Thanks for the replies :D



"Betrayal" is really all you need for one's marital vows to be broken. I'd define adultery as just that, as well. By the definition, to say adultery is applicable when only sexual contact is at hand would be a bit too obtuse, in my opinion. Especially when pornography is innately sexual! I don't think there should be a semantics debate with regard to the word adultery, although I suppose that's in the realm of possibility.

The thing about pornography and masturbation is that there are no performance demands--physically or emotionally. It's reliable. It's cheaper and easier than adultery. And much, much safer.

I can't say I agree with any of what you say here. Coming from my own experiences dealing with pornography, it's anything but unemotionally draining, easy, or "safe." For myself, or anyone else I know. Pornography is something that could always be replaced by something infinitely more moral, loving, and healthy, so for me at least I don't think that viewing pornography is as harmless as washing one's hands or perusing a grocery aisle.

What's the solution?

Well it's certainly not for the state to dole out punishment! For whatever reason this thread gave off a similar vibe I remember when lawmakers and the like discussed gay marriage and how to, or not to, police bedroom business. It all is a bit silly.

So you don't desire that John be someone else than a person who steals your money?

What I'm saying doesn't just hold for a romantic context. — TheWillowOfDarkness

Nope - I can care less how he is. All I am concerned about is that justice is done. And jealousy is a response to an occurence. The way you treat jealousy is very strange.

You want sexual exclusivity so much that you blame any woman going into the future. — TheWillowOfDarkness

This is false. I haven't blamed any woman.

Supposedly, your relationship will be soiled, lesser, somehow without intimacy because one or both of you have had sex with someone else. — TheWillowOfDarkness

This is a fact - not the total lack of intimacy, but it will have less potential than otherwise.

If she feels you have the greatest spiritual connection with here and you come back with: "Ugh, our relationship isn't that great because I've had sex with previous girlfriends. You'd be better off finding some virgin." — TheWillowOfDarkness

Is that what you would say if you were me? >:O

This is what I mean about love being an image to you. Rather than love being considered in terms of living people, you imagine it as a statue floating in the sky. It shows two people who are sexually exclusive to each other. An image which amounts to intimacy. — TheWillowOfDarkness

Firstly you need to make the distinction between an ideal - and the actual situation. Yes the actual situation can be different than the ideal, no one disputes this. But one can still judge the actual situation as inferior to the ideal (which it necessarily is, hence why something acts as ideal). This is not to say that one shouldn't be exceedingly grateful for the actual situation - or refuse it simply because it doesn't reach up to the ideal. Those are very very different. The fact remains that we are who we are - as I have told you before, sin in this life is eternal. Nothing (well apart from God) can be done to remedy it. This does not mean that one shouldn't try to do one's best with whatever is left. Of course they should - hence Jesus's admonition "sin no more". Look, I made a mistake - people make mistakes - either because they don't know any better, because they don't have the required wisdom and social support around, and so forth - all I can do after having made it is learn from it, which I did. But the fact that I learned from it, and in this manner turned the evil into some good doesn't mean that the evil was erased, or that somehow the good surpasses the evil. Such comparisons are pointless - nothing can erase my history - except God, in the next life hopefully.

But for all practical purposes, it will remain with me. Yes of course I will try to achieve as much intimacy as I can with my future partner - of course I will be exceedingly grateful for it, and of course I will enjoy what I am offered - but I don't even expect to receive anything - and so I am at peace with whatever I will be given, but determined to make the best out of it. But this doesn't mean that I will somehow brush over a mistake, and refuse to admit it, refuse to see the wrongness of it, and the eternal harm that it has done - this has absolutely nothing to do with it. In fact, refusing to see its eternal harm is precisely what does in fact ruin future relationships. As Spinoza said, loss is eternal. But just because loss is eternal doesn't mean that if we have lost we should keep on losing... imagine if you lost a leg... what will you do, go ahead and lose the other also? But there's many many people - and I've had many friends - who have made similar mistakes. But instead of cutting their losses short, they threw love away, and submerged themselves in promiscuity. Such an attitude is not rational. What is rational is to do your best with what you have left, cut your losses, and enjoy what is left for you to enjoy. In other words, learn from your mistakes, don't justify them. Don't justify why you have sinned - why you have done wrong. That's not needed. All that is required is simple honesty, acceptance and reason.

Why do previous encounters stay etched in your mind? Why do the spoil the specialness of the future? — TheWillowOfDarkness

For the very simple reason because it is part of my history, and we cannot undo our histories. They are fixed - utterly necessary once they have occurred. This isn't to say that you will constantly think about it, be obsessed about it, or even try to bring it back into memory. Of course not. But you have to be aware that it can happen - regardless of your attitude. The possibility will always be there once the sin has been committed - nothing can wipe away the possibility. Will that possibility spoil the future? Not more than the loss of a leg spoils the future - you can get a prosthetic, you can become very happy with it, but its function will still objectively be less than it would have been had you had your original leg in a good condition. I fully concur that having a good and hopeful attitude is good - in fact it is rational - but that isn't to say not to be aware of the objective situation. So all I said is that objectively my capacity for intimacy is more limited. Practically this doesn't mean I can't have a great relationship. Only that the relationship would be less than it would have been otherwise. But that's not a problem - I don't expect the impossible, and I am grateful for things. A good thing is a good thing, even if it's not the best. It's you who thinks that I am obsessed with "the best" to the point where I ignore other good things and refuse to see them - but this really isn't so.

