Welcome to the
Marriage Builders® Discussion Forum

This is a community where people come in search of marriage related support, answers, or encouragement. Also, information about the Marriage Builders principles can be found in the books available for sale in the Marriage Builders® Bookstore.
If you would like to join our guidance forum, please read the Announcement Forum for instructions, rules, & guidelines.
The members of this community are peers and not professionals. Professional coaching is available by clicking on the link titled Coaching Center at the top of this page.
We trust that you will find the Marriage Builders® Discussion Forum to be a helpful resource for you. We look forward to your participation.
Once you have reviewed all the FAQ, tech support and announcement information, if you still have problems that are not addressed, please e-mail the administrators at mbrestored@gmail.com
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 3 of 3 1 2 3
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 1,047
D
Member
Offline
Member
D
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 1,047
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Originally posted by Chris -CA123:
<strong>If someone wants to get married, let them get married. Age and mandatory premarital counseling should be added to the list of requirements.
So it'sokay for them to get married but as long as they meet the "age & counseling" requirements?
So why are you recommending anything, since anything goes as far as who gets married?</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Chris
I was indirectly referring to the "legal" age at which someone becomes an adult and are responsible for themselves(or at least supposed to be)... that in itself could start a whole nother thread. As far as the counseling goes, I threw that in because that is kind of the reason some of us are here right now, saving marriages. I think that would be a way to "helpsavemarriage.com"

Joined: Apr 1999
Posts: 8,016
C
Member
Offline
Member
C
Joined: Apr 1999
Posts: 8,016
I understand what you meant.

My point is that you are adding some minor rules(age and counseling) and getting rid of major rules(who can actually get married.)

Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 182
T
Member
Offline
Member
T
Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 182
Suf:

I look forward to your other thoughts.

In short, though, it just isn't true that the majority always defines what liberties the minority can have. If that were true, African-Americans would still be sitting in the back of the bus.

The minority in our society claims its power through access to the courts where, if they can demonstrate that the rights afforded to them by the equal protection clause or other parts of the constitution are being violated, they will receive a remedy, irrespective of what the "majority" in the country thinks. That was ably demonstrated in the fifties, when the Supreme Court essentially forced the desegregation of the school system on an unwilling public, and also just a few years ago in which the Court rejected the expressed will of the majority in Bush v. Gore. So to protect one's rights, one need not convince over half of the 280 million people in the country that THEY will benefit, one need only convince five justices that what you want is consistent with our concepts of liberty and equality.

Again, even if for some reason the burden is placed on those who want change, I think the arguments in favor still carry the day, and I've heard no argument here or anywhere else that change my mind. Society benefits when people form loving, stable relationships with each other. There is less crime, less loneliness, more community and civic spirit. Marriage gives people an incentive to form those relationships by providing certain benefits and by solemnizing a couple in the eyes of society. No one else is harmed by two consensual adults of any sex agreeing to be with each other and the common good is increased. It's a win-win!

Joined: Sep 1999
Posts: 5,406
N
NSR Offline
Member
Offline
Member
N
Joined: Sep 1999
Posts: 5,406
Spacecase:

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">I never said or even implied that anyone should be tolerant of any/all behavior; only of the right of others to have their own beliefs and points of view, including the behavior they consider appropriate.

I may be in serious disagreement with gay marriages, but that does not mean I don't respect someone else's right to a different opinion or belief. And I hold that belief to be much more in line with Christ's teachings than the imposition of our own beliefs on others, or stating that our beliefs are right and others are wrong.

This country was created precisely because people were tired of being forced to accept others' beliefs, and wanted the right to their own. How sad it would be if we now turn around and impose upon others the same things our ancestors fled 200+ years ago!
</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Disecting this a bit...

I never said or even implied that anyone should be tolerant of any/all behavior; only of the right of others to have their own beliefs and points of view, including the behavior they consider appropriate....I think most everyone would agree with this premise... even me!... you can't take away someone else thoughts (good or bad)

I may be in serious disagreement with gay marriages, but that does not mean I don't respect someone else's right to a different opinion or belief. ... very reasonable.

And I hold THAT belief to be much more in line with Christ's teachings than the imposition of our own beliefs on others,... by "THAT" belief... are you talking about...
1. 'respect someone else's right to a different opinion or belief'?
2. 'respecting other persons belief'?
...could you expound on this a bit?

or stating that our beliefs are right and others are wrong.... does this imply no absolute truth in what is right or wrong? Is all truth relative?... based on the whim's of what is fashionable?

