Homosexuality is not a sin!

[thormas]

1 hour ago, PaulS said:

There are too many shortcomings in equating Maslow's secular hierarchy simply tracking alongside the religious view of 'sin', to marry the two together somehow.........

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). 

 

 

[Burl]

12 hours ago, PaulS said:

You're giving sin the bird?

Pointer finger.  Your post is a sin.

[thormas]

2 hours ago, Burl said:

Pointer finger.  Your post is a sin.

............funny..............

[PaulS]

10 hours ago, Burl said:

Pointer finger.  Your post is a sin.

How do you believe it is a sin?

[PaulS]

21 hours ago, thormas said:

I recognize the 'shortcomings' and that is why I said  "the general (Maslow like) idea." 

Even the general idea is a major shortcoming in my opinion.  Self-actualization is nothing like sin as promoted by religion.  So to try and give 'sin' some sort of secular justification seems a nonsense to me.

Quote

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.'  

I don't disagree with the concept of actualizing human potential, just that it doesn't correlate with the religious idea of sin and 'missing the mark' of being fully human.  Religious sin is about not meeting a standard of perfection as established by God.  All that is is human judgement based on whatever culture of the day decides what is sin and what isn't. 

Quote

As to your 2nd paragraph, it depends how one understands sin. 

Indeed it does.  But to understand sin from anything other than a religious perspective means we are no longer talking about sin, but simply what it is to be human.  Fully human at all times.

Quote

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?"

I don't think there is anything wrong with consensual sex and treating each other as an object to be used.  If both parties are happy providing their bodies to the other whilst also gaining their own enjoyment of using the other's body, what's the issue?  It's actually quite fun if you've never tried it.  And there is respect for the other because you are both agreeing to participate in an entirely natural thing, for the pleasure, enjoyment and satisfaction of both parties.  I don't disagree that there are users and abusers, but that is not the situation I am discussing.

I don't think they have to 'love' at all to be self-actualizing, enjoyers of consensual sex.  No harm, no foul.  But sex isn't a good one to discuss because there does seem to be a particular hangup about sex when it comes to religion and sin.

Quote

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.

If self actualizing is an analogy that works for you, all power to you. But linking it to sin just seems unnecessary to me.  In fact, linking it to sin is probably an unnecessary distraction and confusion that is best avoided altogether, in my view.  Why confuse a religious judgement about what is wrong with humanity with a positive view such as when we feel our best as humans, warts and all.

Quote

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). 

You are entitled to your opinion, of course.  I just don't think man "needs God understood as love" to become fully human.  To clarify - I think it is fully human to start stipulating and categorizing what 'love' is and then to start judging whether one is becoming 'fully human' or not.  We are already fully human as we are.  Religion and sin does not say that.

[thormas]

4 hours ago, PaulS said:

Self-actualization is nothing like sin as promoted by religion.  So to try and give 'sin' some sort of secular justification seems a nonsense to me.

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. 

4 hours ago, PaulS said:

I don't disagree with the concept of actualizing human potential, just that it doesn't correlate with the religious idea of sin and 'missing the mark' of being fully human.  Religious sin is about not meeting a standard of perfection as established by God.  All that is is human judgement based on whatever culture of the day decides what is sin and what isn't. 

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.

4 hours ago, PaulS said:

But to understand sin from anything other than a religious perspective means we are no longer talking about sin, but simply what it is to be human.  Fully human at all times.

Exactly! And the 'fully human being' does not use another, sexually or otherwise, as an object. 

4 hours ago, PaulS said:

I don't think there is anything wrong with consensual sex and treating each other as an object to be used......

I don't think they have to 'love' at all to be self-actualizing, enjoyers of consensual sex.  No harm, no foul.  But sex isn't a good one to discuss because there does seem to be a particular hangup about sex when it comes to religion and sin.

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"). 

4 hours ago, PaulS said:

I just don't think man "needs God understood as love" to become fully human....... We are already fully human as we are......

And here we differ yet again.............of course, it all turns on what is meant by 'fully human.' 

Edited December 11, 2019 by thormas

[PaulS]

6 hours ago, thormas said:

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 seem to be comparing the actions/inaction associated with Maslow's model with the notion of sin causing failure to self acutalize in a religious context.  No?

6 hours ago, thormas said:

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.

No, you seem to have redefined sin to a way that suits your view.  I don't think this agrees with what many (i.e. a lot of) understand to be the definition of sin in a religious context.

