Marriage

[Edgarcito]

8 minutes ago, WalterP said:

 

The unattainable and the practical are mutually exclusive conditions.

 

 

So?  That doesn't limit my aspirations towards the "unattainable".  Science?  Religion?

[Edgarcito]

8 minutes ago, WalterP said:

 

Yes, your mind was playing a trick on you when you wrote about reality being in balance, Edgarcito.

 

Your forgot that you've long argued that it isn't because of original sin.

 

So, when it comes to this thread, where are you on this?

 

Is the universe broken and unbalanced or balanced and unbroken?

 

It's still your call.

I don't think we know due to our many limitations.  What I would speculate is unbalanced and broken....

[WalterP]

Just now, Edgarcito said:

So?  That doesn't limit my aspirations towards the "unattainable".  Science?  Religion?

 

You can live your life however you like, Edgarcito.

 

But can you make a coherent argument to justify how you live it?

 

So far in this thread, it doesn't look like it.

[WalterP]

3 minutes ago, Edgarcito said:

I don't think we know due to our many limitations.  What I would speculate is unbalanced and broken....

 

Then you are contradicting yourself within this thread, Ed.

 

Arguing one way, for balanced and broken but also speculating for unbalanced and broken.

 

As I said, not much of a coherent argument here if you are contradicting yourself.

 

 

[◊ Krowb ◊]

3 minutes ago, Edgarcito said:

So?  That doesn't limit my aspirations towards the "unattainable".  Science?  Religion?

 

I think Ed is confusing Walter's point of actually unattainable versus currently unattainable.

 

[WalterP]

  On 6/14/2021 at 8:46 PM, Edgarcito said:

Just visiting with a young lady the other day.....she was adamant that people growing apart/difficulty was a valid reason for divorce.....that vows/trust didn't supersede the growing apart.  I guess my question was why get married.  Thought I'd poll the non-believers here and see if marriage meant anything to them....if life is just something that happens, then marriage really shouldn't mean much. 

 

Not entirely on topic Edgarcito, but I can't agree with your last, throwaway comment.

 

If life is something that just happens then it gains its meaning ONLY from us, the people living it.

 

Not from an unattainable theoretical absolute.

 

We alone are responsible to each other and to ourselves to give our lives (and by extension, our marriages) meaning. 

 

Thank you.

 

Walter.

 

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

 

Above is a rephrasing of one of my earlier posts.  

 

If life is just something that happens then there is no theoretical absolute to try and reach.

 

...and the universe is unbroken by sin.

 

And therefore, balanced.

 

 

Thank you.

 

Walter.

[Edgarcito]

11 minutes ago, WalterP said:

 

You can live your life however you like, Edgarcito.

 

But can you make a coherent argument to justify how you live it?

 

So far in this thread, it doesn't look like it.

I expect there is a way to marry science and religion.  The thoughts bounce around in my head regularly.  I don't think Walter that it has to be one way or the other to be a coherent life....

 

Truthfully, I like my thoughts from earlier in the day...

[Edgarcito]

21 minutes ago, WalterP said:

  On 6/14/2021 at 8:46 PM, Edgarcito said:

Just visiting with a young lady the other day.....she was adamant that people growing apart/difficulty was a valid reason for divorce.....that vows/trust didn't supersede the growing apart.  I guess my question was why get married.  Thought I'd poll the non-believers here and see if marriage meant anything to them....if life is just something that happens, then marriage really shouldn't mean much. 

 

Not entirely on topic Edgarcito, but I can't agree with your last, throwaway comment.

 

If life is something that just happens then it gains its meaning ONLY from us, the people living it.

 

Not from an unattainable theoretical absolute.

 

We alone are responsible to each other and to ourselves to give our lives (and by extension, our marriages) meaning. 

 

Thank you.

 

Walter.

 

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

 

Above is a rephrasing of one of my earlier posts.  

 

If life is just something that happens then there is no theoretical absolute to try and reach.

 

...and the universe is unbroken by sin.

 

And therefore, balanced.

 

 

Thank you.

 

Walter.

That's fine, that's your opinion.  It's not mine.

 

Edit:  You really have no means of saying balanced...

[alreadyGone]

10 minutes ago, Edgarcito said:

I expect there is a way to marry science and religion.  ...

 

"Religion", Ed?

Why would I care about religion, whether I am a Christian believer or not?

 

Is the matter not the absolute existence or non-existence of a soverign God?

 

Science is objective.

Religion is subjective.

Unless one can posit an objective reason to believe in God, then that too is subjective.

[Edgarcito]

Just now, alreadyGone said:

 

"Religion", Ed?

Why would I care a about religion, whether I am a Christian believer or not?

 

Is the matter not the absolute existence or non-existence of a soverign God?

Maybe because you would want religious people to understand science....where you might frame it that there is anecdotal evidence to support God in science.....and vice versa. 

 

I don't know that I'm understanding your question please.

[Edgarcito]

Walter, what is a balanced universe.  Please explain.

 

Thanks.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

51 minutes ago, Edgarcito said:

I expect there is a way to marry science and religion. 

Would a marriage between science and religion be valid?

[florduh]

1 hour ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

Would a marriage between science and religion be valid?

The marriage between evangelism and crass profiteering seems valid and popular. 

 

[WalterP]

8 hours ago, Edgarcito said:

I expect there is a way to marry science and religion.  The thoughts bounce around in my head regularly.  I don't think Walter that it has to be one way or the other to be a coherent life....

 

Truthfully, I like my thoughts from earlier in the day...

 

Then you expect wrong.

 

Science is an agnostic way of investigating the only the natural universe, using only natural explanations to do so.

 

Anything religious/supernatural/spiritual is automatically excluded.

 

 

[WalterP]

8 hours ago, Edgarcito said:

That's fine, that's your opinion.  It's not mine.

 

Edit:  You really have no means of saying balanced...

 

I'm not the one who introduced the concept of a balanced and unbroken universe into this thread.

 

You did that.

 

I'm simply pointing out that you've persistently argued that the universe is unbalanced and broken due to sin.

 

So, you've introduced both concepts.

 

I didn't introduce either.

 

I'm only pointing out that you seem to holding to two mutually exclusive concepts.

 

Put simply, you're contradicting yourself.

 

 

[WalterP]

7 hours ago, Edgarcito said:

Walter, what is a balanced universe.  Please explain.

 

Thanks.

 

It's not up to me to do that because in you introduced the concept.

 

I'm just pointing out where you are contradicting yourself.

 

And btw, the call is still yours.

 

So, which is it?

 

Do we live in your balanced and unbroken universe or your broken and unbalanced one?

 

You introduced both of these options Ed and they contradict each other.

 

Which side are you going to come down on?

 

 

[alreadyGone]

16 hours ago, Edgarcito said:

... I don't know that I'm understanding your question please.

 

Walter has covered that ground.

I've nothing of value to add.

 

[alreadyGone]

_deleted_

 

[Edgarcito]

10 hours ago, WalterP said:

 

It's not up to me to do that because in you introduced the concept.

 

I'm just pointing out where you are contradicting yourself.

 

And btw, the call is still yours.

 

So, which is it?

 

Do we live in your balanced and unbroken universe or your broken and unbalanced one?

 

You introduced both of these options Ed and they contradict each other.

 

Which side are you going to come down on?

 

 

I believe it's broken and unbalanced, but that is from the perspective I have.  I expect from my perspective, it's whatever I label it....

[Astreja]

Weighing in on the "balanced vs. unbalanced universe" question, I think that's a rabbit hole too far (and this "bunny" should know rabbit holes.   )  My thoughts:

• Balance isn't necessarily a good thing, and imbalance isn't necessarily negative.
• In regard to marriage, per se, perfect balance is an elusive illusion.  It would be nice if it were even close to a 50/50 split, but relationships in general are just too dynamic to settle for any length of time on some ideal balancing point.

[WalterP]

2 hours ago, Edgarcito said:

I believe it's broken and unbalanced, but that is from the perspective I have.  I expect from my perspective, it's whatever I label it....

 

Then your perspective contradicts what you wrote earlier in this thread.

