mererdog

Of course, whether it should or it shouldn't, it is what it is. We often ask for the truth, yet we often punish those who give it to us. We may believe we want the truth, but if we don't know what the truth is, what is it that we really think we want?

You rarely become popular by speaking unpopular truths. For the most part, honesty is only prized when opinions match- and truth is only valued when it is believed.

So, what you seem to be saying is that God is only as good as we are, and it is therefore unrealistic to hold Him to a higher standard. I'm fairly certain that isn't what you are trying to say. I know there are people I love who do not love me. I have had to forgive people for being unwilling to forgive me. To my way of thinking, both love and forgiveness must be unconditional, or they are not what they are purported to be. Lets pretend you owe me a dollar, and I say "If you tear up the one dollar IOU cuchulain gave you, I'll tear up the one dollar IOU you gave me." As I see it, that isnt forgiveness, but simply an accounting trick where one person's debt is used to pay another person's debt. A sort of robbing Saint Peter to pay Saint Paul, if you will. My basic position is that to make forgiveness conditional is to say "I will cancel the debt, as long as you pay it off first." Any of that sound unreasonable?

Although Luke also says "For we ourselves also forgive everyone who is indebted to us." Which is interesting, in that it puts sin against God on the same level as debts between each other. No?

In modern American society, there is a widespread belief that, when it comes to politics, you have to order from the menu provided. It causes people to make "lesser evil" decisions that they then have to repeatedly justify to themselves in order to avoid the emotional stress of seeing themselves as supporters of evil. Each internalized justification for the past bad decisions makes it harder to make good decisions in the future.

It took a while to get there, but my wife and I value honest evaluation from one another. A bit of loving honesty from someone you trust to be on your side can save you from the brutal honesty of strangers, you know? And on the self-interested side of it, if I dont tell her what I don't like, I just ensure that I get more of it.

Truth is power. Indiscriminately doling out power is irresponsible on the level that gets innocent people killed. Loose lips sink ships, after all. So there is nothing immoral about lying to the Nazis about the Jews in the attic, or refusing to tell the abusive husband where his wife is hiding. But making a point or sparing someone's feelings is something you want, so if you lie to achieve those goals, isn't it a bad lie, by your stated definition?

A stopped clock is right twice a day, but a watch set one second fast is never right. That is conclusive proof that a wrong answer can be more valuable than a right answer, provided you know why it is wrong.

"ὀφείλημα, ὀφειλητος, τό (ὀφείλω), that which is owed; a. properly, that which is justly or legally due, a debt; so for מַשָּׁאָה, Deuteronomy 24:12 (10); ἀφιέναι, 1 Macc. 15:8; ἀποτίνειν, Plato, legg. 4, p. 717 b.; ἀποδιδόναι, Aristotle, eth. Nic. 9, 2, 5 (p. 1165a, 3). κατά ὀφείλημα, as of debt, Romans 4:4. b. in imitation of the Chaldean חוב or חובָא (which denotes both debt and sin), metaphorically, offence, sin (see ὀφειλέτης, b.); hence, ἀφιέναι τίνι τά ὀφειλετα αὐτοῦ, to remit the penalty of one's sins, to forgive them, (Chaldean חובִין שְׁבַק), Matthew 6:12. (Cf. Winer's Grammar, 30, 32, 33.)" http://biblehub.com/greek/3783.htm

If the rule is that there is an exception to every rule, there must be an exception to that rule. The only way for every rule to have an exception... is for not every rule to have an exception... Only true if not true. I believe some things are absolutes. It makes more sense to me. Now, if only I had a reliable way to tell which things are the absolutes....

That's sort of an important fact, no?

An obvious example is when you want the other person to smile for your sake, rather than for their's. Like when you try to cheer up your crying cousin before you get into trouble for dropping him, you know? Kindness is inherently motivational, meaning it is less about what you try to do than why you try to do it. A con man who helps you out in order to set you up for the con is doing you no kindnesses, no matter how much you may benefit.