On the contrary, the attitude you promote is completely terrible - you say ignore past sin. It doesn't matter anymore. It's irrelevant. And so forth. That promotes an attitude as if sin were redeemable - as if it doesn't matter if you lose your leg - you can get a prosthetic! Look I was having a conversation with a doctor who is a friend. And we were talking about HIV - and I said to him "Look, what's so terrible about it - everyone is so scared - but why? I mean that's probably one of the "best" serious diseases to get. You live 10+ years even without treatment. But someone like you, who has access to the best treatments, why would you even be concerned about it? You can easily live 25+ years if you get it" But he replied saying that every little small thing counts. Even a small infection counts. Anything that is out of order with the body is bad - and not to be joked about. And he is right - it's the same in moral matters. Everything counts. This being flippant isn't helpful at all.

envy can be a trivial, and hardly evil. feeling indeed. — John

No immoral act is trivial.

I was raised in a Christian family, by Christian parents who had taken the commonplace wedding vows, done so by thousands of couples, here in the United States. With those vows came many things, none more important, however, than the agreement between both my parents to be utterly and completely faithful to each other. Were I to tell you all that such a vow between them was broken, I doubt anyone would think anything more than, "well, one or both of them was seeing and/or sleeping with another person, clearly." I would too, understandably, but that's not quite right. My father, in ill-health and frame of mind, turned toward viewing pornography as a means of releasing the many tensions in his life (to no fault of my mother). I didn't know that he had been up to this for as long as he had when I did, finally, realize the weight of the situation, nor even did my mother. I remember being greatly distraught (an understatement) as I slowly put together the pieces of what was going on. And when I did tell my mother one afternoon what my father had been doing, showing her the evidence, as much as that was awkward for me to do, she immediately concurred with my initial thought that this was adulterous, that he had dabbled in infidelity. In not receiving sexual satisfaction, or, to him, proper affection from my mother, he turned to pornography. — Heister Eggcart

Welcome to the forum, and thanks for sharing this! This illustrates how a sin that people so commonly trivialize - oh yeah, it's just porno, nothing bad - can actually destroy people's lives.

I am not convinced that porn addiction should be counted as being as significant a betrayal as having sex with someone else. — John

Surely it's not as bad as adultery, but it is bad enough.

One of the reasons people get involved in extramarital relationships is an effort to get some energy back into their life. Whether it's moral or not, it sometimes works for the individual. People also masturbate alone and turn to pornography to try to extract some pleasure out of life, once work, childrearing, marriage, et al has become a treadmill. The thing about pornography and masturbation is that there are no performance demands--physically or emotionally. It's reliable. It's cheaper and easier than adultery. And much, much safer. — Bitter Crank

When it comes to this there are sins and sins. Adultery is worse than pornography. In-so-far as someone has temporarily used pornography in order to avoid adultery, while that is clearly not good, it is still much better than having resorted to adultery - better to get to Heaven maimed than to be cast into hellfire. If a husband or wife really can't hold it - much much better that they fantasise to porn than they go and cheat. But I know now some folk here will reply: "oh yeah, but it's better to go cheat once and be done with it than to watch a screen" - false. The damage of pornography is bad - very bad. But adultery is infinitely worse.

When I was a teenager in 9th grade I had some folk at school who liked to use prostitutes (that's what Eastern Europeans do in high school...). At the time when many of us (including, shamefully, me) had discovered our sexual nature and fallen into the sin of watching pornography - they were like "why would I watch pornography, when i can so easily get a girl every week? I don't even have to take her out anywhere. Much better to fuck once a week and get over it, than to watch a screen every so often". Wrong. Very very wrong. It's much better that you watch the screen than to be promiscuous - better to lose one eye than have both eyes cast into hellfire. That's why they've never had a proper relationship - probably not even until now (I haven't kept in touch with most of them, as they were never my friends). But of course there's many unenlightened folk who encourage as much sex until marriage as possible - ignoring the obvious dangers.

And now for the dangers of pornography - look pornography is very bad. It's not a trifle - it's not to be joked about. When I met my first girlfriend, pornography was one of the prime issues which took away from the relationship - until we managed to stop it, and this took a long time - a few months of common effort. How did it harm us? Because nothing compares to pornography - in pornography you can fulfil any fantasy, and it's so easy. Not to mention that nothing compares in terms of pure physical (not spiritual - very important) pleasure to pornography. You can sit there, watch, go at your own pace, there is no other you have to take care of, there is no one to satisfy except yourself. You can go back and forth, and spend hours in front of that screen. Stop when you please, start when you please. So easy. In the real world, people are people, with their own characters, and their own limits to what and how they're willing to do. Real people have their dark sides, they can sometimes be uncaring, and so forth. Furthermore, they have their own desires, which are not always the same as yours. So when you watch pornography, you start to compare that with your situation. You start to fantasise about reality - you start to bring demands. You start treating the other person as an object.

