Jump to content


Senior Members
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


thormas last won the day on September 27

thormas had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

35 Very Good

About thormas

  • Rank
    Master Contributing Member
  • Birthday July 20

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    North Carolina

Recent Profile Visitors

1,223 profile views
  1. The 'comparison' was not to sin, rather it was the 'general Maslow like (self-actualization) idea' to 'being truly human' or being the image of God: from the Christian perspective, this is what is being actualized. And as there are actions or inactions that get in the way of actualization, so too there are actions and inactions that get in the way of being the image of God/Love; such actions, in the Christian context, are called sin. You get the concept of actualizing human potential and I am simply saying that there is a similar idea of actualizing potential in the religious perspective. Also, I don't define sin as as you have. Exactly! And the 'fully human being' does not use another, sexually or otherwise, as an object. Well, there we differ: I think it is wrong, immoral, sinful to 'treat another as an object to be used' in sex and beyond. Now, if you have never tired it, what is even more fun are the same activities in a consensual relationship where neither party is an object. So you actually believe and live out using others as objects? There are abusers and users and you have actually been talking about users ("object to be used"). And here we differ yet again.............of course, it all turns on what is meant by 'fully human.'
  2. I recognize the 'shortcomings' and that is why I said "the general (Maslow like) idea." My focus was on actualizing human potential. Therefore, as there are actions or inactions that can hamper the actualization of potential, so too, religiously speaking, there are actions and perhaps inactions (sin) that can prevent one's 'actually' becoming and being the 'image of God/love.' As to your 2nd paragraph, it depends how one understands sin. I certainly don't accept that the engaged couple having sex is sinful and if we put such non-married consensual sex on a sliding scale I would think that some is not sinful at all (especially if one is focused on the 2 great commandments), whereas other consensual acts might certainly be seen as 'violations of or the failure to love.' And of course if one merely considers actions as either sins or not sins, this misses the more important issue of whether or not one is a sinner., i.e culpable or blameworthy for the action. I haven't check recently but is there a specific sin called 'non-marriage, consensual sex?" I do wonder though, if both parties are fully actualized, especially with the expanded hierarchy if either party would ever put themselves or another in the position where one is not treated as person to be cared for but object to be used. I doubt it, thus if one does, are they 'fully actualized?" Again, the 'general Maslow like idea' speaks to actualizing one's potential with the goal of achieving/being one's best self - and it is this that (can) speaks to the similar actualization or 'becoming fully human' or, if you will, 'like Christ' in Christianity. The relevance is that some, including me, find this a useful analogy. In addition, I don't believe, with that we are born 'faulty.' Even if there were no sin, man would still need God - understood as Love - to become Human. And with the reality of sin (self-centeredness), Love 'heals' or enables us to become 'whole' by overcoming self-centeredness (sin).
  3. Perhaps in an earlier time sin was simply interpreted as breaking particular laws associated with or given by God. From a simple secular POV, it one refers to, for example, Maslow's idea of self-actualization then some will and some will not self-actualize (I leave it to those interested to discover Maslow's meaning). Thus there is a way to accomplish this - to actualize. This is the 'goal' so to speak. Some people are, seemingly, successful at this actualization, some not so much. And one can say that some actions and attitudes pave the way for actualization and some act as barriers to it. If one doesn't buy into Maslow or a similar idea, that is their right and their opinion. If one does buy into the general (Maslow like) idea and happens to have a religious or spiritual bent (generalizing here), then they would recognize that this 'mirrors' the Christian understanding of being 'in Christ' or becoming the image of God which, understood religiously, is the goal or challenge (and the invitation to) humanity. It is the our 'mark' to hit (so to speak). It is not about breaking arbitrary laws but it is about actions and attitudes that act as barriers to being the' image of God.' In this religious context, such actions/attitudes are considered sin (the equivalent to bad, wrong or immoral in a secular, non-legalistic understanding). Sin simply means that some actions or attitudes damaged (or rupture the) relationship with God/Love (and therefore, one's neighbor). If one doesn't believe in God or if one doesn't believe that God is love or if one doesn't believe that relationship is not acted out in relationship with others or if one doesn't believe that there is something 'more' for