This country was created precisely because people were tired of being forced to accept others' beliefs, and wanted the right to their own. How sad it would be if we now turn around and impose upon others the same things our ancestors fled 200+ years ago!... so is there any 'moral' foundation on which laws are based? (as Zorweb so wonderfully expressed)... if not 'morality'(collectively believed across many/multiple religions)... what is the basis for almost all laws?...

<img border="0" title="" alt="[Smile]" src="images/icons/smile.gif" />

Jim/NSR

<small>[ July 21, 2003, 03:54 PM: Message edited by: NSR ]</small>

Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 2,868
S
Member
Offline
Member
S
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 2,868
NSR; thank you for your reply and comments. I think we're in agreement.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial"> And I hold THAT belief to be much more in line with Christ's teachings than the imposition of our own beliefs on others,... by "THAT" belief... are you talking about...
1. 'respect someone else's right to a different opinion or belief'?
2. 'respecting other persons belief'?
...could you expound on this a bit?
</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Respect someone else's right to a different opinion or belief.
This is a complicated thing, obviously, since different cultures, nations, groups, cities, areas, and times create different beliefs, some of which we may find abhorrent. But fundamentally I believe that if we are to uphold our right to liberty and the freedoms we hold so dear, we must be prepared to defend someone else's right to a belief that goes against our beliefs, with as much energy and enthusiasm as we may spend defending our belief.
The basis of this nation is not "freedom of speech, religion, etc. so long as it agrees with what I believe." It is a right that everyone has, regardless of what the majority, or a vocal, powerful minority may believe.
And how we put that into practice in the fairest, most equitable way has to start by each individual believing in it completely. I can't honestly go out and defend "freedom of religion" while at the same time saying that those who believe differently from me will not go to heaven, or that because my religion says X then it can't be Y...either there's freedom of religion and speech or there isn't. No qualifications to it.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">or stating that our beliefs are right and others are wrong.... does this imply no absolute truth in what is right or wrong? Is all truth relative?... based on the whim's of what is fashionable?</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">I think all truth is relative. I would NOT say it is based on "whim" or "fashion", but on more solid, established grounds. Who's to say that the truth I believe to be self-evident isn't something that offends another's beliefs? Can we talk about absolute truth in anything? The absolute truth for which people were burned at the stake 600 years ago was that the world is flat, or that the sun revolves around the earth...
There will be beliefs others have which are highly offensive to me, perhaps I'm an orthodox Jew and my neighbor eats pork...so, his belief is that there's nothing wrong with eating pork. I would expect him not to bring pork into my home out of respect for my belief, but can I shun him for eating pork in his home? Should I throw rocks at the neighbors who drive on Saturday because I consider it a sin?
Are we prepared to state that whatever truth we hold dear is absolute? That it will not change, or ever be shown to be wrong? I don't think so. Look at man's history; different faiths have developed with very different beliefs, many of which are contrary to what others believe. The US is perhaps the most explicit example of this. How many different versions of Christianity exist here? A couple hundred? Why is that? Because there are slightly different beliefs people have. When their Church did not meet their needs or beliefs, they created another. If everyone believed the same exact thing, this would not be the case. Same with Judaism; Orthodox, Conservative, Reform. Same with Islam; Sunni and Shiite, same with Hinduism; Same with Buddhism. Are we prepared to state categorically and without possibility of error that what WE believe is the absolute truth and that the rest of the world is living a lie? I'm not. Thinking like that created the inquisition and other horrors of human history; Sept. 11th is a prime example of holding your truth absolutely and without any regard for the truth of another.
When we have freedom of choice, religion, speech, beliefs, we must honor that freedom in all. Naturally we will encounter areas that are hard to defend. Perhaps my religion sees homosexuality as a sin, but does that mean that in another culture that MUST be so?

