Is it wrong?

Dream said:
Thank you for that response, although I know I'm preaching to the choir!

We are to do justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with God.*1 It is impossible not to be slightly wicked without ruining your life according to the quote from Ecclesiastes *2 -- in other words its practically impossible for humans. It is a concept repeated many places in the gospels and letters. We are advised to be aware of our negative tendencies and attempt to overcome them by filling our time and minds wisely,*3 which is what 'living by the Spirit' means. In this way we publically exhibit the spirit of Christ within us, proving it is separate from and at war with tendencies towards error.*4 This is important, because as we function by the spirit of Christ within we will actively destroy all arguments put forward for living by mere regulations. Such regulations appear to be wise but are actually powerless for curbing our weaknesses. *5
  1. Micaiah 6:8
  2. Ecclesiastes 7:13-18
  3. John 3:5-10, Mathew 7:16, Gal 5:22-25, Rom 8:12-14
  4. Matthew 10:15-20, John 17:17-19, Romans 7:14-25
  5. John 6:45-49, Col 2:20-23, 2 Cor 1:12
Click to expand...


Well done! Your good rep is in the mail.

I'm putting that one in my files for future reference.

*signed: The Choir*
 
Netti-Netti said:
Love and trust are psychological states, aren't they? What about skill?

How does one communicate what the idea is and how the plan of action will proceed?
Click to expand...
You know, to me, it's more of a spontaneous thing, than a scripted thing. Adaptation is part of interaction, as well as a means of transformation. (That's where the real skillfulness comes in, imo.)
 
seattlegal said:
You know, to me, it's more of a spontaneous thing, than a scripted thing. Adaptation is part of interaction, as well as a means of transformation. (That's where the real skillfulness comes in, imo.)
Click to expand...
I agree. The only thing I am wondering about is how to get someone to agree to the interaction in the first place.

I mean, would you spontaneously engage someone in Aikido kumi jo partner practices using real swords without first alerting the other person to what they're getting into? The term "informed consent" come to mind.
 
Netti-Netti said:
I agree. The only thing I am wondering about is how to get someone to agree to the interaction in the first place.

I mean, would you spontaneously engage someone in Aikido kumi jo partner practices using real swords without first alerting the other person to what they're getting into? The term "informed consent" come to mind.
Click to expand...
hmm, in Aikido, swords are never used... In fact no weapon is used, because there are no weapons...

Infact, there is no "offense" at all.
 
Quahom1 said:
I don't know what that is, but it is not Aikido. As soon as a weapon is taken up, it is no longer a passive discipline.
Click to expand...
Aikido Toho is specifically concerned with sword techniques.

This picture came from aikido-world.com....

NishioSC1b.jpg



I think there is a common set of defense techniques.

Anyway, here's a whole page of aggressive Aikido:
kumi jo - Google Video
 
Netti, I don't know this form of Aikido. Mine was taught to dis-arm, and maintain the center of the circle. And never harm another.
 
Netti-Netti said:
I agree. The only thing I am wondering about is how to get someone to agree to the interaction in the first place.
Click to expand...
You might as well ask, "How and why do people start relationships?"

I mean, would you spontaneously engage someone in Aikido kumi jo partner practices using real swords without first alerting the other person to what they're getting into? The term "informed consent" come to mind.
Click to expand...
I agree that people generally don't appreciate being accosted out of the blue, especially by strangers.
 
Very interesting, all. I would agree with you, Netti, in terms of lust being a form of idolatry in which we are seeing the other as object rather than as child of God. (That said, I still don't think every sexual encounter with a spouse needs to be an expression of love- I think marriage is, in part, a social institution sanctioned by God to funnel our animalistic urges in productive ways- into having babies. I do not subscribe to the idea that material/animalistic forces in us are evil or problematic, so long as they are balanced with the higher order levels of reason and spirituality. I rail against the gnostic view of the material world as somehow evil, but then, I'm heavily influenced by Druidry and more traditional religious worldviews that tend to see our animal sides as good.)

That said, is there Biblical evidence to support this as a Biblical view (rather than a logical/spiritual one)? I think what got me was the "Biblical" view of sexual attraction to spouse. I mean, certainly there was meant to be respect, but (at least in the OT) it seems that sex within marriage is fine, so long as it's according to the rules. I'm finding rules against coveting (wanting what isn't yours) and against sexual misconduct (sex was supposed to happen in ways that led to procreation), but not much about lust for your spouse. I suppose we could make the leap, but is there anything in there that actually discusses lust within marriage in a clear manner, as opposed to all the rules against misconduct?
 
path_of_one said:
.... I still don't think every sexual encounter with a spouse needs to be an expression of love
Click to expand...
I seriouly doubt whether we experience any emotion in a pure form, including lust. You could argue that an encounter is lusty, but chances are it involves other emotions. As you've suggested elsewhere, the real turn on is who the person is. This would explain why people prefer sex with someone they love and why sex without love is comparatively unsatisfying.

