack
New member
I thought it was kinda weird, but it was okay.
I think I'm gonna have to go with Zakath's suggestion though. You do remind me more of Chuckie. I just had to come up with a creepy rabbit reference, and I didn't think too many people would remember General Woundwort from Watership Down.
PureX
Well-known member
First I think we need to recognize that love is about finding joy in the happiness and well being of the beloved, rather than seeking our own happiness through the capitulation of the beloved. This is a difference that a lot of people don't see, and don't want to see. Once we understand that the focus of love is on the happiness of the object, rather then on the self, we will soon realize that there is often a challenge involved in this, as the beloved will likely seek their happines in ways that we would not choose for them, and that may leave us out of the picture all together. Anyone who has truly loved, has likely experienced the self-sacrifice involved.
Yet if we do truly love, then we will want the beloved to be free to seek their own happiness rather then forcing them to capitulate to what would make us happiest, and this requires that we sacrifice some of our own selfishness, often in the form of tolerance. Even when we're convinced that what we desire for them is better for them than what they desire for themselves, if we truly love them we'll want them to have the freedom to make their own decisions (even wrong decisions, in our eyes) and to live their lives for themselves. The alternative is that we place ourselves and our desires (regardless of how well intentioned) before theirs, and seek their capitulation to our desires. This is in fact to seek their annihilation - to wish to destroy who they are and to replace them with who we want them to be. This is not love. This is selfishness masquerading as love.
So without sacrifice, often in the form of tolerance, there is no freedom for the beloved, and without that desire that they be free, we are not loving them as we claim we are.
Yes, 'tough love' and all that. But people very often misrepresent and misunderstand 'tough love'.
As someone who has some experience with this, I can say that the 'tough love' that works is not judging and condemning the beloved for their beliefs or behaviors. 'Tough love' is not preaching at them or lording our imagined moral superiority over them. 'Tough love' is not "correcting" them in any way, because that isn't love at all. That's selfishness pretending to be love.
All 'tough love' really is, is refusing to condon or participate in behaviors that someone we love chooses to engage in, but that we cannot. That's it. We're not judging them as people, we're not trying to change them or correct them, all we're doing is refusing to condon or participate in behaviors that we believe are wrong for us to engage in with them.
As an example, if I have a friend who is married, and she wanted to engage in some form of intimacy with me, my love for her as a friend would dictate that I refuse to condon or participate in such behavior. That doesn't mean that I judge her or condemn her for wanting to do so, or for engaging in such behavior with others. But it does mean that as her friend I cannot in any way abet such behavior because I believe it's wrong for me to do so both for myself and as her friend.
Another example: if I have a frind who is an alcoholic, and as alcoholics always do, he wants me to go out drinking with him (and I know that in his case to go out drinking means to get drunk) then tough love would dictate that I refuse. I may go out drinking with a non-alcoholic friend, but I won't go with the alcoholic. The point here is that even though the behavior involved may not be something that I disagree with in general, knowing that it will do harm specifically to this friend, I would still refuse to engage in it. (In my own case I don't drink alcohol at all, so this would be an irrelevant scenario, but I was just using it as an example.)
Tough love is really about the lover standing his own ground regarding ideas and behavior choices - it's not about judging, condemning or changing the beloved to suit our idea of who they should be. We aren't being intolerant of who the other person is, we are being intolerant of specific behaviors that we ourselves can't condon or participate in with them.
Why, indeed? I suspect the reason is that they want to force their church community into conforming to their own will and desire, which is not love, and certainly is not freedom or tolerance. Neither would it be for the church community to try and force the others NOT to seek their own joy in Druid cerimonies or whatever else they desire. If the church disagrees, they should refuse to participate. But they need not judge and condemn those who do, and if they do judge and condemn them, it's not out of love - it'll be out of selfishness, and even hate.