But please - if ever you desire very strongly something unlawful and can't stop giving in to the temptation - never think about adultery, promiscuity etc. Just open that screen. Just turn it on. It's going to actually be better from a purely physical point of view than anything like adultery, promiscuity, etc. But of course it is better never to find yourself in a situation where you have to commit to a smalller harm in order to avoid a bigger one - that's why you need to be on guard. You need to orient yourself towards the spiritual pleasures, and gain control over your sexuality. It is eminently possible if you desire it! In fact, it feels much better.

Because nothing compares to pornography - in pornography you can fulfil any fantasy, and it's so easy. Not to mention that nothing compares in terms of pure physical (not spiritual - very important) pleasure to pornography. — Agustino

People's experience with pornography varies from person to person. Some guys don't find pornography terribly interesting, some like it a lot, some MUST have it, with various points in between. Same thing with prostitution. Some find it repellent, some find it a public convenience akin to plentiful taxis.

A distinction I want to make with adultery, pornography, lack of interest in sex with one's partner, and so on is that from one perspective these are, as you describe, betrayals. From another perspective these are morally indifferent, but diagnostically significant. How so?

In a relationship that is defined as mutually committed, formally recognized, and deeply valued relationship defined as exclusive and perpetual, Adultery (capital A) is a betrayal, a very serious moral failing. No one has argued here that Adultery is a good thing, or of no moral significance. We are all pretty much agreed about that.

Sometimes adultery (not capitalized) is a sign of a failing or failed relationship. Use of pornography, masturbating alone, or disinterest in sex with one's spouse can be the same thing. Relationships often die a slow or rapid death from causes which have nothing to do with adultery, pornography, or masturbation. In these cases (and they are many) adultery is a result, not a cause. Same for pornography, unexplained absences, heavy drinking, indifference, and so forth.

The failure rate of marriage is quite high. There are a variety of good causes to attribute this to: lack of adequate preparation for marriage, bad economics, ridiculously unrealistic expectations, marrying too soon (youth), previously established habits of drug and alcohol use, romantic notions that never did make sense, a lack of maturity, a lack of experience living in cooperative households, and so on. In other words, a lot of marriages fail because of incompetence.

People who sin significantly (I mean, real solid sinners) destroy their relationships with others, they cast themselves out of the community if they haven't already been cast out. — Bitter Crank

Amen my brother.

But then you say:

The morally incompetent are not going to suffer much from their sinful behavior. Only the morally competent are able to suffer from sin. — Bitter Crank

I would argue that the apparent malice associated with the deed would increase the sinner's ostracism, but even a clueless sinner is going to find himself cast out, although perhaps he won't understand why.

No immoral act is trivial. — Agustino

Your dogmatic premise is what makes much of what you say useless to anyone who doesn't happen to believe as you do. You condemn adultery, pornography, and prostitution as these horrible evils that will destroy your soul, trash your relationships, and cast you out from honorable society. I can't dispute that they might, but I can dispute that they must. People are complex entities, and while I will certainly advise you to never cheat on your spouse, I can't say that people never recover from it and from there live happily ever after. I also think there are plenty of folks who don't have any (and I mean any) ill effect from pornography or prostitution. They go from cradle to grave no more or less happy or fulfilled than the most vice-free person. I would imagine many of your friends who visited prostitutes have married, had kids, remained faithful and every thing else. You can insist your resistance made you a better person, but you'd be at a loss to show how you measure that.

If I were writing a book on how to be fulfilled and satisfied, I wouldn't suggest that lying, cheating, stealing, screwing around, or watching porno was the path to success, but I wouldn't necessarily include a chapter on avoiding sexual vice. The truth is that most who engage in sexual behavior that does not lead to happiness simply learn from their mistakes and stop.

I can't say that people never recover from it and from there live happily ever after — Hanover

True - just like some are born with no arms and legs and still manage to live a happy life (Nick Vujicic for example). Others lose a leg and still manage to live happy lives afterwards. I agree with all that. But that doesn't mean one should lose a leg - in fact one should do everything they can not to. It's a harm - regardless of whether it can be overcome - which definitely decreases from their potential in life. A decreased potential doesn't mean that they are cursed to an unfulfilling existence - it just means that their capacities will be lower. But they can still live fulfilled lives and maximise whatever capacities they still have left.

I also think there are plenty of folks who don't have any (and I mean any) ill effect from pornography or prostitution. — Hanover

I disagree with you, but of course you are entitled to believe otherwise.

They go from cradle to grave no more or less happy or fulfilled than the most vice-free person — Hanover

This I more than disagree with. Virtue is the key to happiness. No that's wrong. Virtue is happiness itself. "Happiness is not the reward of virtue - but virtue itself" - Benedict de Spinoza. Virtue is precisely that which fulfils the telos of the human being - which harmonises all his desires and ensures that no contradictory - or harmful pattern - exists. That everything is working towards the individual's well-being. But of course, you give no argument for your statement, so I will not rush to say more.

I would imagine many of your friends who visited prostitutes have married, had kids, remained faithful and every thing else. — Hanover

I only kept in touch with one, who was struggling with a drug addiction last time I spoke with him. He also had some child with a woman he wasn't married to, nor was he in an active relationship with, much less married. So no - I don't think so.

You can insist your resistance made you a better person, but you'd be at a loss to show how you measure that. — Hanover

I don't need to show how that is measured for it to be true that I am a better person than I was. Similarly I don't need to tell you how to go about measuring the temperature of the water to know that the water is hot.

If I were writing a book on how to be fulfilled and satisfied, I wouldn't suggest that lying, cheating, stealing, screwing around, or watching porno was the path to success, but I wouldn't necessarily include a chapter on avoiding sexual vice. The truth is that most who engage in sexual behavior that does not lead to happiness simply learn from their mistakes and stop. — Hanover

Again - the harm from such behaviour is irrecoverable. You cannot bring it back. That's like saying "I wouldn't necessarily include a chapter on being careful to preserve your bodily integrity. People who lose a leg learn from their mistakes and still manage to live good lives" - that's just stupid. You should give advice on how to live a good life - not on how to overcome obstacles once you get into them - that's stupid. You prevent first, and only secondly deal with curing if you really have to. Imagine I told you "yeah go naked outside, you'll get a cold, but you'll learn from it" - that's not advice, but the lack of it.

In other words, a lot of marriages fail because of incompetence. — Bitter Crank

Or vice. It's really the same thing.

By the way @John, congratulations! It looks like you will have the most viewed thread of the month. In just 6 days, and you're already in top 10 for the past 30 days >:O

This I more than disagree with. Virtue is the key to happiness. No that's wrong. Virtue is happiness itself. — Agustino

Again, this is dogma. Obviously if you proclaim virtue the highest of all goods, then those who have the most of it will be the best. The rest of what you say is just mindless repetition of what you've already said: those who adhere to the virtues you find virtuous are the bestess. What constitutes virtue is largely defined by you (like don't watch pornography) and once it falls into that class, you've just got to do it.

That's like saying "I wouldn't necessarily include a chapter on being careful to preserve your bodily integrity. People who lose a leg learn from their mistakes and still manage to live good lives" - that's just stupid. — Agustino

Is that stupid or is it stupid to analogize watching pornography with losing a leg?

I only kept in touch with one, who was struggling with a drug addiction last time I spoke with him. He also had some child with a woman he wasn't married to, nor was he in an active relationship with, much less married. So no - I don't think so. — Agustino

And so I know a person who did in fact visit prostitutes when he was young. He has been married for over 20 years and they have a very successful daughter. So what now?

I don't need to show how that is measured for it to be true that I am a better person than I was. Similarly I don't need to tell you how to go about measuring the temperature of the water to know that the water is hot. — Agustino

I'm pretty sure we can measure the temperature of water.

Again, this is dogma. Obviously if you proclaim virtue the highest of all goods, then those who have the most of it will be the best. The rest of what you say is just mindless repetition of what you've already said: those who adhere to the virtues you find virtuous are the bestess. What constitutes virtue is largely defined by you (like don't watch pornography) and once it falls into that class, you've just got to do it. — Hanover

And how is what you say different? It's also dogma. Except that you provide no argument for it, and merely expect me to accept it. You strung a sentence together, without any appeal to experience or reason. That's nothing but dogma.

And so I know a person who did in fact visit prostitutes when he was young. He has been married for over 20 years and they have a very successful daughter. So what now? — Hanover

Good for you, I'm not disputing it.

I'm pretty sure we can measure the temperature of water. — Hanover

Yes, only that we don't need to measure it in order to know it's hot, which is my point.

And how is what you say different? It's also dogma. Except that you provide no argument for it, and merely expect me to accept it. You strung a sentence together, without any appeal to experience or reason. That's nothing but dogma. — Agustino

You've presented an argument as to what is required for happiness, which is adherence to virtue, which you then define as including adherence to various traditional social norms. You have the burden or proving your case because you made the argument. Your appeal to experience limits the application of your argument to you, considering my experience varies from yours.

Good for you, I'm not disputing it. — Agustino

If your argument is that the abandonment of virtue (as you define it) leads to unhappiness, then my counterexample of someone who has abandoned that virtue yet is not unhappy disproves your argument.

Yes, only that we don't need to measure it in order to know it's hot, which is my point. — Agustino

You can objectively measure heat, not happiness, which is my point, making your analogy of happiness to heat disanalagous.

You can objectively measure heat, not the happiness, which is my point, making your analogy of happiness to heat disanalagous. — Hanover

Yes, happiness is more like hotness, not something "measured", thus making my analogy correct. You measure temperature, not "hotness". I don't need to tell you how to measure happiness in order to know I am better now than I was back then. Just like even if I don't know how to measure temperature, I can still say if the water is hot.

If your argument is that the abandonment of virtue (as you define it) leads to unhappiness, then my counterexample of someone who has abandoned that virtue yet is not unhappy the your argument has been disproven. — Hanover

I don't want to prove it to you. You have the wrong impression. I'm challenging you. Are you up to the challenge? It seems you only want me to prove it to you - while you don't do anything. I don't care if you believe me or not. But it's certainly in your interest to investigate and find out what true happiness and true love is. If you want to, then bite the bait, and play the game under equal rules. We're in the same boat - not one to prove and the other to examine. Do you really have no passion for it?

You've presented an argument as to what is required for happiness — Hanover

Yes I have presented an argument very well said. Where is yours? You keep your tail out of the game, and you point fingers at others, that's where it is ;)

No immoral act is trivial. — Agustino

No immoral act or any act for that matter is without consequences; the consequences may certainly be more or less trivial and more or less trivial ranging across a very wide spectrum.

