living moral sometimes is painful, and may hurt someone you care or don’t care about.
another thought (I don’t mean to tangen your thread or anything):
almost everyone is nice to those they care about, family and friends. Does that make almost everyone socially moral? I personally think that those who are nice to strangers may be the ones who are more socially moral.
being spiritually content will allow you to shrug off the pain brought on by others.
By living in the will of God you won’t beat up a bully,… but show the bully love. There is more then one way to skin a cat. and there is more then one way to find a means to an end. The easy way is usally the first way that pops in your mind,… (steal because you are hungery),… but the right way is to find a better way and then that will become easy for you with practice. Where you are in morality is where you have learned from. Learn from God
i may be a hopeless romantic, but I do believe that when love is right in your life, you can tolerate more, and the ground is a little more like clouds.
Self esteam is what your purpose is… What you do in life to find happiness. Self esteam can be found on negative things thus we have the seeds of anorexia.
Love can give you purpose thus making you stonger.
But the love of God can give you peace without the love of a spouce. Thus allowing you to be stronger then that I wrote above.
The peace of the Holy Spirit heals the soul and allows you to become a better person by meditating on God’s word and thus figureing out a better way to do things.
uhmm, ok missionary. I wasn’t really looking for a sermon, but a philosophy or some discussion.
I don’t think the love of god can replace the love of another human being. i think a lot of people who don’t have true love in their lives may seek out the belief in other abstract things to cover what they are really missing which is love. These abstract things can be belief in god, material things, status, whatever.
Why does everything has to be religious. Do you cook eggs in a cross pattern in the pan, is your car shaped like the tomb of christ? does everything has to be in relation to being obsessed with your particular religion?
Couples who pray together stay together. No God doesn’t replace the need for personal love. But it can sustain a person better then the love of a spouce. For the love of a spouce is filled with unrealistic expectations and fights. God is the perfect medium. Better then any psychic or psychologist.
Really? I recall reading not long ago of studies showing that born again Christians have one of the highest divorce rates in the U.S. and that the Bible Belt states have higher rates of divorce. One might conclude from this that people who base a significant part of their lives on belief in mythology might also enter marriage with unrealistic ideas about what it takes to make marriage work. Or that these are people who believe a third party (e.g., God) has primary responsibility for the strength of their marriage and so they don’t have to assume it themselves. I imagine there are arguments other than these to be made as to why this population divorces at the rate they do but, regardless, the statistics don’t seem to support your assertion.
this may be true as long as both partners are of the same religious conviction, but if the belief is too fundamental, and one partner begins to believe in something different, the marriage may be torn apart simply b/c of a shift in religious belief and/or conviction.
If praying is something a couple values, then good for them. i think what really makes a couple stay together is that they were right for each other in the first place, and that they continue to do fun things with each other so they don’t drift apart.
Is it immoral to hurt someone by enforcing morality upon their consciousness and thusly taking over their lives? OR is it more subtle, thus un-mitigated and un-ending?
Guilt is not the self-same as hurting someone, and neither one are the same as (im)morality, so saying that guilt is both moral to implant and causes hurt isn't a contradiction, and in fact, disproves arguments that say that causing pain is always wrong.
On the other hand, saying that teaching morality is immoral, that's just a regular old contradiction. You can say that teaching a person morality can hurt them, and it does cause suffering, that would be hard to deny. But to say that it's immoral wouldn't be coherent.
I don’t think so, but it might depend on the specifics. The desire to end ALL desire would be contradictory. To relate it back to your statement on morals,
“Teaching THAT moral lesson is immoral” wouldn’t be contradictory*, but
“Teaching ALL moral lessons is immoral” would, so far as I can tell.
*- The presumption being that ‘that moral lesson’ isn’t really moral at all, and this is the speaker’s way of saying so. If the speaker is saying that the lesson is in fact moral, and it is in fact immoral to teach it, then it would be a contradiction after all.