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial"> This country was created precisely because people were tired of being forced to accept others' beliefs, and wanted the right to their own. How sad it would be if we now turn around and impose upon others the same things our ancestors fled 200+ years ago!... so is there any 'moral' foundation on which laws are based? (as Zorweb so wonderfully expressed)... if not 'morality'(collectively believed across many/multiple religions)... what is the basis for almost all laws?...</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">There certainly is a moral basis for laws. And those laws reflect the morality of each nation (or should). But we must reconcile that with the freedoms we profess. If a law we want infringes on the beliefs of another, where do you draw the line? I believe that you draw the line only on one basis, and that is when another's beliefs will hurt someone else. That is why we put rapists and murderers in prison. Because what they believe to be ok hurts other people; directly and in many cases physically. We may argue that having homosexuals legally married "hurts" us because we are exposing our children to what we may consider inferior morality. But the truth is, we as parents and as communities are repsonsible for teaching our children what we believe to be moral and right. That is not the responsibility of the state or the laws. And if we do so with balance and equity, our children will learn. We cannot protect them from seeing what we consider immoral, not forever anyway. So we teach them how to make their own moral judgments, so that when they are faced with the choice, they will make the one we consider right, or have the tools to do so. We can't legislate that, we can't force that, we can't hide our head in the sand an pretend it isn't there by making it "illegal". Drugs are illegal, but does the fact that they are illegal protect our children from exposure to them? No it doesn't. Forcing morality by legislating it will not create morality any more than I can force my XW to see the immorality of an affair, or the morality of the sacredness of marriage. I can't use laws to keep her married to me, or faithful to me...she has to believe it herself.

<small>[ July 21, 2003, 06:06 PM: Message edited by: Spacecase ]</small>

Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 1,508
S
Member
Offline
Member
S
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 1,508
space...I think all truth is relative.

s...So, if you think gravity is not your truth, you are not subject to the consequences of ignoring this truth?

ditto for a whole host of other chemical, physical, biological "truths".

Truth is not relative, besides that is an oxymoron. Relative truth is not truth at all, it is choice where the choice does not always result in the same outcomes.

If in fact we are created beings, than certain truths will follow....and they will apply to all regardless of whether they choose to believe or not....correct?

<small>[ July 21, 2003, 06:47 PM: Message edited by: sufdb ]</small>

Joined: Sep 1999
Posts: 5,406
N
NSR Offline
Member
Offline
Member
N
Joined: Sep 1999
Posts: 5,406
Spacecase:

Thank you for your reply as well.

I too think we're in agreement.... but only partially.

We do agree on ...'Respect(ing) someone else's right to a different opinion or belief.'

We most decidedly disagree on 'truth is(being) relative'...
...although I respect your option to have a different opinion! <img border="0" title="" alt="[Smile]" src="images/icons/smile.gif" />

Once 'truth' of right and wrong change over time...
...there is no standard to base any action/behavior to condone/ignore/or punish.
The books on "boundaries"... make this clear.
Even the MB concepts become void of meaning...
...when 'truth' becomes relative.
And to teach our children that truth is 'relative'... is ask for a disaster... in what we can effectively teach them... since they will come to the conclusion (maybe just to themselves)... what mom... dad... said... maybe it's not true anymore!
Truth and Reality Exist

and...
I believe that you draw the line only on one basis, and that is when another's beliefs will hurt someone else.... becomes a 'relative' nightmare... especially when the effects of how much it hurt someone... can't be seen until mnay years later. You may have guessed (or figured out) that I am Catholic. By your argument... doesn't abortion hurt(kill) the child... even when 97-98% of all abortions... are for the convenience of post-contraception[as per Planned parenthoo]. When more than one person gets hurt (a true social dilema)... on what moral basis do you (or society) (or the courts) (or the law makers) judge the degree of hurt/reparation. Are we going to inundate the courts with a case by case review... or are there standards we go by? Absolute standards... are the cornerstone of both justice and mercy.

--------

I do thank you for you kind wording in your last reply...
...and I hope I too have been more respectful.

<img border="0" title="" alt="[Smile]" src="images/icons/smile.gif" />

Jim/NSR

<small>[ July 21, 2003, 07:04 PM: Message edited by: NSR ]</small>

Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 2,868
S
Member
Offline
Member
S
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 2,868
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Originally posted by NSR:
Spacecase:

Thank you for your reply as well.

I too think we're in agreement.... but only partially.

We do agree on ...'Respect(ing) someone else's right to a different opinion or belief.'

We most decidedly disagree on 'truth is(being) relative'...
...although I respect your option to have a different opinion! <img border="0" title="" alt="[Smile]" src="images/icons/smile.gif" /> </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Thank you. This is ALL I ask for, and all I try to do myself.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Once 'truth' of right and wrong change over time...
...there is no standard to base any action/behavior to condone/ignore/or punish.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">But they have! All the time! What was motive for being burned at the stake several hundred years ago is now accepted scientific truth! What was accepted behavior likewise has changed with time...do we mean to say that this process has now stopped? I doubt it. It never has before in the history of man. THAT is a truth we can either accept or not accept, but that won't change what is. What is will be regardless of whether we understand it and agree with it or not.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">The books on "boundaries"... make this clear.
Even the MB concepts become void of meaning...
...when 'truth' becomes relative.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Saying that truth is relative does not mean any and all behavior is acceptable. What is a boundary for you may not be the same boundary for me, or the next person. There are societies where polygamy is accepted, even in our own country. Are we to decide those people's truths for them? And if so, why can they not attempt to decide our truths for us, like the Sept. 11th attackers wished to do?