6 hours ago, thormas said:

Exactly! And the 'fully human being' does not use another, sexually or otherwise, as an object. 

When you say 'use' let me clarify - 2 x consenting adults who say "let's have sex together but take our relationship no further" and then who enjoy a night of passion before parting ways, is how I am saying one may be using another, but it is not abuse of another and it is not even 'use' of another in a negative context.  I am saying people who do this can be already be fully human and jut be enjoying one another for sex.  All power to them I say.

6 hours ago, thormas said:

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"). 

See above concerning how I am talking about 'use'.  We are not talking about sexual abuse.  I compare using one as an 'object' (that is to say, consensual sex but which both parties know is not going to develop into anything else) compared to sex with one who we are in a committed relationship.  Same act, different outcomes.  Neither are 'bad'.  Neither is 'better' than another, they are just different scenarios.

6 hours ago, thormas said:

And here we differ yet again.............of course, it all turns on what is meant by 'fully human.' 

We are fully human from the day we are born - warts and all.  Being 'self actualized' makes one no more human than another - just a different type of human, as we all are to one another.

[thormas]

1 hour ago, PaulS said:

 

I have learned or rediscovered that there is a much fuller understanding of sin. In a Christian context, sin is connected to relationship with God. There is a 'way to be' and not being or living in that way 'misses the mark' and one is still not yet fully expressing and being Love (or, if you will, Christ). 

Paul, we differ. Even if one says it is 'ok to use me' as an object, I'm saying that the 'actualized person' will not do it. I am further saying that a person is never to be used as an object or a thing. Even more obvious is that we should not abuse one another. This is actually simple stuff. I get that in the normal course of events some of us enter into mutual use of human beings - actually that is a level that fulfills a basic need and is short lived fulfillment as opposed to the higher level of self-actualization which has longer lasting fulfillment. Maslow estimated that only 10% self-actualized (met some of these needs) and only 2% were fully self-actualized and then there is the last stage which is Transcendence. 

Maslow counts morality as part of self-actualization which includes compassion: the behavior you applaud is considered dysfunctional in light of self-actualization.

In a religious context, I'm saying that the use of other human beings 'misses the mark' of how a truly human being is (should be) and acts. There are reasons why someone might function as this level which explain their behavior but it still falls far from the 'mark' or goal or actual self-actualization. We are not merely talking about different scenarios, we are talking about acting from a higher level of being or actualization. 

That you disagree I get but you're wrong in your understanding of self-actualization and also sin. The so called 'fully aware' person does not do this, if they do, they are not 'fully aware.' 

 

[JosephM]

While it seems to me one can say it is a sin to use another person, it is only a sin to him/her who believes thus. One could say that such a person is 'missing the mark' but then again that is just making a law that when violated by the one making it,  is sin to the one who by believing has made it so. If i use someone as in the examples mentioned there are indeed natural and sometimes unpredictable consequences for my actions but i do not see how one can say it is moral or not moral as the word morality here  is nothing more than  "a particular system of values and principles of conduct, especially one held by a specified person or society" . They are ever changing and subject to the whims of both people and society. How can one say a person is fully actualized and free from guilt if he/she chooses to draw marks/lines or set up rules of morality? It seems to me that such is in actuality , an impediment. Besides  Maslow's 'self actualization' is only a concept but to know ones 'true Self' is realization. To live free from the law/laws, written or unwritten is in my view to be dead to the conditioned self but alive to that which is in and through all. Against such there is no law and hence no sin.

Joseph

[Burl]

Sin is unrighteousness.  Never mentioned by Abraham Maslow in his outdated 1950’s psychology and unrelated to sin and righteousness.

There are lots of definitions of righteousness, but that definition must come from an external source.  

There is entirely too much fatuous imagination in this thread.  Righteousness and is an asymptote, but remains real.  Thinking sin does not exist because it offends your imagination is magical thinking.

[Burl]

17 hours ago, PaulS said:

How do you believe it is a sin?

Not just simple sin, but sinning with a high hand.  You are proclaiming evil as righteousness.