So, some acts and feelings, such as feeling a twinge of envy when you see your friends new Lamborghini, are of no significant or practical consequence; we simply don't have the time or energy to attend to every minor defect of our personalities.

Surely it's not as bad as adultery, but it is bad enough. — Agustino

Sure, it is bad enough; and it will be made worse for the addict by receiving condemnation and rejection rather than concerned understanding and the extended hand of help. If the addict says 'fuck you, I love my porn" then they cannot be helped and must be left to their own devices.

Exactly the same applies with any other addiction.

Sure, it is bad enough; and it will be made worse for the addict by receiving condemnation and rejection — John

I wish when I was addicted to it I had received condemnation and rejection earlier :P

The morally incompetent are not going to suffer much from their sinful behavior. Only the morally competent are able to suffer from sin.
— Bitter Crank

I would argue that the apparent malice associated with the deed would increase the sinner's ostracism, but even a clueless sinner is going to find himself cast out, although perhaps he won't understand why. — Hanover

I didn't present this clearly. The consequence of sin (likely) is a separation, an alienation, from the community. Either one is shunned, or expelled, or made a pariah, or is put in prison -- something. Separation from one's community is painful for social animals like ourselves. The morally competent will feel guilt in addition to the pain of alienation.

The morally incompetent will be shunned, expelled, be made a pariah or be imprisoned. They might not feel a lot of guilt. The morally incompetent readily blame others for their self-caused problems. "'You' 'They' 'It' made me behave badly. It isn't my fault." That might be true, but it usually isn't. People generally act badly because they have decided to act badly. (Acting badly here means actions like murder in the first, theft/robbery/burglary, adultery, etc.)

happiness is more like hotness, not something "measured", — Agustino

heat, hot, happiness, horse shit.

You usually can't tell whether whether the water is hot without measuring it. You don't need to use a thermometer to measure the temperature of the water, but you have to use something -- your finger, your toe, your tongue -- something. Putting your toe in the water to determine how hot, or cold, the water is IS measurement.

A virtuous person might not be at all happy. He might be grieving, he might be very depressed, he might be very frustrated, all sorts of things. He might feel very guilty and inadequate, despite his virtue. (People in the upper midwest often feel guilty without good cause.) Virtue is worth pursuing but supposing that it will definitely make you happy is a mistake.

It's also a mistake to assume that not-virtuous behavior will inevitably lead to misery. It will lead to misery for those who value virtue above all else. The less store one puts in virtue, the less bad behavior will produce misery.

Happiness (and its opposite) are not a function of virtue (and its opposite). Some people are happy as a given. They didn't earn it or deserve it, they just are happy. Similarly some people are miserable as a given. They also didn't earn or deserve to feel wretched, but they do.

Virtue is its own reward, they say. It doesn't win us an additional prize.

A virtuous person might not be at all happy. He might be grieving, he might be very depressed, he might be very frustrated, all sorts of things. He might feel very guilty and inadequate, despite his virtue — Bitter Crank

That is impossible, because being depressed, being grieving, being frustrated - all these are lacking in virtue. It is a virtue to be joyous, happy and content. It's not like virtues are just being pious, courageous, loyal, etc. That's why in Christianity for example, being anxious is a sin. You have a duty to rejoice in creation.

It sounds like you did receive them, though, and that you found them helpful. A strong person may find condemnation and rejection to be just the stimulus they need to arouse them from their "dogmatic slumbers", but I would not recommend them as a curative generally, because a weak person will quite likely only be driven by condemnation and rejection further into their weakness.

Ah, if only I could feel fulfilled by such meager achievements!

That's why in Christianity for example, being anxious is a sin. You have a duty to rejoice in creation. — Agustino

Well..

“Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. 4Blessed are those who mourn, for they will be comforted. 5Blessed are the meek, for they will inherit the earth.… — Matthew 5:4

“Do not be anxious about anything, but in everything by prayer and supplication with thanksgiving let your requests be made known to God. And the peace of God, which surpasses all understanding, will guard your hearts and your minds in Christ Jesus” (Phil. 4:6-7)

Nope - I can care less how he is. All I am concerned about is that justice is done. And jealousy is a response to an occurence. The way you treat jealousy is very strange. — Agustino

That's an outright lie. The fact he took your money and has used it make a purchase, which he is now rubbing in your face, is exactly what matters. It is all about how he is in the situation. He wronged you and there is nothing you can do about it. In you mind, an outrageous loss which must be undone (despite that being impossible).

For contrast, you don't sit back and say: "Well, my money has been taken and I won't get it back. At least John is enjoying his new car." You covet a different John. John shouldn't just ought to have been different, he must be, else the world cannot make sense.

But this doesn't mean that I will somehow brush over a mistake, and refuse to admit it, refuse to see the wrongness of it, and the eternal harm that it has done - this has absolutely nothing to do with it. In fact, refusing to see its eternal harm is precisely what does in fact ruin future relationships. As Spinoza said, loss is eternal. But just because loss is eternal doesn't mean that if we have lost we should keep on losing... imagine if you lost a leg... what will you do, go ahead and lose the other also? But there's many many people - and I've had many friends - who have made similar mistakes. — Agustino

You do keep on losing though, for you treat the eternal loss of sin as if it means your future is tainted. I'm not talking about ignoring sin here. To say past sins don't spoil one's future is not to ignore them. It's to say mistakes of the past doesn't mean someone continues to lose. The loss of a past partner does not amount to loss with a future partner. In your guilt and jealousy, you confuse the loss of the past for the present.

