Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 68
  1. #16
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Virginia, U.S.A.
    Posts
    13,954
    Thanks (Given)
    4821
    Thanks (Received)
    4637
    Likes (Given)
    2473
    Likes (Received)
    1562
    Piss Off (Given)
    0
    Piss Off (Received)
    3
    Mentioned
    126 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    14075389

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dmp View Post
    If your lover, girlfriend, husband, wife, etc, walked in one day and said they had just found love, how would you reply? I found this Buddhist article about attachments within a sexual relationship. I think I like it a lot. I think I want to be that - I want to be a person who would feel good for anyone who found the love of their life - even if that hurt me.

    http://www.wildmind.org/blogs/on-pra...non-attachment
    I'm weird, I ask a lot of questions.
    found love? So did you find Jesus? no?
    And what exactly did you find with us when we got married?
    That wasn't love?
    So if you were wrong about it then maybe your wrong now right?
    Or if that's faded away then this new "love" might fade too right and maybe even more quickly?

    After repeated conversations and a bunch of irrational non-answers in reply I'd try a less rational approach and see if theres' a way to mend the relationship, then I'd step back more beaten and confused than ever and just let God do what he wants. I've tried all i know for better or worse.

    Yes this has sort-of happened to me... no other person involved but " i'm not in love anymore"
    We were at the brink of divorce with papers written up and a court date when she decided she wanted to try and work things out.
    so we're back together . But I had literally stopped trying to "win" her back. i just treated her like a good neighbor, friendly but not to friendly not cold just not her "husband" or "boyfriend" or "family". And just let her go her way for like a year and half she moved out of town. Then.. to my shock... she reached out to me.

    But dmp I know you'll think what i'm about to say is less than "enlightened" since i kinda want clear definitions and some logical connections of what people mean by the words they use. As well as you know i believe that Jesus is the most enlightened entity in the universe. In fact the creator so he knows best. So i can not BECOME MORE enlightened than Jesus on the matter. So we're already at an impasse there.
    But for the sake of argument taking Jesus's clear teaching about marriage out of the picture it seems to me if the other person is now MORE enlightened then they'd be able to find love in the person they're with already.
    Since they are the one that's supposedly has grown. And Since in Buddhism everything and everyone is worthy of love. So if they are being unselfish they would not seek to harm their mate in the selfish pursuit of even "love".

    And in at least some form forms of Buddhism sexual or sensual wrongs are discouraged. As well as falsehoods.
    so i'm not sure how what you quoted aligns exactly.

    I mean no disrespect but you did asked for opinions. to me much of the quote seems necessarily self contradictory if you try to attach any solid meanings to the words.
    If we want something that sounds good i guess it's ok. but it doesn't really EXPLAIN or outline a higher spiritual purpose that'd supersede a commitment of marriage or the acts made while in relationship that were in betrayal or trust to find this new love. Or consequences of the separation from the original partner.

    As many have noted about marriage often "love" was not the 1st purpose or the ground anyway.
    Most older versions of marriage in Asia as elsewhere were arranged.
    Seems to me growing to love the person is a far greater spiritual act than "finding" it out there somewhere with someone else and leaving a partner behind hurt and alone. If we're talking about spiritual virtues.
    At least that's what comes to my mind.


    And finally my most cynical view of this is :
    this kind of thing sounds sorta interesting but i've been around long enough to see people of various religious stripes claim a "spiritual" basis for betrayal.
    "the Lord told me we should never have married"
    "my spirit guide told me"
    "I've gown to another level in my spiritual journey and person x and i are walking the same path in unity..."
    "Our chakras are out of alignment."
    "I should have never have married a Virgo"

    etc..

    I don't mean to dismiss the whole thing but on practical level I've observed that some of that kind of talk is just "spiritual" cover. And sadly it bears out when they leave the 2nd or 3rd person for other reasons too.
    Last edited by revelarts; 03-16-2016 at 10:10 PM.
    It is proper to take alarm at the first experiment on our liberties. The freeman of America did not wait till usurped power had strengthened itself by exercise, and entangled the question in precedents. James Madison
    Live as free people, yet without employing your freedom as a pretext for wickedness; but live at all times as servants of God.
    1 Peter 2:16

  2. Thanks Abbey Marie, NightTrain thanked this post
  3. #17
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    In my knickers
    Posts
    31,029
    Thanks (Given)
    13927
    Thanks (Received)
    15358
    Likes (Given)
    4384
    Likes (Received)
    5487
    Piss Off (Given)
    0
    Piss Off (Received)
    0
    Mentioned
    181 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    21475356

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jimnyc View Post
    You told me that recently as well. I thought we were therefore spoken for.
    Sounds like it's time for another staff key party.


    Oodles and Bunches of love,
    Abbey

    Quote Originally Posted by NightTrain View Post
    I'm not wired that way. The betrayal from my first marriage left me crushed. Devastated. I couldn't even summon my anger to help, which is a damn sorry place to be in.

    But once I finally was able to rouse my anger as a defense mechanism, triggered by concern for my kid's well being, it was a pure, white-hot fury that took several years to cool. But it gave me the edge and I won everything.

    I see what the article is saying, but instincts for 1 man, 1 woman, 1 family is a powerful thing - and I think the notion of free love within the marriage is no marriage at all. It's a sham.
    I heart your last sentence.
    After the game, the king and the pawn go into the same box - Author unknown

    “Unfortunately, the truth is now whatever the media say it is”
    -Abbey

  4. #18
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    16,760
    Thanks (Given)
    94
    Thanks (Received)
    1751
    Likes (Given)
    7
    Likes (Received)
    165
    Piss Off (Given)
    0
    Piss Off (Received)
    13
    Mentioned
    54 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    9306079

    Default

    I have told my husband that I take the "till death do us part" portion of the wedding vows very seriously.

  5. Thanks LongTermGuy thanked this post
  6. #19
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Location
    At your Six
    Posts
    16,429
    Thanks (Given)
    24430
    Thanks (Received)
    11203
    Likes (Given)
    6054
    Likes (Received)
    4653
    Piss Off (Given)
    0
    Piss Off (Received)
    0
    Mentioned
    26 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    13945534

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by gabosaurus View Post
    I have told my husband that I take the "till death do us part" portion of the wedding vows very seriously.



  7. Thanks Drummond thanked this post
  8. #20
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    18,758
    Piss Off (Given)
    0
    Piss Off (Received)
    0
    Mentioned
    139 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    21475233

    Default

    Why did you make this have anything to do with me? As if you are debating me? We're talking about the topic - and your questions are probably best-served to the author, not me. I agree on her central point - and I think honest Christians would have no room but to be happy for their mate if this scenario played out. Nobody is saying it'd be easy, but true love would have to mean no measure of ownership over the other person. When they are happy (id est, finding somebody they are in love with), love dictates their mate share their happiness. Until love gets to the point that can happen, it's probably not true/enlightened/godly type love. To me it's clear you have almost NO understand of Christ's love. You haven't experienced it, so probably do not understand it. You misinterpret or partially-interpret scripture to back up your traditional views and that's dangerous - well, not exactly dangerous except to the extent you might harm others with your contrived dogma, even though the amount of harm may be hard to measure except in terms of the grief and sadness and hurt your non-god-based-traditional beliefs lead folks to.

    Folks like you may be surprised how many Buddhists and hookers and atheists 'end up' in Heaven.

    And here is the single best part about the concept the author speaks of - it means the end of heartache. To achieve a place where we value others' love and decisions more than whatever hurt they would cause would mean the end of heartbreak. That appeals to me. Should appeal to everyone I'd guess. Finding love without ownership/attachment seems like - from the few days I've been thinking about this - exactly what God would have us learn. If we are happy somebody else 'got' our mate, and since our mate IS Christ as much as we are (because Christ calls us his 'bride', and a bride-and-groom are ONE person/soul/entity in scripture), we might-should/could be happy for the person who is now with our mate in love. Maybe? I'm talking this out as I think it - but I think I'm about right, even if I haven't articulated it right, right now.

    That's where I want to be - love-centric. Denying threats to my self-esteem (which is the root of all conflict). Denying ownership over the person I love. Loving the time she was there with me and being just fine with her not-being there because her path took her elsewhere. Hrm...

    Quote Originally Posted by revelarts View Post
    I'm weird, I ask a lot of questions.
    found love? So did you find Jesus? no?
    And what exactly did you find with us when we got married?
    That wasn't love?
    So if you were wrong about it then maybe your wrong now right?
    Or if that's faded away then this new "love" might fade too right and maybe even more quickly?

    After repeated conversations and a bunch of irrational non-answers in reply I'd try a less rational approach and see if theres' a way to mend the relationship, then I'd step back more beaten and confused than ever and just let God do what he wants. I've tried all i know for better or worse.

    Yes this has sort-of happened to me... no other person involved but " i'm not in love anymore"
    We were at the brink of divorce with papers written up and a court date when she decided she wanted to try and work things out.
    so we're back together . But I had literally stopped trying to "win" her back. i just treated her like a good neighbor, friendly but not to friendly not cold just not her "husband" or "boyfriend" or "family". And just let her go her way for like a year and half she moved out of town. Then.. to my shock... she reached out to me.

    But dmp I know you'll think what i'm about to say is less than "enlightened" since i kinda want clear definitions and some logical connections of what people mean by the words they use. As well as you know i believe that Jesus is the most enlightened entity in the universe. In fact the creator so he knows best. So i can not BECOME MORE enlightened than Jesus on the matter. So we're already at an impasse there.
    But for the sake of argument taking Jesus's clear teaching about marriage out of the picture it seems to me if the other person is now MORE enlightened then they'd be able to find love in the person they're with already.
    Since they are the one that's supposedly has grown. And Since in Buddhism everything and everyone is worthy of love. So if they are being unselfish they would not seek to harm their mate in the selfish pursuit of even "love".

    And in at least some form forms of Buddhism sexual or sensual wrongs are discouraged. As well as falsehoods.
    so i'm not sure how what you quoted aligns exactly.

    I mean no disrespect but you did asked for opinions. to me much of the quote seems necessarily self contradictory if you try to attach any solid meanings to the words.
    If we want something that sounds good i guess it's ok. but it doesn't really EXPLAIN or outline a higher spiritual purpose that'd supersede a commitment of marriage or the acts made while in relationship that were in betrayal or trust to find this new love. Or consequences of the separation from the original partner.

    As many have noted about marriage often "love" was not the 1st purpose or the ground anyway.
    Most older versions of marriage in Asia as elsewhere were arranged.
    Seems to me growing to love the person is a far greater spiritual act than "finding" it out there somewhere with someone else and leaving a partner behind hurt and alone. If we're talking about spiritual virtues.
    At least that's what comes to my mind.


    And finally my most cynical view of this is :
    this kind of thing sounds sorta interesting but i've been around long enough to see people of various religious stripes claim a "spiritual" basis for betrayal.
    "the Lord told me we should never have married"
    "my spirit guide told me"
    "I've gown to another level in my spiritual journey and person x and i are walking the same path in unity..."
    "Our chakras are out of alignment."
    "I should have never have married a Virgo"

    etc..

    I don't mean to dismiss the whole thing but on practical level I've observed that some of that kind of talk is just "spiritual" cover. And sadly it bears out when they leave the 2nd or 3rd person for other reasons too.
    “… the greatest detractor from high performance is fear: fear that you are not prepared, fear that you are in over your head, fear that you are not worthy, and ultimately, fear of failure. If you can eliminate that fear—not through arrogance or just wishing difficulties away, but through hard work and preparation—you will put yourself in an incredibly powerful position to take on the challenges you face" - Pete Carroll.

  9. #21
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Virginia, U.S.A.
    Posts
    13,954
    Thanks (Given)
    4821
    Thanks (Received)
    4637
    Likes (Given)
    2473
    Likes (Received)
    1562
    Piss Off (Given)
    0
    Piss Off (Received)
    3
    Mentioned
    126 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    14075389

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dmp View Post
    Why did you make this have anything to do with me? As if you are debating me? We're talking about the topic - and your questions are probably best-served to the author, not me. I agree on her central point - and I think honest Christians would have no room but to be happy for their mate if this scenario played out. Nobody is saying it'd be easy, but true love would have to mean no measure of ownership over the other person. When they are happy (id est, finding somebody they are in love with), love dictates their mate share their happiness. Until love gets to the point that can happen, it's probably not true/enlightened/godly type love. To me it's clear you have almost NO understand of Christ's love. You haven't experienced it, so probably do not understand it. You misinterpret or partially-interpret scripture to back up your traditional views and that's dangerous - well, not exactly dangerous except to the extent you might harm others with your contrived dogma, even though the amount of harm may be hard to measure except in terms of the grief and sadness and hurt your non-god-based-traditional beliefs lead folks to.

    Folks like you may be surprised how many Buddhists and hookers and atheists 'end up' in Heaven.

    And here is the single best part about the concept the author speaks of - it means the end of heartache. To achieve a place where we value others' love and decisions more than whatever hurt they would cause would mean the end of heartbreak. That appeals to me. Should appeal to everyone I'd guess. Finding love without ownership/attachment seems like - from the few days I've been thinking about this - exactly what God would have us learn. If we are happy somebody else 'got' our mate, and since our mate IS Christ as much as we are (because Christ calls us his 'bride', and a bride-and-groom are ONE person/soul/entity in scripture), we might-should/could be happy for the person who is now with our mate in love. Maybe? I'm talking this out as I think it - but I think I'm about right, even if I haven't articulated it right, right now.

    That's where I want to be - love-centric. Denying threats to my self-esteem (which is the root of all conflict). Denying ownership over the person I love. Loving the time she was there with me and being just fine with her not-being there because her path took her elsewhere. Hrm...
    Well hmm, DMP, your post isn't very loving toward my view.
    sounds like you might be surprised that i make it to heaven.

    Odd that you'd assume that i know nothing of God's love. etc etc .
    Well all i can in reply is I'm sure that i have. Whether or not you're opened or enlightened enough to believe it or not is up to you.

    But to your comments on this "love" again. Again based on what you've said.. off the cuff here. I'd see this as basis for a 3-some or just random hook-ups where the love of the moment 10 mins - here 2 days, 2 months 3 years there would apply. since it's based on love "feelings" and self fulfillment. It comes closer to hedonism only instead of (as well as) the sensual aspect it's lead by euphoric "love" emotions. And you say that you think it will end some suffering. well i suppose it could, but there's no doubt that for those "unenlightened" souls in the relationship ...spouses and children... it will be painful and disconcerting for a long time.

    But if both parties go into a "relationship" with the idea that the other is free to go "love" others then having the attitude you describe would be a good one to hold. But as NightTrain mention there does seem to be something in humans that's looking for that longterm commitment to spouse and children. And every study shows that children do much better in a stable 2 parent homes. And all over the earth humans tend to have make 2 person long term monogamous unions as a basis for family relations.

    As i said it sounds good on one level but in practical fact are we wired to become this enlightened?
    It's one thing describe what might be but is it REALLY where we should be going?
    Is loving one person with all you have though many adversities. Through emotional, spiritual and sexual changes and shunning all others till death wrong? Is that now unenlightened and LESS loving or good in your estimation at this point?

    And i have to say again, maybe a bit more plainly, Jesus reaffirmed marriage and condemned divorce.
    I'll stick with his views on this until i get an update myself. You're of course free to think as you will DMP.
    It's not unloving to disagree.

    I'll add this , which might rube you wrong as well but , the way the Bible describes God he's not one that seems to make what you and the article describe a goal. In the old testament one metaphor God uses to describes himself is as the Husband to Israel. And He talks about how he's grieved and angered when Isreal strays to other "gods". God makes a living example of how he loves Israel even though Israel is unfaithful again and again. God tells the prophet Hosea to marry a hooker. This hooker then leave Hosea again and again to go to other men, men who at 1st treat her well but then put her into slavery. Hosea is told by God to go buy her back. He does and she leaves again. God says Israel is like that women and he is like Hosea wanting his wife home and NOT out getting hurt. And NOT loving others. The imagery of adultery as a metaphor for people leaving God to worship what he calls FALSE gods and false teachings is throughout the old testament. and repeated in the new. With God always with his hand out ready to receive all who are tried of the lesser and unloving lovers.
    Last edited by revelarts; 03-17-2016 at 03:10 AM.
    It is proper to take alarm at the first experiment on our liberties. The freeman of America did not wait till usurped power had strengthened itself by exercise, and entangled the question in precedents. James Madison
    Live as free people, yet without employing your freedom as a pretext for wickedness; but live at all times as servants of God.
    1 Peter 2:16

  10. #22
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    18,758
    Piss Off (Given)
    0
    Piss Off (Received)
    0
    Mentioned
    139 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    21475233

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by revelarts View Post
    Well hmm, DMP, your post isn't very loving toward my view.
    sounds like you might be surprised that i make it to heaven.
    You're so full of shit right now.

    Odd that you'd assume that i know nothing of God's love. etc etc .
    Well all i can in reply is I'm sure that i have. Whether or not you're opened or enlightened enough to believe it or not is up to you.
    I don't assume anything. I read the stuff you write and it's clear you're living a subjective love. If you want folks to think you know what love is, don't present self-seeking desire as love.

    But to your comments on this "love" again. Again based on what you've said.. off the cuff here. I'd see this as basis for a 3-some or just random hook-ups where the love of the moment 10 mins - here 2 days, 2 months 3 years there would apply. since it's based on love "feelings" and self fulfillment. It comes closer to hedonism only instead of (as well as) the sensual aspect it's lead by euphoric "love" emotions. And you say that you think it will end some suffering. well i suppose it could, but there's no doubt that for those "unenlightened" souls in the relationship ...spouses and children... it will be painful and disconcerting for a long time.
    Your speculation is yours. But perhaps a couple would have a sexual three-some or a ten-some. Doesn't have anything to do with love. Hedonism is the opposite of this, by definition self-seeking.

    But if both parties go into a "relationship" with the idea that the other is free to go "love" others then having the attitude you describe would be a good one to hold. But as NightTrain mention there does seem to be something in humans that's looking for that longterm commitment to spouse and children. And every study shows that children do much better in a stable 2 parent homes. And all over the earth humans tend to have make 2 person long term monogamous unions as a basis for family relations.
    That's a different topic, would you like to talk about open relationships now?

    As i said it sounds good on one level but in practical fact are we wired to become this enlightened?
    It's one thing describe what might be but is it REALLY where we should be going?
    Is loving one person with all you have though many adversities. Through emotional, spiritual and sexual changes and shunning all others till death wrong? Is that now unenlightened and LESS loving or good in your estimation at this point?
    Is it wrong to love more than one person through the same circumstances?

    And i have to say again, maybe a bit more plainly, Jesus reaffirmed marriage and condemned divorce.
    I'll stick with his views on this until i get an update myself. You're of course free to think as you will DMP.
    It's not unloving to disagree.
    No he didn't. (shrug)

    Christ affirmed King David - and many other Godly men - while they had dozens of wives AND concubines. Were they out of favor with Christ?

    I'll add this , which might rube you wrong as well but , the way the Bible describes God he's not one that seems to make what you and the article describe a goal. In the old testament one metaphor God uses to describes himself is as the Husband to Israel. And He talks about how he's grieved and angered when Isreal strays to other "gods". God makes a living example of how he loves Israel even though Israel is unfaithful again and again. God tells the prophet Hosea to marry a hooker. This hooker then leave Hosea again and again to go to other men, men who at 1st treat her well but then put her into slavery. Hosea is told by God to go buy her back. He does and she leaves again. God says Israel is like that women and he is like Hosea wanting his wife home and NOT out getting hurt. And NOT loving others. The imagery of adultery as a metaphor for people leaving God to worship what he calls FALSE gods and false teachings is throughout the old testament. and repeated in the new. With God always with his hand out ready to receive all who are tried of the lesser and unloving lovers.
    ...and then Christ and Grace happen. God clearly talks about the church as his bride; and Christ the bridegroom through the new testament. Based on Christ's comment's on marriage - about the two becoming one flesh - The church IS Christ in that sense. I'm sorry if you disagree, but take it up with the authors of the Bible.
    “… the greatest detractor from high performance is fear: fear that you are not prepared, fear that you are in over your head, fear that you are not worthy, and ultimately, fear of failure. If you can eliminate that fear—not through arrogance or just wishing difficulties away, but through hard work and preparation—you will put yourself in an incredibly powerful position to take on the challenges you face" - Pete Carroll.

  11. #23
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    18,758
    Piss Off (Given)
    0
    Piss Off (Received)
    0
    Mentioned
    139 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    21475233

    Default

    Then Josh said, “There was once a man who had two sons. The younger said to his father, ‘Father, I want right now what’s coming to me.’ So the father grew angry and hurt because his son wanted to leave. The father absolutely forbid granting his blessing to the son, instead telling the son "If you loved me, you would stay here! I cannot believe you now want something other than me! Is GOD telling you to leave? You know, this violates the Family construct God has possibly ordained, so my church teaches! After everything I've DONE for you, you want to leave now?"

    After awhile the Father was court-ordered to divide his property amongst his son, thanks to liberal judges and the so-called 'Family' Court. The son got his share and left immediately for San Francisco. While there the son acted foolishly, spending the money partying and other debauchery. The son had gay sex a couple times, and out-of-marriage sex A LOT. Like...LOTS of sex and partying and it was awful. But the son was having a good time.

    After awhile the son ran out of money and out of friends. To make it worse, the son had a raging case of super-herpes. While panhandling the thought occurred to the son, "Dang...the minimum wage servants at my father's estate have it better than I do. Maybe I'll approach my father and beg him to offer me a job working and living with them! I must have hurt my dad so badly. I don't WANT to be an employee but I don't deserve anything else. I really WANT to be a Son again.

    As the son approached his Father's estate, his father spotted him. Within seconds the father ran - literally ran, not just a brisk walk - to his son and embraced the hell out of him. He kissed his son, and with passion. The son tried his prepared speech: "Dad, I'm an idiot. I wasted everything. I thought I found happiness and I forgot to find Joy. I'm such an asshole for hurting you. Please, hire me as a servant. I've learned who I am, and I am now a hard worker who will not let you down."

    As they walked, both cried. The father managed, "Look man. I thought you were dead. In fact, you were dead to me in many ways. Seeing you leave killed me - I mourned your loss. But as much as I was hurt I am so happy to see you are alive. And you're hear. You've come home and I love you forever. I don't care about what you did because I love you unquestionably and without condition. " His father found him and repented his son, with a kiss.

    Now the Father's older son got a case of the ass. The older son started spouting about how the younger violated God's constructs of family and obedience. "God SAID we have to respect and honor our Father and Mother - and this shithead did the opposite of that! How can you in essence REWARD him for violating long-standing Church ideals on FAMILY??!"

    Those who want to feel justified in their love for others, or to place rules or requirements on their love are the eldest son. It's your choice - God will love you even if you have no real love for others. But that's your choice - your choice to place boundaries on your love. Don't pin your insecurities on Scripture as justification for your limitations.

    You may love unconditionally and without reward. Or you may seek to be justified and look for a return on your investment. If the Buddha said anything about Love that is truthful, that truth is of-God. God is Love. IS love. Love IS God. To know Love is to know God's nature.

    You don't have to be afraid of knowing unending, unselfish, unregulated Love.

    In his book Mortal Lessons, Dr. Richard Selzer, writes, “I stand by the bed where a young woman lies, her face postoperative, her mouth twisted in palsy, clownish. A tiny twig of the facial nerve, the one to the muscles of her mouth, has been severed. She will be like this from now on. The surgeon had followed with religious fervor the curve of her flesh; I promise you that. Nevertheless, to remove the tumor in her cheek, I had to cut the little nerve. “Her young husband is in the room. He stands on the opposite side of the bed and together they seem to dwell in the evening lamplight, isolated from me, private.

    Who are they, I ask myself, he and this wry mouth I have made, who gaze at and touch each other so generously, greedily?

    The young woman speaks. “Will my mouth always be like this?” she asks.

    “Yes,” I say, “it will. It is because the nerve was cut.”

    She nods and is silent.

    But the young man smiles. “I like it,” he says, “it is kind of cute.”

    “All at one I know who he is. I understand and lower my gaze.

    One is not bold in an encounter with a god.

    Unmindful, he bends to kiss her crooked mouth and I am so close I can see how he twists his own lips to accommodate to hers, to show her that their kiss still works.”

    I think God is the same way. He wants us to know that his love still works. We know the gospel is grace, we know God loves, inside we know that. That is one of the things that attracted us to God. Yet, even after we accept that, we reject it by working to get God to continue loving us. We work so hard, try to live up to a standard that God doesn’t have for us, something we have made up in our heads. And God is trying to say, I think you are beautiful, crooked mouth and all.
    I want to love people as God loves people, because that is more important than any rule or law or church tradition - Loving God is more important than rigorous study of scripture. Loving people is more important than following whatever contrived construct about marriage or relationships created by the church. God is bigger than the bible. Your love, I submit, Must be bigger too. Good. Love. Truth. None of those are rules or requirements. In every attempt you or others make to live within 'the law' you crucify Love - you crucify Christ. Only when you stop basing your love on rules or requirements will you know the nature of God.

    You seem - and millions of others - do not - do NOT WANT God's love, unless you can EARN it. You are the older brother - you followed the rules and yet the one who didn't is the one who has the Father's Love. The father never killed the calf for you and that hurts you. God stands with you saying you ARE with God. Don't sweat the love and grace I show others - even those who absolutely "sinned!". You cannot understand, you cannot love without losing your mind; having your mind - and traditions - blown.
    “… the greatest detractor from high performance is fear: fear that you are not prepared, fear that you are in over your head, fear that you are not worthy, and ultimately, fear of failure. If you can eliminate that fear—not through arrogance or just wishing difficulties away, but through hard work and preparation—you will put yourself in an incredibly powerful position to take on the challenges you face" - Pete Carroll.

  12. #24
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Posts
    2,343
    Thanks (Given)
    243
    Thanks (Received)
    1256
    Likes (Given)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    0
    Piss Off (Given)
    0
    Piss Off (Received)
    0
    Mentioned
    12 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    1282389

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dmp View Post
    Why did you make this have anything to do with me? As if you are debating me? We're talking about the topic - and your questions are probably best-served to the author, not me. I agree on her central point - and I think honest Christians would have no room but to be happy for their mate if this scenario played out. Nobody is saying it'd be easy, but true love would have to mean no measure of ownership over the other person. When they are happy (id est, finding somebody they are in love with), love dictates their mate share their happiness. Until love gets to the point that can happen, it's probably not true/enlightened/godly type love. To me it's clear you have almost NO understand of Christ's love. You haven't experienced it, so probably do not understand it. You misinterpret or partially-interpret scripture to back up your traditional views and that's dangerous - well, not exactly dangerous except to the extent you might harm others with your contrived dogma, even though the amount of harm may be hard to measure except in terms of the grief and sadness and hurt your non-god-based-traditional beliefs lead folks to.

    Folks like you may be surprised how many Buddhists and hookers and atheists 'end up' in Heaven.

    And here is the single best part about the concept the author speaks of - it means the end of heartache. To achieve a place where we value others' love and decisions more than whatever hurt they would cause would mean the end of heartbreak. That appeals to me. Should appeal to everyone I'd guess. Finding love without ownership/attachment seems like - from the few days I've been thinking about this - exactly what God would have us learn. If we are happy somebody else 'got' our mate, and since our mate IS Christ as much as we are (because Christ calls us his 'bride', and a bride-and-groom are ONE person/soul/entity in scripture), we might-should/could be happy for the person who is now with our mate in love. Maybe? I'm talking this out as I think it - but I think I'm about right, even if I haven't articulated it right, right now.

    That's where I want to be - love-centric. Denying threats to my self-esteem (which is the root of all conflict). Denying ownership over the person I love. Loving the time she was there with me and being just fine with her not-being there because her path took her elsewhere. Hrm...
    That sounds more like a free-love situation rather than a marriage...

  13. #25
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    12,358
    Mentioned
    79 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    4760244

    Default

    Tis a pretty interesting topic - I think we have much space to explore in the dynamics of potential relationships other than a binary 'til death do us part' staple we're mostly stuck with.

    I know several people in polyamorous relationships and I think the the benefits inherent on both an individual and group level are greater than the sum of the negatives (which are usually religiously based)

    The difference in perspective of
    Binary - My partner has meet someone else, i will be alone, they don't love me anymore.
    vs
    Poly - My partner has meet someone else, I should meet them.
    is stark, but i don't think our engrained bias towards binary relationships is going anywhere anytime soon because those roots have been dug deep.
    If you also agree that an animals suffering should be avoided rather than encouraged, consider what steps you can take.

  14. #26
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    18,758
    Piss Off (Given)
    0
    Piss Off (Received)
    0
    Mentioned
    139 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    21475233

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by indago View Post
    That sounds more like a free-love situation rather than a marriage...
    Love must be free or it's not love.
    “… the greatest detractor from high performance is fear: fear that you are not prepared, fear that you are in over your head, fear that you are not worthy, and ultimately, fear of failure. If you can eliminate that fear—not through arrogance or just wishing difficulties away, but through hard work and preparation—you will put yourself in an incredibly powerful position to take on the challenges you face" - Pete Carroll.

  15. #27
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Posts
    2,343
    Thanks (Given)
    243
    Thanks (Received)
    1256
    Likes (Given)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    0
    Piss Off (Given)
    0
    Piss Off (Received)
    0
    Mentioned
    12 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    1282389

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Noir View Post
    Poly - My partner has meet someone else, I should meet them...
    And then we could have a three-some...

  16. #28
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    USA, Southern
    Posts
    27,683
    Thanks (Given)
    32441
    Thanks (Received)
    17532
    Likes (Given)
    3631
    Likes (Received)
    3156
    Piss Off (Given)
    21
    Piss Off (Received)
    2
    Mentioned
    58 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    21475257

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by NightTrain View Post
    I'm not wired that way. The betrayal from my first marriage left me crushed. Devastated. I couldn't even summon my anger to help, which is a damn sorry place to be in.