[thormas]

1 hour ago, JosephM said:

While it seems to me one can say it is a sin to use another person, it is only a sin to him/her who believes thus. One could say that such a person is 'missing the mark' but then again that is just making a law that when violated by the one making it,  is sin to the one who by believing has made it so. If i use someone as in the examples mentioned there are indeed natural and sometimes unpredictable consequences for my actions but i do not see how one can say it is moral or not moral as the word morality here  is nothing more than  "a particular system of values and principles of conduct, especially one held by a specified person or society" . They are ever changing and subject to the whims of both people and society. How can one say a person is fully actualized and free from guilt if he/she chooses to draw marks/lines or set up rules of morality? It seems to me that such is in actuality , an impediment. Besides  Maslow's 'self actualization' is only a concept but to know ones 'true Self' is realization. To live free from the law/laws, written or unwritten is in my view to be dead to the conditioned self but alive to that which is in and through all. Against such there is no law and hence no sin.

Joseph

I acknowledge that sin or doing something wrong or immoral is not always recognized by the one who engages in such an action but if it is wrong, a lack of recognition doesn't  make it right. It the issue is merely the use of the word sin, that is one thing but, from a religious perspective, the term sin simply denotes something is wrong or harmful in/to human relationships - to one's neighbor, if you will. So let us remove the term sin and simply say X is wrong. Merely because Harry doesn't believe in sin, doesn't now mean that X is right or neutral. Harry might not believe that X is wrong but that doesn't mean his action is then right. 

Again and of course from a religious perspective, 'missing the mark' is not about law - it is about relationship. Or law simply goes to relationship. For example, if I have a relationship of love with my wife, it could be said there are laws, rules or expectations that we both 'obey.' But the relationship is the priority and the 'laws' only make sense in the context of that relationship. Actually, as is probably your experience, many don't ever have to write the laws down or every so often check the rules and expectations - they know they are faithful to the relationship, they know love and simply live it daily. As has been said: love.........and do what you will. For he who knows love, only wills love.

As for Paul's example of mutual use between human beings, if you think it is perfectly fine to use a human being as an object or a thing - even with their consent - for your use, then we're not in Kansas anymore Joseph. However, it seems your words betray you as you acknowledge natural and unpredictable consequences. If some of those consequences cause harm, that goes to the basic idea of bad or wrong (which in turn goes to immoral or even sin). Now if bad is then good........again we're not in Kansas.

I guess the further question is are the values and principles held by persons or society, merely whims or do they speak to a recognition of value or the good based on experience and/or recognized for their own sake. Is use of another human being ever a good thing? You seem to suggest if can be good if it is tied to consent, could then non-consent use be good also?   

Or let us move out of our heads and let me ask, given your previous comments about your beliefs and enlightenment and our purpose, is it okay to use another even with their consent? If you have kids, (I don't know if you do) when you think of them, do you think, it would be okay, actually good if someone used them? Are their limits, even if they give consent?

Also are all values subject to the whim of people or society? For example the extreme case of an enemy basing in the skull of an infant or slicing the throats of toddlers or removing the unborn fetus from a pregnant woman. Is our repulsion merely a whim? Does it change with society? If it does, is it then okay or even a good or a high good to engage in these actions? 

 

Can one know if we are faithful to our love (in all the ways that one can be faithful)? Can one know if we have 'hit the mark' and have one great relationship? Of course we can! And if we have been so faithful, if we have 'hit the mark' (assuming we don't rest on their laurels) then all rules, all laws have been fulfilled. Actually, such laws or commandments pale for we have kept the primary one: love. Indeed, aren't all the laws summed up by Jesus in the two and if one loves, aren't the 2 fulfilled in this one? Where is there guilt? Nowhere, it is not to be found because one is obedient to love. 

On an older view of sin, there was sufficient guilt to go around for all but if the emphasis is on the way, on being and becoming, on relationship, on love - then all rules are fulfilled, the mark is met and the line is surpassed. 

 

Of course Maslow's is a concept and goes to human motivation but there still is something to be realized - as there is in religion: the actualization of God - Love - in man. One who loves is not bound by laws and does not live by laws but, as was the Christ, is the fulfillment of the law. They are (living) what is in and through all. If one doesn't love or doesn't consistently love and is not 'alive to that which is in and through all' then the mark is not yet met. Sin is not being 'alive' to that which is in and through all - we are still on the way, we must go deeper: mark twain.

 

Edited December 11, 2019 by thormas

[PaulS]

10 hours ago, thormas said:

Maslow counts morality as part of self-actualization which includes compassion: the behavior you applaud is considered dysfunctional in light of self-actualization.

It's to be expected that Maslow, like all of us,  may have his own personal biases.  The behavior I 'applaud' is not dysfunctional.  You and Maslow are simply mistaken.  As soon as somebody starts citing morality amongst their studies - run for the hills!