Hate is what we feel when those we claim we love defy our desire that they be who we want them to be (which was never love to begin with). True love does not turn to hatred. Only selfishness that has been masquarading as love will turn to hatred when the "beloved" will not capitulate to our will, and they refuse to be who we want them to be ... for us.
PureX
Well-known member
I am an intelligent and articulate man. I share my ideas and experiences with others, if they're interested.
As I have no idea what you're posting about, I don't see how I could explain it to you. I'm certain that I've never mentioned such a thing as a "moral rape", and I can't hardly explain something that exist only in your own mind. So I'm afraid you're out of luck. Perhaps a good psychologist could help you with this.
Nineveh
Merely Christian
But you can never really know if what you are saying is true or not.
OEJ said: I believe it's absolutely wrong to rape another person.
You said: Could someone please explain how we know when something is "absolute".
So I asked: impurex,
To help me more fully understand you, would you please give me an example of yourself in the moral rapist's role? And if you would be so kind, would you share with me your thoughts on being the "victim" of a moral rape, using yourself as an example?
And you didn't reply. If you would so kindly care to do so now the post is here.
PureX
Well-known member
No one can. So what?
You will note that this comment is about the idea of an absolute, and is not about rape at all.
I didn't reply because I had no idea what you were talking about, and I could see that you had no idea what I was talking about, either. My comment was about the concept of absolutes, and had nothing at all to do with rape. So I had no idea why you were trying to connect the two, and I also could see by your questions that you were desperately trying to pidgion-hole me as someone who condone's or defends rape. And that was just too absurd for a ligitimate response.
the Sibbie
New member
Can't an absolute be demonstrated by a certain scenario?
If it was too absurd, then we should be able to assume that you believe rape to be wrong in every case (i.e. "absolutely wrong" ). It's alright for you to humbly admit that there may be such a thing as absolutes.
PureX
Well-known member
I can't think of any. The problem is that we are finite and relative beings, and as such we don't have any way of testing a supposed absolute to see if it really is.
I don't see why you should be assuming anything. If you want to know what I think, all you have to do is ask politely. I'm happy to share.
I've never claimed that there is or is not such a state as the absolute. There's no way I can tell if there is or not, and no way I can think of that you can tell, either.
the Sibbie
New member
How about we just consider the frame of a person's lifetime on earth. Would it be absolutely wrong to rape someone, or can you think of a scenario where it would be ok?
Do you consider 2+2=4 to be absolutely correct, 100% of the time?
Well you can't seem to answer any of Nineveh's questions.
Within our realm of reality, I'm absolutely sure there is such a thing as the state of absolute, not for everything but for some things.
Are you sure that you are not sure that I cannot be sure if there is a state of the absolute?
PureX
Well-known member
But this would not be an absolute scenario, then. You are talking about a scenario that is relative to the span of human existence. Do you understand what the word "absolute" means? The condition called "absolute" means intrinsic, integral, not dependant on external conditions or circumstances. It's not a condition subject to time.
You don't seem to understand that the fact that you or I can't think of a circumstance under which what we call "rape" is not what we call "wrong" has no bearing whatever on determining if something is absolute. The state of absoluteness is not established relative to what scenarios you or I can or can't think up.
Do you think that because I won't accept the assertion that morality is absolute that I must then support rape? This is both irrational and untrue. You need to understand that even if every human being that has ever lived agrees that rape is "bad" that still won't make the badness of rape "absolute". Not even close.
The equasion 2+2=4 is an abstract concept that exists only in our minds. It's only "correct" as long as we think it is. Therefor it is not absolute - as it's very existence as a concept is relative to the human mind that conceives of it, and to our criteria of what we will consider "equality".
I will answer any sensible question that is asked politely.
What you are "absolutely" sure of has no bearing on the existence or non-existence of an absolute state. You could be "absolutely" certain that you are a bunny rabbit. So what?
the Sibbie
New member
:doh: Ugh, I'm soooooo wasting my time.
Purex---> :liberals: and :dunce:
I sure hope you aren't a public school teacher.
Purex---> :liberals: and :dunce:
