An important distinction needs to be made, I feel, between loving our neighbors (which I do feel includes everyone), and loving whatever behavior our neighbors may choose to engage in. I certainly do not love everything that Hitler and Bundy did (and hate that which they are most known for), however I can acknowledge that each of them was created in the image of God and thus were needy of love. It really does come down to the old saying - love the sinner, hate the sin.

The UU first principle (which does acknowledge that famous teaching as one of its antecedents) presents similar challenges, but at the same time may be more easily applicable when dealing with a Hitler or a Bundy. Not in its spirit but in its wording.

 

"We covenant to affirm and promote the inherent worth and dignity of every person."

 

By saying this, we acknowledge that all persons have worth (after all, even Hitler was not always a monster) but there is nothing there that requires us to accept or condone their actions. We can oppose the death penalty and demand due process for Bundy (respecting his inherent worth and dignity) while being appalled and horrified by how he took that very respect and dignity away from his victims. We can recognize that Hitler was a human being with human failings and human foibles while still being appalled and horrified at how he and his followers stripped millions of dignity and life.

 

It is far from perfect, but sometimes it is easier to respect inherent worth and dignity than it is to love, which (to me) demands a far more emotional, engaged relationship that is hard to maintain in face of the actions taken.

 

Of course, that commandment to love, to do unto others as we would have them do unto us, is still there. Not only does it at least partly underlie that first principle, but it is found elsewhere in our traditions. "Jewish and Christian teachings which call us to respond to God's love by loving our neighbors as ourselves." is one of our six sources and it is one that I still strive to follow and takes seriously.

 

Mendalla

 

Imho Jae that line of thinking is a load of crap. Hitler was responsible for his actions without him those exact actions would not have happened. The same goes for Bundy he was the one doing the crime so he is the one that should do the time. I wasn't dirrectly affected by thier actions but if I was around at the time and they were directly responsible for the suffering of my loved ones then I would have a deep hatred for them. This hate the sin but love the sinner is nothing more than a dishonest way of Chrfistians trying to make themselves feel better about themselves IMHO!

 

dreamerman, I never said otherwise.

 

 

I would certainly feel anger towards them and want justice to be done.

 

 

How do you figure? I'm sincerely interested in your thinking on this.

Well, I love everyone. But some people I like very much, others not as much, and yet others not at all. But I love them all, even my enemies, as fellow humans and as unique forms of the same panentheistic God.

 

 

 

 

Honestly Pilgrims, I'm not sure I have to forgive the Ted Bundy's and Hitlers of the world. Without having been directly involved with their atrocities, other than the repurcussions and horrifying details of their warped thinking, I am on the periphery and an observer that doesn't stand within the circle but only experiencing the ripple effect of it all. I have to trust in a justice system and God to figure some of this out. The victims and their families, IMO, are probably the ones who could offer forgiveness but I would think that many would rather not. Wasn't there somewhere in the Bible that only God could offer forgiveness for sins? He is able to look into our hearts and know us. I think of King David and how God loved him, even after so much. It boggles my mind. I'm not sure I've evolved so well in this regard.

 

I think it may be too much to ask from some, and it's okay. I heard a parent forgive the shooter of the Newtown shootings, and honestly, I found it quite an amazing and inspirational thing for anyone to do. As for me, I would have to ask God to carry that burden.

 

I think I would find it easier to forgive things like gossip, strained relationships, politicians, etc...than I would be able to forgive greater tribulations.

 

 

Hi Pilgrims Progress,

 

 

Jesus, in the parable of the Good Samaritan (Luke 10:  36-37) defines a neighbour as one who does kindly to others.  The key to the parable is whomever needs our help, that is who we are supposed to be neighbur to.

 

Everyone is probably a close enough definition.

 

 

How one loves is alwasy a predicament.

 

Going back to the Luke 10 element of the discussion.  We prove we are a neighbour by responding to the need of another.  Will we always know what that is?  No.  We most likely won't.  So we should start with kindness and respect at the very least.

 

Moving on to the larger issues of the Hitler's, Bundy's and Ford's neighbourliness would also extend to truth telling.  At minimum telling one or the other that what they are up to is wrong is loving.  Does that mean that we should be sticking our nose into everyone's business?  No it doesn't.

 

 

You do not have to approve of your neighbours to love them.

 

We have new neighbours who, frankly, have some very unneighbourly behaviours.  They like motorcycles and revving them late at night on weekends.  Quite often they are violating the local noise by-laws.

Being neighbourly would be communicating how that impacts on our household in a respectful manner.  Since it has been winter and windows are often closed it has not be overly loud.  If it keeps up when the weather gets better we will probably have to have a chat.

 

If that doesn't bear any fruit then we will have to pursue another avenue to effect a reconciliation.  In the meantime we will continue to treat their space respectfully and try not to let how we live life on our side of the fence adversely effect how they live life on their side.

 

The previous neighbours were quieter but had their own quirks that required some discussion to smooth out.

 

As long as the behaviour of the neighbour is not putting anyone in harm's way patience remains a virtue.

 

Grace and peace to you.

John

Ya know, distasteful though his behaviour may be, I'm not entirely (actually not at all) comfortable with Rob Ford being mentioned alongside Adolf Hitler and Ted Bundy.

True. I don't think Hitler was ever late for work.

 

I agree with Don.Jae's quote ----It really does come down to the old saying - love the sinner, hate the sin.

 

This is from a Bible point of view

 

Jesus was able to understand that the person is influenced in their thinking and therefore the body --that is the physical seen body only carries out what our thoughts are and our thoughts come from what is in our heart    ----So the physical person is a vessel used by our thinking to carry out the thought by action -----So loving the person with this understanding then becomes easy as the person who is a Natural Man or Carnal Man is just acting out their Fleshly desires ---they are without the Holy Spirit ---and are influenced by Satan ----Hitler and all others entertained what was in their heart which then manifested into action by their desire for power ----Cain  committed the first murderer --and God showed His Grace and protected him -----there was no law against murder and so there was no sin committed in God's eyes ---but He did not validate Cains behavior ----When we learn to fully love our neighbour it is very freeing and a Blessing to our lives -----

 

 

Eve is a perfect example of this ---Jesus gave the perfect example of His loving His neighbour when He told the adultress to go and sin no more ------We without the Holy Spirit are unable to love our neighbour as Jesus loves us -----which is the new command Jesus gave ---Love your neighbour as I love you ----John 13:34-35

 

The Bible makes all this very clear in ----that evil forces are at work ----

 

 

Pilgrims,

 

as a meditation on your questions, i suggest you find a copy of werner herzog's film "into the abyss".

 

when you watch it, keep in mind that werner is very much against capital punishment

 

you can watch it on youtube & perhaps netflix or @ your local library (don't know if Australia has them, but...)...video rental store?

 

personally, i think that loving my neighbour requires WORK & EXPERIENCE & that first i must come to grok myself.  then i can start worrying aboot my neighbour...

 

i think that there is more than 1 "technique" to love your neighbour and that history is filled with certain people who have figured out certain techniques that then can be adopted by others...to try out...

 

because trying to figure out how to do it by one's self can be tough...;3

 

oh, and today is back to SPRING temperatures here.  sun shining.  wearing my shorts.  saw a hawk flying.  got to talk to g_d, who had an English name, and who was telling me how to get rid of my dry skin around my nose...drink apple cider...he was a handsome man with a lovely beard, kind eyes, and brave...

 

got a spiritual recharge today

 

i love reality...

I agree. I certainly wouldn't compare Rob to Hitler or Bundy. I think the very idea is ridiculous and I am not a fan of Ford.

I love these posts. They never fail to make me smile.

 

By the way, never do a Google Image Search for "Carnal Man" thinking you'll bring up some comic book character. That was a mistake. I was thinking somebody must have produced a Carnal Man comic where "Fleshy desires" were his kryptonite, but no, instead I got emotionally scarred.

 

Police arrive at the chansen household.

 

"Excuse me, ma'am.  We've been having reports of screams & yells & strange bangings from your home...you know the noise ordinance..."

 

"Sorry.  My husband likes to surf Wondercafe.  And what is seen cannot be unseen...not without a lot of beer...you should see our bill..."

Pilgrim - it's easy to say but hard to follow through.  Love your neighbour.  I can love the x-con, the immigrant, the person whose religion is different from mine.  I volunteer to feed the hungry, and as I get to know the individuals I love can love them.  But I find it hard to love some people. 

 

My church is working through some questions right now.  One is "When we say 'all are welcome', who do we mean by 'all'?   Who would not feel welcome within our walls, joining our groups, worshipping with us? 

 

I think this question is related to 'who is my neighbour?'  

 

Who do I find hard to love?   Those people who, intentionally or not, seem to treat me and those I care about as less worthy than they are.  

 

Who would not feel welcome?   Those who are not open to accepting and loving towards me and those I love.  

 

Those people who seem, intentionally or not, to harm relationships between peoples, and between people and nature. 

 

So I work at trying to love those in whom I don't see love. 

  Well lets see. How does this crime or sin if you want to call it come about? Does it just come out of the blue or is someone personally responsible for the crime? I  am not talking about what you may refer to as sin here jae. I am not talking about homosexual acts or petty crime. I am talking about someone commiting the most heinous crimes imaginable. Can you say love the sinner but hate the sin in this case especially if it was one of your loved ones who was the victim jae? I don't think I could. So I know how some Christians like to play love the sinner but hate the sin card when they are talking about homosexuality because they are not directly affected by this.Now this I ask you jae, if say you hate sin and you consider homosexuality as sin then how do you separate the person engaged in the act from the sin you hate? Do you really love them jae or is it just something that looks good on paper?

Well if that is your opinion unsafe then that is your opinion. Here is my opinion and you can take it with a grain of salt. I hope they never pick you for jury duty because i think you would be asking them to lock up Satan instead.

dreamerman, I believe that individual sins come about as a result of the fallen state of humanity into which each of us is born. People are responsible for the sins which they commit. I believe that followers of Jesus are to love people unconditionally so while it may seem difficult to forgive people at first after they sin, said forgiveness is always the goal. Further, I believe that, with great help from the Spirit of God, it is possible for me to forgive anyone who sins against me or any member of my family. I pray, of course, that no heinous acts ever befall us.

We are admonished first to love our God with all our being, and then to love our neighbour as ourselves.

To me in this context "neighbour" is everyone.

Sometimes there are some we find harder to love than others. It can depend both on the actions of the neighbour, and the extent it has personally affected me.

I did not, at least to my knowledge, lose any family members through the holocaust - so, it might make it easier for me to love the neighbour of Hitler, than it might be for someone of Jewish faith and heritage who lost all their family and so many of their people.

I have never had a child taken and die of atrocities so awful I choose not to name, so it might be easier for me to love the Bundy neighbour than for someone who has list a child in this way.

But I have my own neighbours I have trouble loving.

But the One who gave the command knows how difficult it is to love those who persecute and hurt us. This One does not expect perfection of me, but rather admonishes me to think about the command and do my best.

And draws me to the part of the admonishment that says "as you love yourself" . . . I make mistakes, I do bad things, I err . . . And I have to make up, make amend, and pay any cost to society when I do so, as do the Hitlers and the Bundys. But I also want to be changed and redeemed, and this is the part of my neighbour I am to love, even if they have not yet reached the part of realizing it yet themselves.

Easy . . . A resounding NO!

See, this is why it's incredibly difficult to deal with fundamentalists. I'm not sure that Jae actually believes why he's typing here or not, but many do, so we'll bite and go with it.

 

This is an incredibly stupid and baseless belief. The "fallen state of humanity"?!? What a crock. Every species has jerks and sociopaths. God himself is a murderous prick in the bible. Some standard he sets for humanity there.

 

As soon as you use a phrase like, "the fallen state of humanity," people simply assume you have nothing intelligent to offer on the subject. Why should they? You've gone to the bible for your answer. If you want to live *your* life by your understanding of the bible, go for it. When you try to apply your biblical understanding to the lives of others, people are increasingly going to look at you like you're an idiot.

 

The thing is, this crime of "sin" is an arbitrary crime, defined in a book that lists perfectly acceptable acts as sins, right beside obvious illegal acts. Christians can fight about what is and what is not a sin all day long. Good news! The bible supports you both. Now what?

 

Personally, I don't care what the bible calls a "sin". It's not important. I care about what I do that hurts other people. I figure if you go around trying to maximize the joy of others while minimizing their pain, you're doing well in this life. "Sin" is just some ancient concept of right and wrong. We should be past this debate about what is a sin and what isn't.

 

I believe it is important to remember the word "love" used here means to give of oneself for the good of another.  It does not require liking them or respecting what they do. 

 

It does require in many situations taking the time to know them well enough to be confident about what is actually helpful.  For example, if we encounter a beggar at the mall or the street corner, what is actually helpful?  If it is someone caught by a sudden, temporary loss, giving them some money might be helpful.  If they are caught in a self-destructive lifestyle, giving them some money enables their self-destruction.

 

Hitler is dead and Bundy, as far as I know, is in jail.  I can't do anything helpful that I know of for Hitler, and no personal call to do anything helpful for Bundy.  As I occassionally preach, the degree of our failure at showing this kind of love to the annoying neighbour or hurtful relative is a measure of the distance between us and God.

And wandering into this thread was just totally made worthwhile.  Thanks Chansen!

 

Pilgrim, I do think it's a good question.  I just don't have the patience to read through the posts carefully right now, and I don't have an answer.

Thanks for giving it so much thought, folks.......

 

I understand why some have mentioned that Rob Ford should not be mentioned alongside Hitler and Bundy - I was merely attempting to demonstrate the range of "neighbours".

 

It's just that I often find myself feeling uncomfortable when folks use words like "idiot" and "moron" on sites such as this and Facebook - somehow it comes acoss to me as negating the worth of a fellow human being, a "neighbour". 

Mendalla, I like the Unitarian approach, and you have clearly demonstrated this here in your responses to other's.

 

 

When Jesus was annoyed with behaviour he seemed to favour throwing over furniture - what do you make of that?

 

Also, was he only prepared to forgive and love folks if the "sinful" behaviour ceased?

 

What do you think Jesus's attitude would be to folks who said, "I hear you man, but I'm cool with my behaviour?

Hi Pilgrims Progress,

 

 

One incident does not make a pattern.  Nor is that the whole of that one incident.  Jesus braided a whip which he also used to "clean house."  At minimum that implies that this was not a simple reaction but a deliberate and methodical response.  I don't know how long it takes Jesus to braid a whip.  I suggest that it probably takes longer than counting to ten and Jesus, after braiding it was still angry enough to use it.  The use of the word "annoyed" is really downplaying the emotion present.

 

 

According to the narrative he begs for God to forgive those who crucified him, mocked him and beat him without any showing the slightest hint of remorse.

 

He calls Peter "Satan" but never casts him out.  Peter denies him three times and still Jesus doesn't run him off.

 

Saul is hunting Christians down with the intent to murder them when Jesus meets him on the road to Damascus and gives him a new and less bloody purpose.

 

None of us coming to Christ in the 20th and 21st Century do that from a position of anything approaching innocence.

 

So no, I don't think that Jesus needs sinful behaviours to cease as a prerequisite for his loving and forgiving others.

 

 

A rich young ruler once asked Jesus what he needed to do to win eternal life.  Jesus tells him to sell all that he has and give the proceeds to the poor (he tells him to do other stuff which the rich young ruler already claims to do).  Apparently the rich young ruler found this to be to high a price to pay for eternal life.

 

Prior to that we are told that Jesus "looked at him and loved him."

 

We are not tolk that when the rich young ruler balks at the command to sell that Jesus loves him any less.

 

We also don't hear Jesus say, for you I'll make an exception.

 

Jesus accepts us as we are.  Jesus nowhere promises that he will be content to let us remain that way.

 

Grace and peace to you.

John

Pilgrim,

Love is a misleading word like God ... it doesn't mean that's someone you would like to get in bed with!

 

 

Albeit I know some business people and other authorities that would like to have been in bed with Hitler. I wouldn't put it past a 'hole buncha politicians and curios types ... as power is the grab stone ...

 

Consider a softer desire to use Hitler as an example of how not to do things. This is mind work or intellect functioning ... something declared off-base by free-wiles as god alone without Shadow. As human it appears we are deteminate in the field of error ... NB not Eire (as this is the Eire of thought) This is intangible to those of free will and captive intellect. These are institutional and don't move ... Cosmos rotaes about eM as the finest definition of a BH! The following ontological dimesion of Mol loch?

 

Someone once said that we flip sides like the dinerii coine from time to time for lessons in the opposing thoughts and desires. What's positive and negative at any time or season depends on perspective --- Heiseinberg-Pauling Conjecture. As all of this is abstractly essense you'al ... it is yet intangible unless your a middle man or medium on the fringe ...

 

Then there are stones ... j'deis 'ns use eM for building temples ... these pop up as hard'eaded people who won't learn nut'n ...

 

Some when encountering sensations get really stirred ... like Mrs. Hype with that squirrel character ... caused a revival ... and people thought what de'eL ... and RIFTS developed cause some didn't sense it ... it is like a ghost passing as a dimple in the night a bump or rapture?

 

I think I'm gonna lose it so I gutta go ... mother-nature calls ... don't interfere with Ur ... constantpatience is bad ... something has to give sometimes in a large field of confined energy ... right ARM? Sort of like Tau you never know the what isn't part ... because as mortalized you never got that far ... just you wait! You never experienced pure blockage of wiles before ... the wizer you get the less you can do ... sort of ironic, satyr-like or perhasp analogue for something unseen!

 

Real people say it is all myth the entire thing is illusion, possibly because they've experienced the depth of lye'n? Thus the real become unreal ... just because of perspective of intelligence and where intelligence isn't ... a cloudy dilemma that can be figured on ...

 

Do I have doubts? Sure do considering all the people that've told me they know everything ... God reduced, perhaps redacted? I know there has to be more books to describe infinite ... it is just indeterminatedly, indefinite ... something one mortal can't know and we also can't get it together because of emotional difficulties ... this abound like Hopi's ... they can pop up anywhere ... some call eM Jack ... like a satyr ... but different ...

To love others as oneself. Means to me that we see that others are actually connected to me. That I am part of something greater than I and that something includes Rob Ford etc.
.
.now to be provocative.
.

However when I had cancer I had no problem radiating a part of.myself.to stop it from killing me. Just as if we would cut off a limb to save ourselves from infections, (gangrene, flesh eating diseases, ) we are not saying we do not love that limb. Rob Ford is diseased flesh. We do not stop loving him if we cut him out of our lives. Or doing what is possible to protect me and that which I am a part of

 

Alex, I think of this in relation to a child's parents or grandparents.  I cannot think of anything my son or daughter could do that would make me stop loving them.  I love them unconditionally.   And yes, they have caused me some anxiety along the way, some concern, some worry - sometimes one or the other has seemed to be on the path to self-distruction.  But generally they are good kids. 

 

ButI have seen others who have had to deal with addictions, stealing, distruction, living on the streets, jail.  I have a friend who has found it necessary for her own well-being to separate herself from her own daughter and grandchildren.  But she hasn't stopped loving them.  They are breaking her heart because she loves them.  She lives in hope that the time might come when she might be reunited with them (especially her granddaughter), but for the present it is better for her, and perhaps for them, if she puts a couple of provinces between them.    Cut off a limb to save yourself.  Cut off a child when the relationship becomes so toxic that you cannot help and perhaps you might harm (by enabling).  It happens.   But the love is still there. 

 

 

Amen............

Regards

Rita

 

My brain didn't even pick on that. I'm so used to seeing this type of discussion focus on dictators and serial killers that whacked-out mayor didn't even register.

 

Agreed. Clifford Olsen or Paul Bernardo would be the correct Canadian comparison for Bundy.

 

Mendalla

 

 

Yes.  Doesn't mean that I am good at it.

 

You remember the baby in arms, or the basics of who they are.

You try to remember that it is their behaviour, their actions, their words that are on some scale of bad to evil (in your opinion or societies rules)

 

 

Now, do I do that most of the time?  It depends on how fed up I am and how good I am being at remembering the teachings of friends, family and church.  I

When I fail to focus on event and instead go 'that person is an idiot", i miss their times of brilliance or goodness, and I start to look like an idiot.

 

 

A worthy aim to incorporate into my life.

 

Do you have any whacked out neighbours?

 

What is the neighbours whacked out impression of psychopathic Christians that don't know they are? Could it be you and you can't see that reflection? Maybe it is a black glass you're looking through, obsidion, close to onyx? That could nail the objective ...

 

Could you have some whacked out Christians related to you? Be careful now ... you might be labelled cynical about things that few people know are true ... causing great chaos in de pits ... sometimes known as the greater Nus antes as we appear to be in this together ... contrary to those that try and shunn or isolate half of creation be cause they do things without problem that some Christians can't handle.

 

Do you have a handle on that convoluted comment-Eire ...

 

WaterBuoy, I understand that love has many faces - what do you see as the many faces of God?

Just a general comment, as trying to type with this new keyboard, is so frustrating....

(I almost feel like I'm learning to write for the first time).

 

When it comes to faith matters, I'm besieged by doubts and questions. All the time I'm aware that my opinions are just that - my opinions, -  based on my feelings, thoughts, and intuition..

 

Yet when I read what others post here I get the impression that many of you have moved beyong that point?

 

If so, how is this possible?

Hi PP:

 

Whatever I think or say is just my opinion, and I take whatever others say as their opinion, even if they state it as fact.

 

"I know that I don't know."

-Socrates

 

 

 

I agree with Arminius, when it comes to talking about faith what I say is what my opinion is - where I am at in my faith walk at that time.  My faith is a living thing.  My faith and understanding of God, the Bible, relationships with others, and life changes as I learn and grow.  I learn and grow through life experiences, others, and literature.  And of course, as the Spirit leads me.

 

Doubts - yes

Questions - yes

 

Where I am at today in my understanding and faith is where I am at today . . . tomorrow my thoughts, feelings, intution, knowledge, and beliefs may change through what I learn in the next 24 hours.

 

Sometimes I have doubts and ask questions and find that for me the answer remains the same - and sometimes the answer is different.

 

 

always questions -- of that i have no doubt.

Love, like light, is manifest as a spectrum of qualities. My personal discipline consists in the identification and cultivation of those qualities, With time, this discipline has produced growth. Someday this growth will  produce maturity. Though I have made significant progress, I still have a ways to go.

 

I bring my growth in the practice of love into all my relations. Not as a momentary expression of will determined by circumstance but as a constant expression of character determined by practice. I do not love this or that person or group. I simply love.

 

George

 

"Love is patient and kind; love is not jealous or boastful; it is not arrogant or rude. Love does not insist on its own way; it is not irritable or resentful; it does not rejoice at wrong, but rejoices in the right. Love bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things." - from an old and valued book

Hi Pilgrims Progress,

 

 

Wisdom is not necessarily a function of the answers one finds.  Often wisdom is a function of the questions one asks.  I would hope that all who participate in matters of faith bring along a healthy amount of doubt and question.

 

 

Speaking only for myself.

 

I believe that there is a healthy mix of thought and feeling whenver matters of faith are discussed.  Sometime this leads to opinion and other times this leads to knowledge.

 

 

Depends on available data.

 

Can I know the whole of God?  No.  I can't.  Even if all data about God was made available to me I am a finite person and could not do much but begin to try and process it all.  I'd likely never finish.

 

Can I know the whole of God that presents as Christian?  Yes, potentially I could.  All things considered Christianity has been around for a narrow slice of all human history and has undergone reasonably few permutations.

 

Do I agree with everything that might be described as "Christian?"  By no means.

 

Does my know more about calvinism than another member of WonderCafe.ca mean I know more about God than they do?  No, it doesn't.  Does it mean anything?  Yes, it means I know more about Calvinism and how Calvinists tend to view God than non-Calvinists.

 

It may also mean that when coming at things from a Calvinist perspective I tend to be far more confident about what it is that I am communicating.  Am I right to be so confident?  It is hard for me to be objective at this point of the discussion.  I have been convnced to believe in a certain way.  That conviction drives me in certain ways.

 

Grace and peace to you.

John

The many faces of God (g's that echos) including wisdom as a varient of scattered and introverted thought? One has to gather from there --- Ecclesiastes and now is the season as was yesterday and tomorrow as this is an infinitely subtle intellect as Gods children didn't wish to know (from GEO's old and valued tome). Some say this was buried under a mythical intent ... very suggestive that this Tu will pas ... allows for apocalypse and hoer sis ... Des Cartier's dream of abstracted weal th' ... ð's ITe ...

 

St Niche of Myra spoke on this as the desire being obvious ... but God's face of wisdom being just not here ... must be out of here to match up with WEBSTER's relating of wiles and intellect ... intellect is out there ... thus that ethereal quality that frightens lovers out of stupors! They generally not up to looking into Des Lexis and LOGOS! That'd be a false idealism in that proximity ...

 

Any body here ever study the dynamics of proximics?

Yes.

Come on GEO weep a bit of that hidden knowledge ...

Twist my tear ducts will you?

 

How we inhabit space in relationship with others inhabiting the space. I walk into a coffee shop and plunk my books on a free table, claiming the space.

 

Watch two folk at a table, how they move the salt shaker nearer or farther. How they push dirty dishes into the other's space. All signifying distribution of power and such.

 

Eye contact walking along city thoroughfare. Smiles on a bus. Winks in a bar. Coughs during a sermon. All outside expressions of inside impressions.

 

An art to be developed by practice. Learning how to be present in common space as beneficial influence. Inward disposition subtly communicated by outward deportment.

 

Talk is the smallest part of communication. Affect the larger part. Inward disposition the determining feature.

 

Love radiant through posture and gesture; sublime communication.

 

Get me a hanky.... I am done with such weeping for the moment. Will cry a river if requested.

 

Both present and absent...

 

George

 

Did you know there was a study called proximics that details the areas of subjective and objective dimensions in psychology with a large medium ... follows LOGOS a literacy parallels health of the starved human psyche. To save the soul it must not be loched up or shelved ...

 

Many subjective types as the dot in the centre of the circe don't understand cause too close to the intimate dimension disallows self evaluation ... one has to extend across the medium to get something on the objective. Very many subjective types don't beieve in mediums, minds or god's psyche ... thus they remain overly emotional about their subjective state. Leaves me in tears about how psyche was rejected by the monolithic type ... thus the script remained dark to'eM!

 

This whole etude had an icon of a circe with a dot ... it was found on the end of the famous J'aimes Bone Box where JiZus retreated to get the skeleton out of A'Donis LochUr ...it is khe to the myth of the Mon-KISS Prin ... of being blind, silent and unhearing to the muons of L'uvers in space ... almost like Winds in the Willows and Weaveling if you take to cottoning alien myths! Strange ... right? The toadie involved was bumpy ... not a f(rogue-i) ... there are further implications of being left high and dry ... after the Hopi Legend ... did you know a Bull Frog will swallow a toadie like nothing? Thus the Ibis evolved ... a burd dedicated to fishing for reptilian creatures without warm hearts towards what bugs eM ... something mortals can learn from ... on the topic of how not to do things ...

 

The authorities are so positive ... but they don't know the ruagh pathe of everything until some clues were gathered ...

Thus JiZus said "Satan get behind me" and the medium expanded ... between delight and he who gathered light ... a Shadowy personae to say least about critters humans fear do to dementia ... yet they say they don't wish to know! is that dilemma or just stray enigma ... certainly puzzles the outliers ...

 

I have spent a considerable ammount of time studing ethics. I have also been forced through illness, and the deaths of most of the people I knew in my youth to make decisions that others may not be forced to face.  

 

Howevr that just means that I have examined several approaches as to treating others, and have picked the ones, or a combination of approaches that I like most.   That does not mean I am certain, or even capable of doing what I believe. it just means I have decided what I should do  based on my life experiences, and have examined what many philosophers/theologians have chosen for an approach.  

 

Howevr if my life experiences challenges those beliefs, or if I read or talk to others that have other approaches, I may change my mind. 

 

 

Those with doubts will impart of an quest ...

 

Those that believe they know everything will remain pious and difficult to carry on a discourse with if it is off line ... Choosers Tale based on the Millers Widow ...

 

She may not have been a widow but just needing something to grind as her husband was off mess'n around with various cede Eire ... a fertile place to ponder ...

To more succinctly say what (I think) Dreamerman is trying to explain in his exchange with Jae - "the sin" is a part of "the sinner". Ted Bundy is "a man who committed heinous crimes". To love who they are, rather than who they are not, necessarily means loving the whole package. This doesn't mean that those negative aspects of them have to be loved, but that, for example, Hitler's lovability has to be so great that the unlovability of his crimes is the weaker force.
.
I suppose this is do-able. It sort of trivializes the crimes, though. It also trivializes, by inflation, the love we feel for those close to us. You know, the genuine kind, the kind we don't have to *try* to feel.

Well that was better than the way I put it, so sure I will go with that.

 

Not I. To quote an joke I heard decades before I set foot in a UU church "Son, if was certain of anything, I wouldn't be a Unitarian." Any answer I give should be mentally qualifed with "that's where I am at right now." New insight could lead to change.

 

Also, the following: http://www.wondercafe.ca/blogs/mendalla/doubt-and-faith

 

Mendalla