I would not say that it failed to be kind. It simply wasnt an act of kindness. According to your story, you were motivated by amusement, not kindness. You were just having some fun, and your later reactions make it clear that you didn't really give much thought to how others would be affected. Kindness is simply not the word for that.

Yet you are not always kind. Putting the hat on the statue was not an act of kindness, for example. The value of guilt lies partly in its ability to cause us to rethink. It forces us to look beyond our motivations and at the consequences our actions have on others. Potential rewards can blind us to probable risk, so it is vital to have a mechanism in place that prompts us to focus on the negative side of every equation... Perhaps even moreso when the potential rewards are selfless in nature. Also, just to be clear, guilt is an inescapable effect of empathy. If you are not a sociopath, guilt has been helping shape your personality since infancy. Looking at the difference between yourself and a sociopath, the influence seems to have been for the better.

Guilt and shame are some of our most powerful motivators. That makes blame a very useful tool. What is useful will be overused. I tend to think of life as a team sport, in that no one wins or loses based solely on their own efforts. It prompts me to search for my causal role in stories about strangers, both in terms of what is real and what is ideal. Am I making the best plays I can? Should I just warm the bench on this one and let the veteran players handle it? Have I been accidentally aiming at the wrong goal, scoring points against Team People?

Yet you seem to be complaining that forgiveness doctrine helps people avoid feeling guilty. I think that people need to feel bad. I think that if we never feel guilty, there are lessons we will never learn. I think that there are things I am unworthy of, and that this is a healthy thing to know. Ideally, I think, guilt works to motivate us to do right. So I want guilt to feel bad enough that you avoid it, but not so bad that it is crippling. Specific understandings of Christian doctrine have provided that balance for a lot of people. Are you sure you are not holding Christianity to an impossible standard where it is either perfect or it is horrible?

In my experience, the people who forgive are less miserable than the people who don't. I can see how belief that you will be forgiven could make doing bad seem like less of a bad idea. But I know that grudges are a strong motivating force for evil. On balance, encouraging forgiveness seems like a good thing. Not perfect, of course, but what is?

The idea being that if you can't be perfect, there is no point in trying to be better? It is a pretty lame excuse, but it does get used by all sorts of people in all sorts of situations, doesn't it? After all, why be the best golfer I can be, if I'll never be good enough to go pro?

If you believe everyone is an imperfect sinner, you think- "Yes, you were imperfect in that moment, and you still are. You sinned before, and you will sin again. Just like the rest of us, you will sometimes be selfish, or even cruel, and you may even lie about it to avoid punishment." Its kryptonite for cons, long and short. And just like being drunk, it may explain your actions, but it won't excuse them.

One basic tenet of Christianity is that all men are imperfect sinners. That suggests that Christian doctrine will not be followed perfectly.

I'm confident that the choice did not make itself. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_the_single_cause

Ah. So your idea of knowing your limitations includes an assumption that you can't make a mistake about what your limitations are. That is odd.

For some women, a doctor will only rape them. It is not the norm, however, so I would not want anyone to avoid going to the doctor because of it, unless I knew that it applied to them, personally.

And yet, if one is not a mental health professional, one is not qualified to know when that is the case, right? If you are emotionally overwrought, your problems will seem more severe to you than they really are. You may think you have a disorder, when all you have is a normal reaction to an abnormal situation. In such a case, all you really need is a little perspective and maybe a bit of sympathy- no special training needed, so going to a therapist would be to waste a lot of money.

Isaac Newton was not an apple, yet he was able to learn a lot by observing apples. A priest may have no firsthand knowledge of what it is like to be married, but they can have a ton of observational evidence regarding what does and does not produce a successful marriage. And, potentially, they have a level of objectivity the rest of us don't, so they may even see the matter more clearly. As a first step, "Ask your pastor" will usually be solid advice. Clergy tend to operate at the center of a social network. While a minister may not know the answer to your question, they probably know someone who does.