I'm not saying you haven't lost. My point is that loss is tied to that situation. You are the one who failed in the past, not any future partner and your relationship with them. Instead of taking the eternal harm of sin seriously, that is, understanding it as your mistake which can't be redeemed, you take it out on others. Your loss becomes something you bludgeon others with--"our relationship isn't as good as it could be, etc., etc."-- as a means of quelling your distaste for your inferior self.

Firstly you need to make the distinction between an ideal - and the actual situation. Yes the actual situation can be different than the ideal, no one disputes this. But one can still judge the actual situation as inferior to the ideal (which it necessarily is, hence why something acts as ideal). This is not to say that one shouldn't be exceedingly grateful for the actual situation - or refuse it simply because it doesn't reach up to the ideal. — Agustino

That's precisely the distinction we cannot make. To do so is to keep on losing. It's to think we ought to have a different world than we do. The expression that, if we had the option, we would pick the world we are not in, a world without what we care for in the present. No doubt the present may be inferior in some way (missing legs, loss relationships), but it must be the world we ought to have. We must be content in our present inferiority-- we must love, no less than we did before loss, those we share the world with. Otherwise, we love the image of a perfect self that never exists more than anything in the world. We choose to heap loss upon the world to hide away from its failings.

Is that what you would say if you were me? — Agustino

I'm pointing that is what you are saying. This is what I mean about blaming the women. You take your eternal loss and say it means she has failed-- that she has a lesser connection merely because you were with other people in the past.

Nice quote, but mine outranks yours.

Yours was a zinger, his was just sour grapes.

The point was that Jesus' Sermon on The Mount had a different purpose - it wasn't advice on how to live a Christian life. It wasn't meant to say "you should be poor in spirit, you should mourn, you should be meek" - but rather that those categories of people were more likely to enter the kingdom of Heaven. Furthermore, it talks nothing - and I mean nothing - about anxiety. It doesn't say "blessed are the anxious" does it?

My quote on the other hand is aimed precisely at tackling anxiety though. Paul says it as a command - do not be anxious.

That's an outright lie. The fact he took your money and has used it make a purchase, which he is now rubbing in your face, is exactly what matters. It is all about how he is in the situation. He wronged you and there is nothing you can do about it. In you mind, an outrageous loss which must be undone (despite that being impossible). — TheWillowOfDarkness

Well there is something I can do - turn him in to the police. But what would motivate me doing something about it? Jealousy. So clearly "not being able to control the situation" isn't a part of jealousy. It may very well be that the jealous person has ample ways to control the situation. But he would still feel jealous. In fact, even if I was a king or emperor, and John did that, I would still feel jealous. But I probably would be able to control the situation very well - send the police to get him, throw him in jail, and get back what was mine.

For contrast, you don't sit back and say: "Well, my money has been taken and I won't get it back. At least John is enjoying his new car." You covet a different John. John shouldn't just ought to have been different, he must be, else the world cannot make sense. — TheWillowOfDarkness

Maybe I would say that if I knew there was no chance to get it back. I would initially feel jealous in that case, but I would soon understand that there's nothing I can do about it, and the feeling would wane.

To say past sins don't spoil one's future is not to ignore them. It's to say mistakes of the past doesn't mean someone continues to lose. — TheWillowOfDarkness

Okay but I'm not debating that. I agree that past mistakes don't mean someone continues to lose. But they do mean that someone has lost, and that loss they carry with them - hence the sin is eternal. If I lost a leg, I carry that loss with me.

The loss of a past partner does not amount to loss with a future partner. — TheWillowOfDarkness

Here you are wrong. It's a loss in one's capacity for intimacy (not complete loss, I didn't say that) but rather a decrease in it. It's like losing some functionality in your leg. You've lost it. If now you want to use that specific functionality to the same degree, you can't.

In your guilt and jealousy, you confuse the loss of the past for the present. — TheWillowOfDarkness

The loss of the past is present - that's why it is eternal.

You are the one who failed in the past, not any future partner and your relationship with them — TheWillowOfDarkness

Sure I never claimed otherwise.

Instead of taking the eternal harm of sin seriously, that is, understanding it as your mistake which can't be redeemed, you take it out on others. Your loss becomes something you bludgeon others with--"our relationship isn't as good as it could be, etc., etc."-- as a means of quelling your distaste for your inferior self. — TheWillowOfDarkness

This is just false now.

That's precisely the distinction we cannot make. To do so is to keep on losing. It's to think we ought to have a different world than we do. The expression that, if we had the option, we would pick the world we are not in, a world without what we care for in the present. No doubt the present may be inferior in some way (missing legs, loss relationships), but it must be the world we ought to have. — TheWillowOfDarkness

No it's not to think we ought to have a different world. Not at all. In fact, if we were to think that, we could never be grateful. But we are grateful for the current goodness that is in our lives precisely because we realise we don't deserve any other world. This doesn't mean though that we don't recognise and differentiate what is good, what is better, and what is evil and worse.

We must be content in our present inferiority-- we must love, no less than we did before loss, those we share the world with. Otherwise, we love the image of a perfect self that never exists more than anything in the world. — TheWillowOfDarkness

Did I say not to be content with our present inferiority? That would be just arrogance towards God - a great sin.