Quote

In a religious context, I'm saying that the use of other human beings 'misses the mark' of how a truly human being is (should be) and acts. There are reasons why someone might function as this level which explain their behavior but it still falls far from the 'mark' or goal or actual self-actualization. We are not merely talking about different scenarios, we are talking about acting from a higher level of being or actualization. 

I don't apply judgement like you do about what makes somebody fully human.  We do, or we do not, and all of it is fully human.  One is not 'better' than another because they are in a married, committed relationship compared to one who has mutually agreed one night stands.  That sort of judgement results in actions and behaviors being called 'sins' by others and I say it's a nonsense that is best relegated to the history bins for the waste of time and harm it has caused.

Quote

That you disagree I get but you're wrong in your understanding of self-actualization and also sin. The so called 'fully aware' person does not do this, if they do, they are not 'fully aware.' 

No, I'm right and you're wrong.  I know this because I am fully actualised.  You will get there.  Keep trying grasshopper.

[PaulS]

7 hours ago, Burl said:

Not just simple sin, but sinning with a high hand.  You are proclaiming evil as righteousness.

No, you are making that proclamation.  I am saying that evil & righteousness are just levels of judgement developed by humans. Different judgments based on one's cultural view of the world.  Call it sin or call it actualization - it's all just human judgement.

[Burl]

4 minutes ago, PaulS said:

No, you are making that proclamation.  I am saying there is no evil or righteousness, just different judgments based on one's cultural view of the world.  Call it sin or call it actualization - it's all just judgement.

No.  Sin is a fact.  Sometimes it is hard to identify, but typically easy for anyone with common sense.

And absolutely not self-actualization.

[PaulS]

1 minute ago, Burl said:

No.  Sin is a fact.  Sometimes it is hard to identify, but typically easy for anyone with common sense.

No, sin is make-believe, which is what makes such so hard to recognize to those who believe they are instilled with common sense.

[thormas]

1 hour ago, PaulS said:

It's to be expected that Maslow, like all of us,  may have his own personal biases.  The behavior I 'applaud' is not dysfunctional.  You and Maslow are simply mistaken.

Paul, even accounting for bias, it does not mean that Maslow is not correct. Do you have sources, other than your opinion, to refute Maslow? 

The topic was Maslow and the behavior is dysfunctional in the framework of the hierarchy. And the other topic was with reference to the Christian way (and sin) and the behavior is still dysfunctional :+{   I'll side with Maslow, you can stick with the people who use other people, which should make for interesting bedfellows. However, for it not to be dysfunctional, you must recognize it as a norm - typical and good. Which then means that it is fully acceptable behavior, even behavior that you recommend and encourage for all others. So do you recommend that all others engage in consensual activities that treat the other person as a thing or an object to be used? You must, because as you said, it is not dysfunctional - so it is good, acceptable for all.  

I have no problem recommending the Christian behavior of loving one's neighbor and treating all others as persons to care for, not thing to be used. And I'm sure Maslow considered his hierarchy as a motivation theory for all. But I (and Maslow too) would never recommend the behavior your applaud, specifically because it is dysfunctional. See how that works? 

As with Joseph, I don't know if you have kids but you must recommend this behavior to them and to all those you care for and have no qualms when they treat other human beings as objects to be used and/or give their consent to be treated as an object and used by others.

1 hour ago, PaulS said:

One is not 'better' than another because they are in a married, committed relationship compared to one who has mutually agreed one night stands.  That sort of judgement results in actions an dbehvaiours being called 'sins' and I say it's a nonsense that is best relegated to the history bins for the waste of time and harm it has caused.

Oh Paul, just stop digging it just gets weirder and a little sad: a string of one night stands is equal to a relationship wherein each treats and values the other as person - not a thing. Actually, very sad and not a life most would recommend for their kids or people they cherish. Do you have any schools of psychology that back this interesting claim? I mean I at least provided Maslow and the Christian religion. Come on, give us something. Also, simply because you don't understand the idea of sin doesn't mean it's nonsense.  

1 hour ago, PaulS said:

No, I'm right and you're wrong.  I know this because I am fully actualised.  You will get there.  Keep trying.

Okay, now it's really, really sad.

Actually my understanding of Maslow is correct (I refer you to Maslow) as is my understanding of sin in the Christian perspective (I have references but you never seem to appreciate them). Do you have sources that establish that either Maslow or I am wrong?