    But once I finally was able to rouse my anger as a defense mechanism, triggered by concern for my kid's well being, it was a pure, white-hot fury that took several years to cool. But it gave me the edge and I won everything.

    I see what the article is saying, but instincts for 1 man, 1 woman, 1 family is a powerful thing - and I think the notion of free love within the marriage is no marriage at all. It's a sham.


    The betrayal from my first marriage left me crushed. Devastated. I couldn't even summon my anger to help, which is a damn sorry place to be in.

    But once I finally was able to rouse my anger as a defense mechanism, triggered by concern for my kid's well being, it was a pure, white-hot fury that took several years to cool. But it gave me the edge and I won everything.
    Almost dead on, word for word, how I felt during my divorce. And yes, I got the house and custody of our 14 year old daughter.
    Here in the South, it almost takes an Act of God, for the dad to get custody--even more so when the child is a daughter. Always a major slam on the mother in regards to her truly being a fit mother.. -Tyr
    18 U.S. Code § 2381-Treason Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.

  17. Thanks Kathianne, NightTrain, Abbey Marie, Drummond thanked this post
  18. #29
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    18,758
    Piss Off (Given)
    0
    Piss Off (Received)
    0
    Mentioned
    139 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    21475233

    Default

    ^^ Wouldn't it be great to love ourselves enough to avoid trauma like that? That's my goal.

    Course, with MY dating life, 'loving myself' is about as far as it goes.
    “… the greatest detractor from high performance is fear: fear that you are not prepared, fear that you are in over your head, fear that you are not worthy, and ultimately, fear of failure. If you can eliminate that fear—not through arrogance or just wishing difficulties away, but through hard work and preparation—you will put yourself in an incredibly powerful position to take on the challenges you face" - Pete Carroll.

  19. #30
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Virginia, U.S.A.
    Posts
    13,954
    Thanks (Given)
    4821
    Thanks (Received)
    4637
    Likes (Given)
    2473
    Likes (Received)
    1562
    Piss Off (Given)
    0
    Piss Off (Received)
    3
    Mentioned
    126 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    14075389

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dmp View Post
    You're so full of shit right now.
    and your full of love? your not even polite when we talk DMP.
    Why the chip on your shoulder?

    Quote Originally Posted by dmp View Post

    Quote Originally Posted by revelarts
    And i have to say again, maybe a bit more plainly, Jesus reaffirmed marriage and condemned divorce.
    I'll stick with his views on this until i get an update myself. You're of course free to think as you will DMP.
    It's not unloving to disagree.
    No he didn't. (shrug)

    Christ affirmed King David - and many other Godly men - while they had dozens of wives AND concubines. Were they out of favor with Christ?
    ...and then Christ and Grace happen. God clearly talks about the church as his bride; and Christ the bridegroom through the new testament. Based on Christ's comment's on marriage - about the two becoming one flesh - The church IS Christ in that sense. I'm sorry if you disagree, but take it up with the authors of the Bible.

    Well you quote it yourself DMP "about the two becoming one flesh" .

    “Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’5 and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’?6 So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.”
    Matthew19

    Jesus doesn't promote anything but "2 becoming one" and "male and female" in marriage.
    that's it. if your looking for anything else you have make it up and shoe horn it in.
    And we see here that that he doesn't say anything about OTHERS from the outside of that union coming in as an addition or breaking them apart. he says as Genesis does, "let no one separate".

    As i mentioned dmp you may think you know better. fine. no hard feeling from me.
    We disagree. I can't honestly read Jesus's words or the other teaching of scripture and pretend that it supports what you seem to be promoting here.

    Just as i can't read your words here and honestly assume the love and " Attachment within sexual relationships" you're talking includes sex with animals or the dead. I can't honestly read the words of scripture and assume that "2" "male and female" and "let no one" REALLY means "2 or more" and "all genders any combo".
    It's not an honest reading of the words.

    again of course you're free to DO and THINK what ever you like but you can't honestly claim it's what Jesus described.
    You may say it's what you think he meant.. or what buddhist mean... but it's NOT what he said.
    Last edited by revelarts; 03-19-2016 at 12:24 PM.
    It is proper to take alarm at the first experiment on our liberties. The freeman of America did not wait till usurped power had strengthened itself by exercise, and entangled the question in precedents. James Madison
    Live as free people, yet without employing your freedom as a pretext for wickedness; but live at all times as servants of God.
    1 Peter 2:16

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Debate Policy - Political Forums