I'm pointing that is what you are saying. This is what I mean about blaming the women. You take your eternal loss and say it means she has failed-- that she has a lesser connection merely because you were with other people in the past. — TheWillowOfDarkness

This is not true since it's never her fault. It's my fault - clearly - so how can she be blamed? Her capacity for intimacy, assuming she has not sinned is unaffected. Furthermore, in the spiritual connection between partners more than just the capacity plays a role. Analogically, some people may have a weak leg, but they train it so much to make up for that weakness. Likewise, openness to intimacy, and knowledge about how to relate are important factors (next to the capacity for intimacy) for both partners. And lastly - the connection can be perceived differently - even in quality - from one partner to the other. If one has sinned more, they (the one who has sinned, not the other one) will likely perceive it as lesser.

See John, maybe your problem is that it takes a lot to satisfy you :P

The point was that Jesus' Sermon on The Mount had a different purpose - it wasn't advice on how to live a Christian life. It wasn't meant to say "you should be poor in spirit, you should mourn, you should be meek" - but rather that those categories of people were more likely to enter the kingdom of Heaven. Furthermore, it talks nothing - and I mean nothing - about anxiety. It doesn't say "blessed are the anxious" does it? — Agustino

Sure it does.


Therefore I say unto you, Be not anxious for your life, what ye shall eat, or what ye shall drink; nor yet for your body, what ye shall put on. Is not the life more than the food, and the body than the raiment? 26 Behold the birds of the heaven, that they sow not, neither do they reap, nor gather into barns; and your heavenly Father feedeth them. Are not ye of much more value than they? 27 And which of you by being anxious can add one cubit unto [f]the measure of his life? 28 And why are ye anxious concerning raiment? Consider the lilies of the field, how they grow; they toil not, neither do they spin: 29 yet I say unto you, that even Solomon in all his glory was not arrayed like one of these. 30 But if God doth so clothe the grass of the field, which to-day is, and to-morrow is cast into the oven, shall he not much more clothe you, O ye of little faith? 31 Be not therefore anxious, saying, What shall we eat? or, What shall we drink? or, Wherewithal shall we be clothed? 32 For after all these things do the Gentiles seek; for your heavenly Father knoweth that ye have need of all these things. 33 But seek ye first his kingdom, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you. 34 Be not therefore anxious for the morrow: for the morrow will be anxious for itself. Sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof."


You are contradicting yourself. If people want to spend eternity in Paradise, and there are certain characteristics of those who are admitted to Paradise, then it would make sense to develop those characteristics. Unless, of course, you are taking Calvin's approach that those who are saved are saved, and those who are damned are damned and can not help themselves.

That is impossible, because being depressed, being grieving, being frustrated - all these are lacking in virtue. It is a virtue to be joyous, happy and content. It's not like virtues are just being pious, courageous, loyal, etc. That's why in Christianity for example, being anxious is a sin. You have a duty to rejoice in creation

It seems that you're under the illusion that one can always choose whether or not to be anxious or depressed.

As much as I try, and as much as I do at times cultivate positive results from my work, depression and anxiety is something I'm always going to live with. I can't rewrite my life so I didn't have to experience what I have. There's no amount of medication or counseling that's going to keep me from being a somber individual. Does Paul, as you say, command us to not be anxious? Absolutely. But he doesn't condemn the heart that fights their sin. Paul implores us to be aware of our shortcomings and not to dwell in apathy. I strive to combat that which makes me a wretch, but it isn't my fault when I, still being human, still come up short.

Neither Jesus nor Paul were in the business of damning those who understand love to be the greatest virtue, those imperfect men and women who strive to be good, yet always stumble because of their, our, imperfect natures. You, Agustino, are no more good and virtuous a man or woman than I if we both strive toward love in all things. And if indeed you are of upstanding character, were you to be unloving, anxious, or adulterous, I would not damn you, for even Jesus invited a thief to be a disciple unto him.

~

Frankly, rereading what I first quoted from you above makes me think of you as distinctly unchristian. Ironically, I'd be a lot more abashed by what you wrote were I to be in a more cynical and frustrated frame of mind. To be anecdotal for a moment, say that my best friend and I were abducted, and I had to watch on, powerless as she was tortured and raped. Would I be unvirtuous were I to feel the least bit frustrated, hateful, or anxious? To be perfectly honest, I think it would in fact show a distinct lack of virtue if I did not feel in such a way.

Sure it does. — Bitter Crank

I was referring to that specific quote.

You are contradicting yourself. If people want to spend eternity in Paradise, and there are certain characteristics of those who are admitted to Paradise, then it would make sense to develop those characteristics. — Bitter Crank

Yes but poverty of spirit isn't a characteristic of those who are admitted into Paradise, but rather that these folk are more likely to develop the characteristics required. And the passages that follow make it clear that anxiety is to be avoided, thus clarifying this point.

