FH,

Obviously I can only speak for myself...

I believe evil exists.

I'm less certain about morals...I may be misunderstanding you here.

I do think absolute truth exists but I also think it is impossible or at least very unlikely that I will ever grasp it or understand it fully. I doubt I will see the full and complete picture in my limited existence.

"I will marry him."

Which informs your spouse where your boundary is set regarding honesty.

I don't believe HONESTY is your number one EN. Do you know what is?

For example, say you are married and no previous history of adultery for either spouse. One night at a dinner party your spouse begins to openly flirt with an attractive person. This bothers you a lot because it hurts your feelings, embarrasses you in front of the other guests, etc. It's the first time you've seen this type of behavior. You want to set a boundary that flirting is not ok with you. (By the way, I'm not in this situation at all, but I was in the past.)

Now assume that the flirting continues despite enforcement. Then what...

Son if you keep not doing your homework then you will be doing manual labor for the rest of your life so I am going to show you how that will be.

I am afraid that by choosing to leave, I will be seeing things as black/white and missing options and changes I could make within myself. What if I leave and it is a mistake? What if the there is some way that I could change/respond that could turn this ship around?

[color:"red"]Pep [/color],

Will you help me?

Noodle, okay, let's discuss this a little.


Why? What makes the distinction that one behavior is "evil" and another is "good"? What is the "Measuring stick" that is applied regardless of any one individual's perspective, inclination, or choice?

I believe evil exists because I have experienced it and my reaction was to think *evil*.

I believe that ultimately God decides what is good and what is evil. I believe he has the power and authority to do this and set the standard.



You may be misunderstanding, and if so, that is because I was not sufficiently clear, so the problem is mine. A definition of terms is always essential to a discussion.

Where does Man's ability to understand "right from wrong," to establish and distinguish between "good moral behavior" and "bad moral behavior" that applies to all of mankind, regardless of individual beliefs or desires?

I submit, as a Christian, that it came from God in that we were created to have a personal relationship with a Holy God who has no evil in Himself, and that that relationship was to be based in love and submission of one's will to God' will, to trust God before all others.

God created the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, and when Adam and Eve ate of the tree, in placing their will above God's will, they received as one of the consequences of that choice the KNOWLEDGE of evil and the knowledge of good AS DEFINED by God.

Well that's certainly a possibility isn't it. I have generally used the term "knowledge" in the old testament sense meaning that you are intimate with it. To have knowledge of evil and good rather than just be aware that God has said somethign is evil or something is good.

Since that fateful day, all humans have that "moral code" passed down to them. They have the knowledge, but lack the ability in themselves to choose, much less live, perfect lives devoid of any sin.

Sounds like a pretty solid hypothesis.

Humans try to "get close" to the Standard by applying things like the "Golden Rule," but that is not the same thing as living from birth to death devoid of ANY sin, simply because we are born with a sin-nature that is inclined to sin, not to good.




The "full and complete picture" of the "absolute truth" is Jesus Christ.

Uhm...I'm not disagreeing that this is true...I am saying that as far as practical application goes it's about as clear as mud.

I can actually SEE the person...I can't always hear him...when I do I'm taking it on faith that it isn't me having delusions...the amount of space provided in the new testament is miniscule and second person...we see others seeing Christ and everything gets filtered thorugh their limited perspective also.

We have that picture and we can see it. But we can't have that picture for ourselves BY ourselves. It is a gift that is given to us by God.

Maybe you have a better flashlight than I do. I get snippets, flashes and images..not entire revelations complete with exposition.

God bless.

Possibly a moment of clarity for me.

Love those.

A boundary is a fence that establishes what is ok and not ok for me. What I will allow in and what I will not. Also it simply establishes what is mine and what is not.

Sounds good to me.

I realized something it provides.

It removes fear.

OK

When I say “I will not participate in X” I am stating my boundary and as long as I truly mean it, then I have removed my fear of what will happen if the boundary is crossed. No consequence. It is not my job nor my property to provide consequence.

I might say no punishment..I do think boundaries create consequences...if I leave a conversation and someone is angry about it...that's a consequence. Consequences can be good too. I am not being verbally abused as a consequence of enforcing my boundaries. It's splitting hairs though really. Semantics. From where I'm standing you do seem to have the general picture.

It is my job to control ME, so if I state a boundary and it is crossed, I have the tool in place to enforce my boundary.

I agree that it is your job to control you. So DO you actually have the tool in place to defend any given boundary?

I can not control others so I should not fear what they may or may not do.

I tend to fear it anyway. Your mileage may vary. I don't like unpleasant consequences and I never look foreward to the possiblity or probability that I'm about to experience some.

If they do it, that is life, and I have my boundary to protect me. I may not like what has happened, but I have my boundary and that is that.

Yes...boundaries do provide some measure of protection because what you do..who you interact with and to what degree is all your choice.

Take a relevant situation here.

ok

I had an A.

True.
froz certainly did not like it but she has chosen to marry me anyway and here we are.

True.

So what is an appropriate boundary?

Is there an appropriate boundary? Who decides what is appropriate? I would say there are two people and two sets of personal boundaries.

I think it would be “I will not stay married to you if you have an affair again” Plainly stated.

That might be one boundary. I don't know if it IS but it works as an example.

Now, she has nothing to fear because she doesn’t have to sit in “what am I going to do” land. She knows. She is leaving me. Now, she may certainly not like having to leave me. But often times everyone has to do things they don’t like in order to protect themselves from the ‘evil’ actions of others. That said, there is no reason to fear because a PLAN is stated and only must be followed in the case of boundary infringement.

How does having a boundary remove fear? Fear is associated with pain and loss...having THAT particular boundary will not protect her against pain and loss will it? An affair would be in the past tense by the time that boundary came into play.

So IF she states that as her boundary AND I want to NOT have her enforce it, then I will NOT have an affair. Pretty simple.

Most things are relatively simple. It assumes a lot though...this example. It assumes that she believes that her boundary will be respected and it assumes that she believes that you want to be there enough to just say no.

Now, if she is afraid that I might have an affair, then possibly her boundary is not something she really means to enforce and therefore is not really a boundary at all.

It may also mean that several other boundaries are not being successfully enfored. If we can see that there are weak spots in the fence we haven't got a lot of faith in it's ability to offer protection, right?

Imposing a consequence on someone is about them. Enforcing a boundary is about me. Possibly I have a boundary about yelling. I will not be yelled at. If I am yelled at, because I don’t like being yelled at, then I will simply walk out of the room and remove myself from the situation. When the yelling is over, I would be willing to re-engage in talking but not until then. Does that seem like a good boundary and plausible enforcement?

It sounds good to me. Consistency and immediate withdrawl would be an important element.

I am not articulating this very well… maybe noodle can help me, but I ‘feel’ like the right answer is a boundary removes fear. If I state a boundary and it gets crossed, I don’t fear, because I KNOW what I am going to do about it. But, I would have to remain mindful of ‘revenge’ like behavior and making the person ‘earn’ the right to talk to me again. Making them.. is about them and not something I can do. I can control me all the time, if I so choose. So if they push a boundary, no need to fear. I know what I am going to do and that something is about protecting me. Not about making them pay.

Maybe I have something here?

Sounds like several somethings.