 

[JosephM]

Thomas,

What does 'wrong' mean that is not directly related to the law or morality of a society ? To me, actions are neither right or wrong. Actions have consequences but the concept of right and wrong is at the whim of society. Even your barbaric example or genocide is accepted by some tribes that exist today. It may be classified as wrong by another society or people but i would submit that it is neither. It is simply what it is and is either acceptable to one's way of thinking or not acceptable. Right and wrong are motivation derived logically from ethical or moral principles that govern a person's thoughts and actions. conscience, moral sense, or scruples. In other words they are conditioned subjective judgements and not absolutes  as many use and would have them .

Just my view when not in Kansas grasshopper...😄😄😄       ...... Sorry couldn't resist and the laugh did me a whole lot of good. Thanks for your response to my last post.

[PaulS]

48 minutes ago, thormas said:

Paul, even accounting for bias, it does not mean that Maslow is not correct. Do you have sources, other than your opinion, to refute Maslow? 

And it doesn't means he is correct either (whatever you might be saying he is correct about).  You are convinced he is.  All power to you.  I disagree.

Quote

The topic was Maslow and the behavior is dysfunctional in the framework of the hierarchy. And the other topic was with reference to the Christian way (and sin) and the behavior is still dysfunctional :+{   

No, you decided the topic was about dysfunctional behavior.  I wasn't referring to any behavior being dysfunctional or not making one 'fully human'.  That's your game, not mine.  I was saying the opposite - judging certain behaviors as wrong or right, functional or dysfunctional, is the whole problem with this man-made notion of 'sin'.

 

Quote

I'll side with Maslow, you can stick with the people who use other people, which should make for interesting bedfellows. However, for it not to be dysfunctional, you must recognize it as a norm - typical and good. Which then means that it is fully acceptable behavior, even behavior that you recommend and encourage for all others. So do you recommend that all others engage in consensual activities that treat the other person as a thing or an object to be used? You must, because as you said, it is not dysfunctional - so it is good, acceptable for all.  

To quote yourself - where do you get this stuff from?  Why do you only go for extremes - wrong or right, function of dysfunction, black or white?  There are a zillion extremes in between which any neat little pyramid or rule of scripture fails to identify and address.  Because some people want a no-strings attached, consensual sex session with another, you are calling them users, that they are only treating another as an object.  Talk about having a plank in your eye.

Quote

I have no problem recommending the Christian behavior of loving one's neighbor and treating all others as persons to care for, not thing to be used. And I'm sure Maslow considered his hierarchy as a motivation theory for all. But I (and Maslow too) would never recommend the behavior your applaud, specifically because it is dysfunctional. See how that works? 

No, I don't.  You're making up a rule set based on your own (and maybe Maslow's - I don't know him) personal judgement.  I'd say let it be rather than getting your knickers in a twist about unwed people enjoying a sexual relationship.

48 minutes ago, thormas said:

Oh Paul, just stop digging it just gets weirder and a little sad: a string of one night stands is equal to a relationship wherein each treats and values the other as person - not a thing. Actually, very sad and not a life most would recommend for their kids or people they cherish. Do you have any schools of psychology that back this interesting claim? I mean I at least provided Maslow and the Christian religion. Come on, give us something. Also, simply because you don't understand the idea of sin doesn't mean it's nonsense.  

You are infatuated with references and other clinical studies to guide your life it seems to me.  My own personal life experiences tell me that all relationships are different and that one is not 'better' than another.  They all offer something and depending what that something is that you want, is what you may find more value in.  

I understand sin - and it is nonsense.

Quote

Okay, now it's really, really sad.

Actually my understanding of Maslow is correct (I refer you to Maslow) as is my understanding of sin in the Christian perspective (I have references but you never seem to appreciate them). Do you have sources that establish that either Maslow or I am wrong?

PaulS is my primary source in this instance (can you cite a credible scholar that directly refutes him?).  I don't agree with your view and you think I am wrong.  I can live with that.

[thormas]

9 minutes ago, JosephM said:

Thomas,

What does 'wrong' mean that is not directly related to the law or morality of a society ? To me, actions are neither right or wrong. Actions have consequences but the concept of right and wrong is at the whim of society. Even your barbaric example or genocide is accepted by some tribes that exist today. It may be classified as wrong by another society or people but i would submit that it is neither. It is simply what it is and is either acceptable to one's way of thinking or not acceptable. Right and wrong are motivation derived logically from ethical or moral principles that govern a person's thoughts and actions. conscience, moral sense, or scruples. In other words they are conditioned subjective judgements and not absolutes  as many use and would have them .

Just my view when not in Kansas grasshopper...😄😄😄       ...... Sorry couldn't resist and the laugh did me a whole lot of good. Thanks for your response to my last post.

Actions are reflective of relationship. As an example, if one loves his kids, he then acts in a certain way and does not do certain other actions. So Relationship is the crux of the matter. And as should be obvious, certain actions are wrong or right given the relationship. So, how I relate to my kid is not necessarily a law of society but it is indicative of the health of the relationship and the persons in that relationship. Timothy O'Connell in his book on Morality states that "sin is infidelity to the covenant with God" and the covenant is all about the God/man relationship and that relationship is lived in relation to one's neighbor, to all. 

It we take, as an example, the golden rule, its 'goodness' is not simply the whim of a particular society, but rather it is recognized or discovered as the good in and of itself. We disagree on genocide: simply because it is not yet recognized by a particular person, tribe or society does not mean something is not true and that its opposite (i.e. genocide) is false or wrong. Some Eastern theologians back as far as the 2nd C CE believed that we were not born perfect and then fell due to sin but we were born as immature beings and the history of humanity and our personal history is our growing into the 'likeness of God.'  There is only one way to be human/ to be the likeness of God, to fulfill our original purpose, to have Life and it is the same way for all; although it might be called by different names by the many tribes of man, it is one as we are one.

 

Grasshopper........I like it.

 

[thormas]

35 minutes ago, PaulS said:

And it doesn't means he is correct either (whatever you might be saying he is correct about).  You are convinced he is.  All power to you.  I disagree.

As expected, no sources to refute Maslow and now blaming someone else rather than honestly answering questions. And extremes usually get to the gist of the matter: answer the so-called extreme case and we know where you really stand. However in answer to your question about where I get this stuff, one need only take the opposite of dysfunctional and then I simply put 2 and 2 together: If the action you applaud is not dysfunctional (as you have stated) then it is the opposite and my question is do you then recommend it for all people, including your loved ones? If you don't then that suggests something is wrong or.....dysfunctional and you would not want someone you care about to engage in such behavior. 

I double checked: no plank, perfect vision - but thanks for your concern. 

1 hour ago, PaulS said:

Because some people want a no-strings attached, consensual sex session with another, you are calling them users, that they are only treating another as an object.

Exactly, the one is using the other for his/her own sake (for his/her self) not for the sake of the other, not for love of the other; one is treating the other as an object, a thing to be used and then discarded (no strings) when done. That you can't see this is more than a bit astonishing and you continue to advocate such interactions. As previously stated the issue is not unwed people enjoying a sexual relationship, actually I think there are many such 'love relationships' but, by definition, they are not using one another as things. See how that works?

No infatuation with sources or studies Paul, I just like to determine if people are blowing smoke and just presenting opinions without any support from thoughtful experts - and you have answered that particular concern :+{  Of course relationship are different but your life experience is telling you that using people as things is good - yet we still don't know if it is a convenient good just for you or a good you recommend, even highly recommend, to others - including those you love. 

I can understand if someone doesn't accept the idea of sin as it is within a religious perspective but to just say, and continually say, it is nonsense, is senseless.

I have consistently provided scholars to refute PaulS on a number of issue and his typical response is to quit. He doesn't answer simple questions, he doesn't provide sources that others can read and he complains about others not knowing the definitions of words and when it it established that he is wrong, he goes silent. Go figure. And this guy is your source?

I await the answer to the question you simply won't/can't answer. Can I ask your source or will I get more of the same?  :+}

[PaulS]

3 hours ago, thormas said:

As expected, no sources to refute Maslow and now blaming someone else rather than honestly answering questions. And extremes usually get to the gist of the matter: answer the so-called extreme case and we know where you really stand. However in answer to your question about where I get this stuff, one need only take the opposite of dysfunctional and then I simply put 2 and 2 together: If the action you applaud is not dysfunctional (as you have stated) then it is the opposite and my question is do you then recommend it for all people, including your loved ones? If you don't then that suggests something is wrong or.....dysfunctional and you would not want someone you care about to engage in such behavior. 

Not blaming anybody Thormas and certainly I am being honest.  Not sure why you question my honesty - do you really think you know me that well to call me dishonest?  Do you perhaps have your own biased picture of me in mind that you are reading into my words?