us to become - that is their right and their opinion and discussion is probably for all intents and purposes at a standstill. Even the 'sin' in Eden is not simply about a particular action or law, not simply about eating the fruit of a particular tree, it is about relationship. Man was born in, born for, invited to be in relationship with God: man was invited to 'trust' God and live in relationship, in harmony with God and thereby, with all of creation. His action/attitude, symbolized by eating the fruit of the tree, broke that relationship and created a barrier to Life (the goal, the mark). I don't use the word sin very much but I do use and understand it in the context of a religion discussion. In discussions outside of a religious blog or outside of a discussion where it is readily accepted, I typically 'translate' it in a secular discussion as I did as a teacher.
  4. Rom, Is that you? Is it time for another Sunday appearance? Hey, have you been working on answers to the questions? Funnily, I thought I might have missed them and I actually checked the other thread. I had high hopes but sadly they were dashed to the ground - still nothing, nada, no-go. Hold it now, let us refresh our memories: You said, "..... I have been conditioned to dislike. For example a 28 year-old having sex with a 14 year-old. And I said, "So conditioning or not, you have just said that the 28/14 sex relationship is something to be disliked." And you said, "I did not say that. I said my responses are a result of conditioning." We were talking about conditioning.........and about disliking and examples of disliking in this particular example. Did you not say that 28/14 sex is an example of something (to be) disliked? Therefore, as the result of conditioning to dislike, you said 28/14 sex is an example. Is it not to be disliked? So if the conditioning is removed would someone then like the 28/14 sex? Or is it disliked 'conditioning or not?' And if someone liked it, is their conditioning faulty? If not, really(?), does someone really want to stick with it is liked? Is 28/14 sex ever to be liked? But then didn't you say something about "I choose?' Ruh-Roh Anywho...............we await not further questions or answers to these latest questions but actual answers to previous questions and I refer you back to the thread in question for those questions. See you next Sunday?
  5. Paul, it was clear that, based on your misunderstanding of Christianity and Jesus, you made a statement and then 'questioned' Christians. I disagreed with the use of the Jesus quote as an excuse by many or most Christians - however few or even some of the 2.5 Billion is acceptable, or at least some people you know and some in Cincy :+}. However, you simply cannot say that the many, i.e. majority of Christians, use this rationale to 'cop-out.' I was also refuting your assumption and misunderstadning that Christians are commanded or expected to do "everything humanly possible" and yet you pushed on with this misunderstanding and went after Christians who are on the 'front-line' and should be more like Jesus and "put everything on the line" - on this you are simply wrong. BTW, I do not give all of my money away or work myself to the bone with no time for myself or family or work or friends or responsibilities - because this is the wrong measurement of Christian charity - which you should know. Furthermore, I was the one who mentioned decision making in my first post on this thread and I further said people continue to be charitable, even in tough times when money is not as readily available as it might be at other times. And I did answer your 'Why" question. When you said "Christianity justifies the existence of the poor as a reason for not doing everything possible to help them when many can actually do more. My question is why do they do that?" I answer it in the very next post. Some might use the Jesus quote as an excuse but the reasons I gave are much more true to life and are (some of) the 'reasons' you sought for why people don't or can't do more. Paul you were fixated on "people drawing a line' and you repeatedly tried to get others to use your terminology, however not all people think in those terms especially because a line is often something that is never stepped over; it has a finality to it (think of Trump's desire to draw a line and build an impenetrable wall). That finality was expressed in your own words, "I have done enough" and also in people considering they "won't give any more." And you continue: ".....most, if not all, say enough........point beyond which one will not go; a limit to what one will do or accept." Such lines, limits and point (beyond which one will not go), for all intents and appearances, are final, charity is over. These statements leave no room for on-going charity. Thus your words created the impression of 'completely and forever'. You words suggested that Christians end charity. I disagreed: "I don't know people who think in terms of "I am doing enough' - they simply do." Meaning there is not a finality, they simply 'carry on,' they simply continue to do, to give, to be charitable as they are able and in different (non-financial) ways. Even if they have to halt or cut back temporally - and I was the first one to provide reasons for this - there is no finality, no "Enough!" to their self giving. I think that charity is 'baked in" to being a Christian: by the fact that one is born into or chooses to be a Christian, they know that charity and the giving of self is part of the 'deal.' Some have excuses, some can (seemingly) do more but many simply do and give of money, possessions and self - in this there is no final line or it is literally in the sand and it vanishes. Can you tell me exactly where those words are? I have found my words where I did provide specific examples of a broader scope and when asked late in this thread you volunteered two specifics that you were involved in but the only thing I found early on from you was a reference to financial giving, cutting back on that and continued giving to the local community. I didn't see a broader scope outlined and It was not clear that it referred to something other than financial since one can give to the larger Church or a St. Judes and can halt that but still give financially to their local community, such as rescue missions or shelters. Perhaps I missed it but I can't find it.
  6. Yeah, very definitely begrudgingly..... You do have the tendency to be an angry little guy, yeow. But actually what you're so angry about is that I said "many suggests a majority" and, so although I knew that I knew the meaning of the word, I gave Paul the benefit of the doubt and............wait for it........... indeed the word 'many' does mean the majority of people. Would you look at that. Amazing, I do know the English language and the definitions of words. Where can I pick up my prize for stating the obvious - well, obvious to 'most' of us. So Paul, you not only don't like to quote scholars - as you have stated - you obviously don't even quote the dictionary? Will wonders never cease. In the future when something only pertains to some, please avoid the use of the word many or most. We thank you and all the people who have toiled on dictionaries thank you. And, thus, the path was warranted. Now don't go and get all angry again - it's rather unpleasant ..........
  7. Yet, that is followed by Paul........ ......what do they say about people in glass houses?........... :+{
  8. Well it was done begrudgingly but it was done, so that is good! Thank you for the clarification. I agree that it is not a figment of your imagination there or for others elsewhere but I believe that many suggests a majority and to that I disagree given my personal experience of 'many' Catholic Christians and a few other Christians. Also, Cincy always was a bit peculiar :+}, I must preferred Columbus, Ohio. If you want now to move to the why - it seems we know why but could be worth a discussion - however, let us all avoid terms that are too all encompassing. Careful now with your last line unless you really want to restart the entire issue - especially as I have already addressed that particular issue.....with impeccable logic :+}.
  9. My point was never about applying logic as I have said that such giving is in relation to the changing needs of family and/or the individual's situation. However, even when times are more difficult I have been witness (and it was my point) to a continued giving of self (as you have presented above). Perhaps it was not your intention but I took you as saying some people apply their 'logic' and say 'no more charity (at all), that is enough, no more.' It was the definitiveness that I disagreed with because one can say "I can't give" this week, this month, this year but they still do charity in many different ways. I'm sure some or a few :+} make the decision to never give of themselves at all (some out of need, some out of greed) anymore but my position is that is not the many or most Christians. It seems that charity is baked into being Christian, just by being one there is a recognition that it is what needs to be done for others. And this is not exclusively a Christian thing. Again, to beat a dead horse, I simply don't think and it is not my experience over decades of interaction with a hell of a lot of (although not most) Christians that they don't apply their logic to stop giving (be it money or more importantly self) completely and forever. Some, of course, but not most.
  10. With 'time contribution' (and the examples of hotline and the shelter), you have shown that one can pull back on the charitable giving of money and continue to give themselves in numerous other ways (this is what I meant - and perhaps I was not as clear as I should have been - as continuing 'to do' - the giving of self is not just money). So the Jesus quote is not a definite ending of charity as is suggested by your words (and a main point of my disagreement with you): even you are not saying "enough, no more" you are doing, giving in different ways other than money. That is the point. Many people do this, don't say 'ENOUGH' and continue to give of themselves to others in numerous ways. And BTW, I commend and respect you for this continued charity.
  11. See you were almost there: you reduced to some (much more realistic) and then backtracked to many. Do you actually know which it is and if so, how so? However, if you actually commit to 'some' and stick with it, that would be a vast improvement. Try it.
  12. You don't remember your famous line about not liking quotes? I am just pleasantly surprised that you actually have referenced others and given us sites and essays to read - much different than our last thread and a relief. So, nothing about charity beyond money and possessions as practices in the wider world of Christianity.
  13. Actually I was kidding and didn't want to use the DeNiro line. Well, at least you're right on the quote about Jesus - so that's a start.....but not sure what your point is, except that you are saying what I said about 'fully human' was collaborated by all Christians. I am glad you actually heard what I said - never, ever, never and Cincy was now almost 7 years ago so hopefully the author helped those few/some screamers to see the light. Are you now saying thought that the author is saying it's just used to avoid the hard questions about poverty but not used as a cop-out and an excuse to say "enough, no more, no more charity?" To be concerned or even dismayed about the seemingly intractable problem of poverty is not the same as using that to no longer be charitable in the many ways one can. I never thought she was lying but you have now brought up a wrinkle in what she is saying - unless this is your interpretation. Don't worry, I'll let you do the work since she is your 'witness.' The issue was never your personal decision (I actually don't care, it is your decision whether I agree or disagree with the justification) or your experience of a few/some others (it's nice to know others with shared interests) who have made similar decisions for the same reason (the Jesus quote). The issue was that you repeatedly said it covers many and you even referred to most Christians. Such a negative generalization that slurs many/most Christians is bashing, just as similar indiscriminate generalizations about Jews or Muslims would be equally intolerable and should be opposed. Even when you walked it back to some, you immediately reversed yourself and again went to many. Now some and many are illusive amounts and even the google references still get us only to some Christians since we are talking over 2 billion people, still to indiscriminately use many and most, gives the distinct impression that this is a typical Christian response to charity. It is not. The excuse might not be limited to your experience but it still doesn't get us to many or most Christians - the operative qualifier is 'some.' You use term such as: "Christians in general" or "Christians in the western world" or "most people really could do a lot more......why don't they (i.e. Christians)" or "shortcoming of good Christians." This is putting Christians in the same basket and it is pejorative from the beginning (do more, shortcoming) - how does this not bash and denigrate Christians? Plus you say all this on a false premise or simply a misunderstanding of Christianity: we are called to love, we are all invited to follow the Way (of love) but, as previously mentioned, there is not a commandment or requirement or expectation that we must do "everything humanly possibly" or "give every cent, all our possessions." Actually what does everything humanly possible mean and what text are you referencing? How do you envision the Mother of Jesus do everything humanly possible when she had Jesus and his brothers and sister(s), was from a small. poor village and was poor herself? Jesus called a select few to leave all and follow him but he did not have the same expectation for all. You falsely assume that all western Christians or Christians in general have all sorts of wealth or at least excess money - not so for all. Where is the short coming for a family of 15 kids who has those kids, feed, clothes, educates them, buys a family van (new or old but new might last a good amount of years and not need as many repairs), a big house (always with an extensive honey-do list) and even takes the kids to the beach in the summer? Where and how is this a shortcoming, what do you mean when you want them to do absolutely everything humanly possible? How do you know what they already do for 'others.' Or a single Christian mother with 3 kids working a teacher's job at a teacher salary - everything humanly possible? You are dealing in generalizations (all Christians) and in absolutes (doing everything). What would Jesus do if he were that single mother, that family of 15, his own mother living and rising a family in Nazareth? He was none of these. 'Many' do believe in what Jesus stood for, in what Jesus was about and they are doing what is possible for them in the particularly of their actual lives. Do some have excess, could they do more? Sure seems that way. But Christians in general, even in the western world? That one is impossible to judge and the generalizations you throw are assumptions based on (of necessity) limited experience of Christian in general. As is said down under by a few or some or many or most -, ease up a bit on the judgements Mate.
  14. Hey, are you talking about me? I never felt attacked because I have never been one of your few, some, many, most (which is it?) Christians who misuse the text in question or decide, as you have said, "enough, no more charity." I must admit I never, ever heard that and I was surrounded by Catholics - maybe it's a Catholic thing and there are many, many, many Catholics which means your number can't be many, might be some but probably just a few :+}
  • Create New...