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">And to teach our children that truth is 'relative'... is ask for a disaster... in what we can effectively teach them... since they will come to the conclusion (maybe just to themselves)... what mom... dad... said... maybe it's not true anymore!
Truth and Reality Exist</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">We teach our children OUR truths. And we hope to make those THEIR truths, but this is not always so. They will be what they will be...or do you hold EVERY truth your parents had as your truth?
What we teach them is our truth, and it's value and importance, and we teach them that there are others who think differently, and we attempt to teach them why, and the differences, and the reasons we believe our truths to be the truths they should follow. But we also should teach them respect for the truths of others, even if those are not their truths.
I agree. For me and my beliefs there are some absolute truths, as there are for you and your beliefs. And when I say relative, I only mean relative to each one's beliefs, not necesarily that they change over time, much less through whim.
Even the most solidly and long-held "truths" of physics and the sciences have been proven wrong time and again, the customs of marriage and relationships have also changed, if there is one truth we cannot run away from, it is that change is never-ending.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">and...
I believe that you draw the line only on one basis, and that is when another's beliefs will hurt someone else.... becomes a 'relative' nightmare... especially when the effects of how much it hurt someone... can't be seen until mnay years later. You may have guessed (or figured out) that I am Catholic. By your argument... doesn't abortion hurt(kill) the child... even when 97-98% of all abortions... are for the convenience of post-contraception[as per Planned parenthoo]. When more than one person gets hurt (a true social dilema)... on what moral basis do you (or society) (or the courts) (or the law makers) judge the degree of hurt/reparation. Are we going to inundate the courts with a case by case review... or are there standards we go by? Absolute standards... are the cornerstone of both justice and mercy.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">I am not posting here pretending to have all the answers; I don't, and many of these specific issues are extremely difficult to determine except on a case by case basis.
We cannot tell when something will be harmful until many years down the road...we raise our chiildren as best we know how, and many years later come to find that we made some mistakes, we see this all the time.
You and I may agree on abortion, we may also agree on homosexual marriage, and we may agree on most of these things. We probably do, and I'm not arguing for those positions. What I AM arguing is that there is always another opinion, another point of view, and we often fail to see it at the time. My point of view about my W's A is very different today than it was on DDay. Why, because on DDay I was emotionally destroyed, and gripped by fear, anger, and hate. Today, nearly two years later, I see things differently, I see the part I played in the deterioration of our marriage, I see many other things too. It doens't change my moral view on infidelity, but it does change my perspective. It changes my anger, fear and hatred into compassion and forgiveness. This example is only to show how we DO change over time.
I happen to be against abortion, but I also have a personal experience of growing up in a very poor Catholic country, where people's devotion to the church made them very anti-abortion, and you have families who can barely feed themselves and must endure terrible hardships grow to 5,6,7 children, each less healthy than the last, with many of them ending up begging in the streets and with no hope, terrible diseases they cannot afford to cure, no education...and one must ask oneself if this was an intended consequence of the belief in life...
My point is not to argue for or against a particular position on a given issue, but to simply state that truths are relative to the people, culture, religion, circumstances, and subject to the changes that time and other factors bring. And that as such, we should respect the fact that others have different truths, and that even if we do not agree with them, they are that person's truths, and they have the right to defend them just as we may defend ours.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">I do thank you for you kind wording in your last reply...
...and I hope I too have been more respectful.

<img border="0" title="" alt="[Smile]" src="images/icons/smile.gif" />

Jim/NSR </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">You have been MOST kind and respectful, as I have tried to be...and that is all I can ask for, and all I try to practice.

<small>[ July 21, 2003, 09:03 PM: Message edited by: Spacecase ]</small>

Joined: Sep 1999
Posts: 5,406
N
NSR Offline
Member
Offline
Member
N
Joined: Sep 1999
Posts: 5,406
Spacecase:

I think terminology is where our difference reside...
...at least in part.

What you have termed by saying...'But they(truths) have (changed)! All the time!'...
...I would refer to a values and facts.