 

Good question.  I'm thinking at this point, after my "debate" with Josh regarding spirituality, that there might be an innate something in us that recognizes the balance that is existence, i.e. a part of the natural world.....and that we also want to do that, the justice that is balance, in our consciousness as part of that creation/existence.  In other words, some people see the balance in physics, chemistry, and the universe......and I'm thinking this balance is similar in our consciousness.  By justice, I mean we either like or dislike, agree or disagree, associate or disassociate, given our needs.  BUT, the need for balance still remains in us.  Seeing empathy for the homeless but anger for them not working might be an example.  New thoughts to me actually....but I think marginally cool.

 

Do you see how your personal perspective contradicts this, Edgarcito?

 

According to you today there is no balance in existence - existence is unbalanced. 

 

According to you today the natural world is not balanced - it is broken.

 

 

[Edgarcito]

17 minutes ago, WalterP said:

 

Then your perspective contradicts what you wrote earlier in this thread.

 

Good question.  I'm thinking at this point, after my "debate" with Josh regarding spirituality, that there might be an innate something in us that recognizes the balance that is existence, i.e. a part of the natural world.....and that we also want to do that, the justice that is balance, in our consciousness as part of that creation/existence.  In other words, some people see the balance in physics, chemistry, and the universe......and I'm thinking this balance is similar in our consciousness.  By justice, I mean we either like or dislike, agree or disagree, associate or disassociate, given our needs.  BUT, the need for balance still remains in us.  Seeing empathy for the homeless but anger for them not working might be an example.  New thoughts to me actually....but I think marginally cool.

 

Do you see how your personal perspective contradicts this, Edgarcito?

 

According to you today there is no balance in existence - existence is unbalanced. 

 

According to you today the natural world is not balanced - it is broken.

 

 

I've already explained the contradiction.  Why do you incessantly keep asking the same questions.  It's a bad quality in you sir.  Please stop and go re-read what I have posted.  Then ask yourself if I really haven't answered your question.....which I have.

[Edgarcito]

1 hour ago, Astreja said:

Weighing in on the "balanced vs. unbalanced universe" question, I think that's a rabbit hole too far (and this "bunny" should know rabbit holes.   )  My thoughts:

• Balance isn't necessarily a good thing, and imbalance isn't necessarily negative.
• In regard to marriage, per se, perfect balance is an elusive illusion.  It would be nice if it were even close to a 50/50 split, but relationships in general are just too dynamic to settle for any length of time on some ideal balancing point.

Certainly.  Which is part of my point.  My balance is not anyone else's balance.....that a marriage is to strive to provide a loving "balance" through the years.  Again, at the end, I expect there is a time when you just think, wow, I can't believe that person had the tenacity to help me through life.  It's amazing actually.  

[WalterP]

1 hour ago, Edgarcito said:

I've already explained the contradiction.  Why do you incessantly keep asking the same questions.  It's a bad quality in you sir.  Please stop and go re-read what I have posted.  Then ask yourself if I really haven't answered your question.....which I have.

 

Matthew 12 : 25 & 26.

 

25 Jesus knew their thoughts and said to them, “Every kingdom divided against itself will be ruined, and every city or household divided against itself will not stand. 

26 If Satan drives out Satan, he is divided against himself. How then can his kingdom stand? 

 

Anything divided against itself cannot stand.

 

Your argument is divided against itself by its self-contradiction.

 

Therefore, your argument cannot stand.

 

 

 

Edgarcito,

 

Up until I logged on and read your reply I'd been thinking about offering you some help. 

 

To help you be more consistent in what you write.

 

Now I've changed my mind.

 

 

 

Thank you.

 

Walter.

[Edgarcito]

8 minutes ago, WalterP said:

 

Now I've changed my mind.

 

 

Been to enough therapy Walter where I believe this to be immaturity.  Had you had sufficient intellect, you would have noticed that our assigning broken or unbroken, imbalanced or balanced, is truly whatever we wish to assign it given our lack of capability, given our lack of point of view.  Because you don't seemingly grasp this, your help is of no consequence.

 

Thank you

 

Ed