Again with the opposites.  So you really believe that unwed couples having a night of consensual sex with no strings attached (strings being a symbol of discardment apparently, according to you), are committing dysfunctional behaviors?  They are users?  

Quote

Exactly, the one is using the other for his/her own sake (for his/her self) not for the sake of the other, not for love of the other; one is treating the other as an object, a thing to be used and then discarded (no strings) when done. That you can't see this is more than a bit astonishing and you continue to advocate such interactions. As previously stated the issue is not unwed people enjoying a sexual relationship, actually I think there are many such 'love relationships' but, by definition, they are not using one another as things. See how that works?

I don't know how you have the wisdom to distill down every detail about a couples' sexual relationship and determine whether they are using each other one night or are in a loving one-night stand.  I'll leave further diagnosis to those that give a damn.  I don't. 

You seem to have a focus for 'using' others in sex.  Not sure what you have in mind as you now seem to not mind loving, one-night stands, which you previously said were a lesser relationship than a committed married sexual one.  Sounds like a lot of judgement and ol' time sinning to me. 

Maybe if you looked at it more as a business transaction - both people are sexually attracted to one another, have their sexual desires met, enjoy their sensational, sexual night together, and both are happy to go their separate ways in the morning never to see each other again.  Maybe you've never experienced such a pleasant and fulfilling occasion.  I have a few times in my pre-married days and I thought they were both thoroughly pleasurable and a beneficial experience.  That didn't stop other Christians from frowning and condemning me of sin of course, and it seems it wouldn't stop you thinking that I was committing dysfunctional actions that were limiting my self-actualization as a human.  But gee it was fun!

What about masturbation?  Can we class that as a functional activity toward self-actualization or is it dysfunctional?  If I start out thinking I really, really like a girl, but then by the end of the sex I don't like her (maybe she smells really, really bad or is just really bad at sex) have I harmed my self-actualization or benefited it?   Do you have a scholar or expert in mind that can conveniently list what actions are either functional or dysfunctional, because clearly people can't be trusted to rely on their own experience, as you say about mine.

There may be a big book lying around here somewhere that people tell me shows the rules!  Oh that's right - this isn't meant to be comparing with sin!

Quote

No infatuation with sources or studies Paul, I just like to determine if people are blowing smoke and just presenting opinions without any support from thoughtful experts - and you have answered that particular concern :+{  Of course relationship are different but your life experience is telling you that using people as things is good - yet we still don't know if it is a convenient good just for you or a good you recommend, even highly recommend, to others - including those you love. 

Yes, you love your thoughtful experts Thormas.  Personally, I don't know that Maslow can be considered an 'expert' on this matter.  He certainly came up with a thesis back in (1943?) that many (i.e. a lot of) people give thought to, but is it right in face of all answers and angles - I doubt it.  But it is food for thought.  Burl might be one better to ask about the deficiencies of thoughtful experts like Maslow - he seemed to strongly think not much of Maslow for whatever reasons.

I don't know how many times I have to explain to you how I am understanding the word 'use' and how many times you are going to conveniently look past that to make sarcastic comments.  I've seen you in this modus operandi before and am not interested.  

Quote

I can understand if someone doesn't accept the idea of sin as it is within a religious perspective but to just say, and continually say, it is nonsense, is senseless.

Yes, the concept of sin is nonsense and senseless. Agreed.  Time to file it away in the "religious nonsense" bin I say. 

Quote

I have consistently provided scholars to refute PaulS on a number of issue and his typical response is to quit. He doesn't answer simple questions, he doesn't provide sources that others can read and he complains about others not knowing the definitions of words and when it it established that he is wrong, he goes silent. Go figure. And this guy is your source?

The only time I quit is when I tire of you misunderstanding words and phrases that I go to great lengths to explain, but which explanation you continue to overlook and rather apply your own understanding to what I am saying.  Just like you're doing here with my explanation of the concept of 'using' another in a consensual, sexual act.  Sometimes I have time to debate the topic with you, other times I prefer to enjoy my life doing other stuff.  So I am mindful how much I spend on this forum, trying to explain myself to those who perhaps don't care anyhow.  You do have a tendency for long-winded posts (probably only seconded by me), so I can't always be bothered with trying to help you understand what I am saying (after the 10th or 11th attempt anyhow).

For example, your dredging up here of a totally different thread where I correctly used the word 'many' to indicate 'a lot of people', was simply your misunderstanding of the word as a noun instead of as it was used, as an adjective.  A subtlety I admit, but one that I tried explaining over and over and which dictionaries in the many (i.e. the majority) demonstrate.  But I have explained all that previously, to no sensible avail.  It seemed the important thing to you was that you 'won'.  Each to their own.