It seems that you're under the illusion that one can always choose whether or not to be anxious or depressed. — Heister Eggcart

I am not, I myself have had anxiety and depression in the past - although it might look that way - it's the necessary discourse I have to adopt in a liberal-progressive environment, because the liberal-progressive attitudes are so permissive to sin that my harshness is merely a remedy and counterbalance to that. If I was talking to Christian folk I probably wouldn't be having such a discourse. But in this environment - where, let me remind you, we have people who suggest that adultery and/or pornography aren't even sins, where we have folk who suggest that marriage should be banned - in this environment, the moral harshness is, I think, a good antidote. If you don't know, then I think it's important to note that us two are very probably the only two Christians here. So it's good to finally have another brother around ;)

To be anecdotal for a moment, say that my best friend and I were abducted, and I had to watch on, powerless as she was tortured and raped. Would I be unvirtuous were I to feel the least bit frustrated, hateful, or anxious? — Heister Eggcart

You need to make the required distinctions. For example, in that case above you wouldn't feel anxious - you'd feel afraid - and there's a big difference between the two. You would indeed feel frustrated and powerless, and you will feel hatred. Those are perfectly justified (and indeed, you are right, it would be a vice if you didn't feel them) - anxiety is not. Anxiety is used precisely to denote that kind of fear which is simply paralyzing - totally not useful. For you, in that scenario, it would be very useful to be afraid. That's the natural reaction of the human body, and it would make you do whatever you can do in order to escape and protect your loved one.

But anxiety is different. Anxiety is when you sit in your room doing nothing, just being afraid that you may be fired from your job for having misspoken to your boss. In the meantime a family member is having difficulties, but you're not there for them. Why? Because you're so self absorbed into your anxious thoughts. Anxiety is also when you are so concerned that you will lose your business that you neglect your wife and children. And this anxiety is a sin.

And notice that the fact that I think there are negative emotions which are rightful and even obligations is evident from my writing a few pages ago. I argued that jealousy can be a justified feeling, and that sometimes if one doesn't feel jealous then they are lacking in virtue. So it is clear that negative emotions can be a sign of virtue as well.

As much as I try, and as much as I do at times cultivate positive results from my work, depression and anxiety is something I'm always going to live with. I can't rewrite my life so I didn't have to experience what I have. — Heister Eggcart

Yes so will I probably - but this doesn't say much. It's not about not having anxious thoughts - it's about the reaction we have when we do. I will always have anxious thoughts for example - it's the way I've always been. But I learned to control them - having the thoughts is invisible from the outside for me - because I just have no reaction to having them. I ignore them. So yes, I probably always had anxious thoughts - but I most certainly didn't always have anxiety. And this distinction is very important. So I applaud your efforts, it sounds to me that you are taking exactly the right path, nothing wrong with that. So good job! :)

Does Paul, as you say, command us to not be anxious? Absolutely. But he doesn't condemn the heart that fights their sin. Paul implores us to be aware of our shortcomings and not to dwell in apathy. — Heister Eggcart

Absolutely, and neither do I condemn effort in the scope of moral improvement.

Frankly, rereading what I first quoted from you above makes me think of you as distinctly unchristian. — Heister Eggcart

We are not saved by works - that is true. We are saved by faith. Buuuuuuuut - and this is the point that is often missed - this faith does necessarily result in works.

So too, faith by itself, if it is not complemented by action, is dead. But someone will say, “You have faith and I have deeds.” Show me your faith without deeds, and I will show you my faith by my deeds. You believe that God is one. Good for you! Even the demons believe that, and shudder! — James 2:18

There is no faith without deeds. The deeds don't produce faith - which is St. Paul's point - but the faith does produce the deeds and does bring us salvation. And if it doesn't, then it is a dead faith - a self-deception, whereby we deceive ourselves that we are saved, when in fact we are not. Works are the fruits that grow in the tree of faith. My point is that you cannot have, for example, a woman walking around calling herself a Christian who as soon as she's out the church door starts swearing like a sailor, who goes around cheating on her husband, etc. All she does that would identify her as a Christian is that she claims to be one, and she repeats the words "Jesus Christ is my Lord and Saviour" - and then she begs for forgiveness after every time she does something wrong - but she goes on doing the same wrong things year after year, and nothing is changing. Such a person is just deceiving themselves, as Kierkegaard was very quick to note. And self-deception - the deception that one is saved when one isn't - is worse than not being saved. That's why "blessed are the poor in spirit" - that's why the harlots and corrupt tax collectors shall enter the Kingdom before the Pharisees. Not because it is righteous what they're doing - not because being a prostitute is good and should be respected - but because they are not self-deceived. And self-deception most definitely prevents you from entering the kingdom, in a way that sin by itself doesn't.

Kierkegaard noted that we have the very important mission to smuggle Christianity back into Christendom - because many Christians live in apathy, not in real faith.

So cheating on your wife, day after day, but begging for forgiveness, and then doing it again - then crying that your sinful nature doesn't let you do any better, then repeating the whole cycle over again - that isn't faith. Faith isn't a license to sin. You don't claim "I believe in Jesus Christ" so then you can go ahead and go to the harlots. Faith needs to be seen outwardly - its radiance must be perceptible, and it is so through works.

As for the fact that joy is a duty - it is. Life is a gift from God. If you give me a gift, and I take it and simply put it away, because I'm worried and lost in anxious thoughts, how will you feel? And if you will feel bad, how much worse will God feel when people reject, through their self-imposed misery, the beautiful gift of life they have received? But how joyous will God be when his creatures rejoice in his creation!

So morality is important. Not failing - especially in important matters of morality - is important. And if we have faith, we will not fail.