For a moment let's say for the sake of argument that marital sex can be driven by pure lust. My initial reaction is that this would be contrary to what we know about the importance of psychological intimacy.

In a relationship where there is a high degree of psychological intimacy, the sex is like frosting on the cake - an expression of a closeness that is based on quite a bit more than just the physical turn on.
 
Netti-Netti said:
I seriouly doubt whether we experience any emotion in a pure form, including lust. You could argue that an encounter is lusty, but chances are it involves other emotions. As you've suggested elsewhere, the real turn on is who the person is. This would explain why people prefer sex with someone they love and why sex without love is comparatively unsatisfying.

For a moment let's say for the sake of argument that marital sex can be driven by pure lust. My initial reaction is that this would be contrary to what we know about the importance of psychological intimacy.

In a relationship where there is a high degree of psychological intimacy, the sex is like frosting on the cake - an expression of a closeness that is based on quite a bit more than just the physical turn on.
Click to expand...
Good thing I'm not married to you (no offense). I just know that a relationship can be unbelievably powerful on a day to day basis. Like heaven on earth...then they die, or they can't be that.

and I think, "what if we were to be together for a life time?". And "is there someone else who has that "magic" for me, and I for them?"

So I asks God, I says "God, I want that again..." And God says "it takes work." And I says, "so what, it's worth it." and God says "hmmmm".

What might have been/what might be.
 
seattlegal said:
It takes a whole lot of mutual love and trust....
Click to expand...
I agree, love and trust are essential. I'd say they are necessary, but not sufficient. It would take a fair amount of understanding, intuition, empathy, and skillful adaptation under changing circumstances to keep sight of the overall goal of spiritual growth. It would also take an advanced knowledge of how certain actions can help reach the goal.

In Milton Mayeroff's words, some kinds of button-pushing may not be "guided by the direction of the other's growth." This is actually inevitable because things are always in flux and because the other person doesn't see the relational process the same way you do. Each person is having a totally different experience.

Somehow the differences in perspective are harmonized. The relationship may very well have spontaneous aspects, but it would take a lot of personal discipline (e.g., self-restraint) and substantial insight and communication skill to make it work.

It is without a doubt a good thing to be able to rely on the other person's forgiveness and ongoing commitment when mistakes are made... which they invariably are. That constancy and that caring are the foundation. The foundation can support a shared reality when both partners are aware of how the relationship can help them realize new possibilities for growth.

The level of existential openness implied by the kind of commitment you were referring to is something I'd expect for people who are already fairly aware and evolved. But it's tricky to assume anything about that, especially when each person has a different perspective on the process and the the intended goal.

Some people have no strong spiritual/personal growth aspirations at all. Unless both partners have an awareness of how the relationship can help them realize new possibilities, an arrangement like this would have potential to create lots of emotional ambiguities, many of them unexpected, confusing or painful, and hard to manage. I think a safe and stable environment would be a good basis from which to proceed toward a more complex interpersonal agenda.
 
Quahom1 said:
Good thing I'm not married to you (no offense).
Click to expand...
A marriage between Q and Netti-Netti?? :eek:
Just thinking about the difficulties the differences between between you might cause, along with the difficulties the things you have in common might cause, is enough to make my head spin! :eek: :p
 
Netti-Netti said:
I agree, love and trust are essential. I'd say they are necessary, but not sufficient. It would take a fair amount of understanding, intuition, empathy, and skillful adaptation under changing circumstances to keep sight of the overall goal of spiritual growth.
Click to expand...
I agree.
It would also take an advanced knowledge of how certain actions can help reach the goal.
Click to expand...
That would be debatable. :D

In Milton Mayeroff's words, some kinds of button-pushing may not be "guided by the direction of the other's growth." This is actually inevitable because things are always in flux and because the other person doesn't see the relational process the same way you do. Each person is having a totally different experience.
Click to expand...
I would have to agree with this, as well.

Somehow the differences in perspective are harmonized. The relationship may very well have spontaneous aspects, but it would take a lot of personal discipline (e.g., self-restraint) and substantial insight and communication skill to make it work.

It is without a doubt a good thing to be able to rely on the other person's forgiveness and ongoing commitment when mistakes are made... which they invariably are. That constancy and that caring are the foundation. The foundation can support a shared reality when both partners are aware of how the relationship can help them realize new possibilities for growth.

The level of existential openness implied by the kind of commitment you were referring to is something I'd expect for people who are already fairly aware and evolved. But it's tricky to assume anything about that, especially when each person has a different perspective on the process and the the intended goal.

Some people have no strong spiritual/personal growth aspirations at all. Unless both partners have an awareness of how the relationship can help them realize new possibilities, an arrangement like this would have potential to create lots of emotional ambiguities, many of them unexpected, confusing or painful, and hard to manage. I think a safe and stable environment would be a good basis from which to proceed toward a more complex interpersonal agenda.
Click to expand...
Gee, only one point that I consider debatable? :confused: {How often does that happen?}
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top