But if you want to discuss yours and my shortcomings, maybe you could start a new thread and leave this one to sin and homosexuality. 

Quote

I await the answer to the question you simply won't/can't answer. Can I ask your source or will I get more of the same?  :+}

I apologies if I overlooked whatever it was - to me it was buried in the noise.  Which question are you unhappy that I haven't answered?  Instead of several paragraphs, can you maybe please distill the question into one or two straight-forward sentences?  I will try and answer it best I can. 

[thormas]

Paul, You have been asked questions in this and other threads and you avoid them. And this after repeated attempts to get answers. You take a stance and won't answer questions that have to do with that stance thus you are not being an honest or forthright broker or, perhaps, you have not fully though out your positions or perhaps you know they are inconsistent and you don't want to get trapped in an absurdity. Simply answer the questions.

Paul, the use of an opposite is a simple reversal of a position in order to pose a question.  I have given an answer, now it's your turn. I have not commented on specific individuals, I am having an intellectual or academic discussion on the relationship you champion and a love relationship. I haven't changed my position. 

 

You have just summed up your position: a business transaction. Now, once again, do you want your kids or those you love to have such business transactions?  I'm just commenting on the nature of such an encounter, such a decision to mutually 'use' another human being. I simply take a different position which I actually do recommend. 

We know how you understand the word 'use' but the question is "we still don't know if it is a convenient good just for you or a good you recommend, even highly recommend, to others - including those you love." So, envelope please - will there be an answer to the question?  

Using is using Paul and you have been clear on that - what you have not been clear about, what you have avoided is do you recommend, even encourage your kids (if you have kids) or those you truly cherish to 'use' people and enter into similar 'business transactions?'

Don't avoid Paul, just answer the question

 

Edited December 12, 2019 by thormas

[thormas]

11 hours ago, PaulS said:

I apologies if I overlooked whatever it was - to me it was buried in the noise.  

Another bit of 'fabrication and avoidance' as the question was asked in the post you last responded to (repeated below).  

I highlighted the question in my last post (above) and copied the other post (below) with the question you conveniently 'overlooked' now highlighted to avoid further pretense.

 

11 hours ago, thormas said:

 

As expected, no sources to refute Maslow and now blaming someone else rather than honestly answering questions. And extremes usually get to the gist of the matter: answer the so-called extreme case and we know where you really stand. However in answer to your question about where I get this stuff, one need only take the opposite of dysfunctional and then I simply put 2 and 2 together: If the action you applaud is not dysfunctional (as you have stated) then it is the opposite and my question is do you then recommend it for all people, including your loved ones? If you don't then that suggests something is wrong or.....dysfunctional and you would not want someone you care about to engage in such behavior. 

I double checked: no plank, perfect vision - but thanks for your concern. 

Exactly, the one is using the other for his/her own sake (for his/her self) not for the sake of the other, not for love of the other; one is treating the other as an object, a thing to be used and then discarded (no strings) when done. That you can't see this is more than a bit astonishing and you continue to advocate such interactions. As previously stated the issue is not unwed people enjoying a sexual relationship, actually I think there are many such 'love relationships' but, by definition, they are not using one another as things. See how that works?

No infatuation with sources or studies Paul, I just like to determine if people are blowing smoke and just presenting opinions without any support from thoughtful experts - and you have answered that particular concern :+{  Of course relationship are different but your life experience is telling you that using people as things is good - yet we still don't know if it is a convenient good just for you or a good you recommend, even highly recommend, to others - including those you love. 

I can understand if someone doesn't accept the idea of sin as it is within a religious perspective but to just say, and continually say, it is nonsense, is senseless.

I have consistently provided scholars to refute PaulS on a number of issue and his typical response is to quit. He doesn't answer simple questions, he doesn't provide sources that others can read and he complains about others not knowing the definitions of words and when it it established that he is wrong, he goes silent. Go figure. And this guy is your source?

I await the answer to the question you simply won't/can't answer. Can I ask your source or will I get more of the same?  :+}

 

Edited December 12, 2019 by thormas

[Burl]

I remember when Paul posted often about being involved with the Methodist church with his wife and believing in Jesus as a spiritual teacher.  It’s been a long time and I don’t hear that anymore.

What are you doing for Christmas, Paul?