Yes... 'values' do change with societies ebbs and flows. They change with culture and experience. There is a tie into the 'truth' in that truth sets the absolute limits (boundaries).

Burning at the stake... (absolutely wrong)

'Facts' as we know them, define them... also do change.
Scientific fact in particular...
...changes with both new theories... and new discoveries...
...who would have thought a baby in the womb could feel pain during an abortion... but live ultrasound shows it.
'Facts' are not base on truth... but on a very imperfect 'understanding'... and a less than perfect establishment of premises.

The boundaries that are set 'in the legal realm' are in fact an accomodation of a pluralistic society... but the 'truth' does set absoultes...
...otherwise there would be never be any charges of 'murder' 'rape' 'incest' 'fraud'... etc.

We teach our children our 'values'... an if they develope a well formed conscience... they will come to the 'realisation' of truth. They can reject that/those truths...and they can (and have) changed their values...in some cases stepping beyond the 'absolute' boundaries. That's what makes us human (intelligence and free will). That's what collectively allows societies to paractice behaviors... different from ours... even to the point of allowing or advocating behaviors that are beyond 'absolute' boundaries.

Our intelligence is finite... very finite. The laws of truth are written in our hearts... but it is a hard place to search... and when we see others living... as they do... (ingnoring those laws)... we are often weak enough to go along with the crowd. Or worse.. when society advocates such behavior... we see the real consequences... and here is where 9-11 really had it's foundation. Because... of a 'small'/fringe society's lack of understanding (for advocating an unspeakable hate)... of 'absolute boundaries'... Hence my concern for the modification of the definition of 'marriage'.

Yes... there will always be other opinions... and it is a good thing they vary...
...but 'truth'... does not change. (do check out the 'link' from my previous reply)

Your point on abortioin is very well taken..."and one must ask oneself if this was an intended consequence of the belief in life..."...
...the 'truth' of the sancity of life... even though there is suffering... is a valuable point.

People will always... (and especially in the USA) will have the right to express their opinion... the ultimate in 'free will'... (and yes 'free will' is another truth.... (not a fact... not a value... not a boundary... not an opinion... but a 'truth').

Respectfully... and with admiration.

<img border="0" title="" alt="[Smile]" src="images/icons/smile.gif" />

Jim/NSR

Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 2,868
S
Member
Offline
Member
S
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 2,868
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Originally posted by NSR:
[QB]Spacecase:

I think terminology is where our difference reside...
...at least in part.

What you have termed by saying...'But they(truths) have (changed)! All the time!'...
...I would refer to a values and facts.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">We may choose to call them "truths" or "values", or even other terms, but my point is simply to show with a historical example that those things which have been called "absolute truths" by the "church" or by "society" at some point in history, and for which non-believers were shunned or worse, have indeed changed over time. So who is to say that what we now refer to as "absolute truth", like so many of the positions that have been stated in this thread and others, will remain absolute truths?

I think part of the problem is that when some people see the words "relative truth" they immediately interpret that as "the truth as interpreted by each individual, on a whim or for convenience", when in fact what I have said is not that at all, and never was. To me, and in the examples I've given, "relative truth" means the truth as seen by different cultures, beliefs, religious organizations, or societies, and over the course of certain time-periods. Not an apologetic for those who may choose to use it for their convenience and change it on a whim.
So for instance we have some people who have responded to me by making comparisons to "physical laws", when in fact I never stated any such thing.

Example: In America, we consider it a sin (or at least very, very bad form) to eat certain animals. Well, in other cultures and countries, they have been eating these animals for a very, very long time. So what is the truth here? that it is a sin, or bad form, or is it ok because another culture sees it that way? What is the truth here? The truth here is relative. Relative to the culture, country, custom, history and timeframe. The same example could be given in reverse for cattle. Here in the US we eat cattle every day and think nothing of it. But ask an Indian what he thinks of that...to the Indians that is an abhorrent idea! So what is the truth? Ours? Theirs? I say neither. The truth is relative to the different cultures, upbringing, custom, etc.
THAT is what I mean by "relative truth".

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Yes... 'values' do change with societies ebbs and flows. They change with culture and experience. There is a tie into the 'truth' in that truth sets the absolute limits (boundaries).</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">I think this ties in with the above. Some people consider their values "absolute truths", so I think this is a problem of semantics.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Burning at the stake... (absolutely wrong)</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">I agree; but it WAS done in the name of "absolute truths", wasn't it? And some of those truths turned out not to be as "absolute" as once thought. My point precisely. Absolute truths change with time, society, culture, religion, etc.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">'Facts' as we know them, define them... also do change.
Scientific fact in particular...
...changes with both new theories... and new discoveries...
...who would have thought a baby in the womb could feel pain during an abortion... but live ultrasound shows it.
'Facts' are not base on truth... but on a very imperfect 'understanding'... and a less than perfect establishment of premises. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">This is true as well, and I used the example. But many times, these very imperfect "facts" have been taken as "absolute truths", and people have been condemned for not believing or following them.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">The boundaries that are set 'in the legal realm' are in fact an accomodation of a pluralistic society... but the 'truth' does set absoultes...
...otherwise there would be never be any charges of 'murder' 'rape' 'incest' 'fraud'... etc.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Not quite sure I follow your point here...

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">We teach our children our 'values'... an if they develope a well formed conscience... they will come to the 'realisation' of truth. They can reject that/those truths...and they can (and have) changed their values...in some cases stepping beyond the 'absolute' boundaries. That's what makes us human (intelligence and free will). That's what collectively allows societies to paractice behaviors... different from ours... even to the point of allowing or advocating behaviors that are beyond 'absolute' boundaries.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Agreed. But I would qualify it by saying "allowing or advocating behaviors that are beyond OUR 'absolute' boundaries" because our boundaries are different from others', our truths are different from others' our values are different from others'...which is why I advocate respect for those other beliefs, because different cultures, religions, peoples, have different beliefs, values, and truths, and even if we do not agree with them, we should respect them and their right to have them. And they should respect ours as well.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Our intelligence is finite... very finite. The laws of truth are written in our hearts... but it is a hard place to search... and when we see others living... as they do... (ingnoring those laws)... we are often weak enough to go along with the crowd. Or worse.. when society advocates such behavior... we see the real consequences... and here is where 9-11 really had it's foundation. Because... of a 'small'/fringe society's lack of understanding (for advocating an unspeakable hate)... of 'absolute boundaries'... Hence my concern for the modification of the definition of 'marriage'.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">I cannot disagree. This is a difficult problem, with no clear-cut solutions, and probably necessitates compromises, but that is precisely the point; we cannot legislate morality, truths, behavior of the heart. Because these are things that reside with each one's heart, and although I may believe very strongly that changing the definition of marriage will be a bad thing, I have to recognize that for others keeping it as it IS is a bad thing...and I cannot, in truth, in honesty, in my heart, deny them the right to feel that way nor their right to fight for that with the same vigor that I might fight against it.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Yes... there will always be other opinions... and it is a good thing they vary...
...but 'truth'... does not change. (do check out the 'link' from my previous reply)</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">I will check it out; I promise!
But I believe my position holds: that different peoples, cultures, societies, and religions have different truths, and I cannot in good faith state categorically that MY truths are the ONLY truths. I am defending everyone's right to say that, so how can I when I know others believe differently?

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Your point on abortioin is very well taken..."and one must ask oneself if this was an intended consequence of the belief in life..."...
...the 'truth' of the sancity of life... even though there is suffering... is a valuable point.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Oh, it is an awful quandary! A very hard choice. When there is suffering on that scale, one begins to see that perhaps there has to be another way...and yet we believe so strongly that life is not open to compromise....very hard, very hard...almost impossible to know what is right anymore.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">People will always... (and especially in the USA) will have the right to express their opinion... the ultimate in 'free will'... (and yes 'free will' is another truth.... (not a fact... not a value... not a boundary... not an opinion... but a 'truth').</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">I think this is at the heart of what I have defended and sustain. If we are to have these freedoms, we must defend everyone else's right to them as well. And that means allowing those who's truths are different from our own, the space to defend them and fight for them, with as much zeal as I may defend and fight for my own.

Thank you, NSR. It is a pleasure to "spar" with another who may have different beliefs, but can find the space to allow me mine, and has the respect to listen to them. This is as it should be.

<small>[ July 22, 2003, 03:28 PM: Message edited by: Spacecase ]</small>

Page 3 of 3 1 2 3

Moderated by  Fordude 

Link Copied to Clipboard
Forum Search
Who's Online Now
0 members (), 1,027 guests, and 52 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Newest Members
Mike69, petercgeelan, Zorya, Reyna98, Nofoguy
71,829 Registered Users
Building Marriages That Last A Lifetime
Copyright © 1995-2019, Marriage Builders®. All Rights Reserved.
Site Navigation
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5