Ladylid, normally I would agree.....but when

relationships end, it

is normal to go thru all kinds of mixed emotions(before one

is able to love the ex partner unconditionally yet) ,

ranging from

apathy to pain, to feeling ok for awhile, back to pain, to anger, to

hurt, to feeling okay for awhile again.... etc. etc. etc...


The best way to heal is just allow the pain, and go thru all the

strange cycles of emotions first...knowing that eventually

full healing will come......and THEN that is the time when

one can eventually

love the ex unconditionally ,as Christ would have one love

the ex partner........but UNTIL that time comes, one should

not get under self

condemnation, because he/she is not there yet.


Healing from a broken relationship TAKES TIME......AND will

bring on all kinds

of emotional madness...

allow all the mixed emotions..cause the end will surely

come....leaving

behind, perfect peace

thats like arguing that blacks have lower standards because mostly blacks are in jail

there are MANY demographic reasons behind the incarceration statistics which have little to do with values in general

Its not 'selfish' to follow the golden rule, its realistic

as UNTIL I interact and do something WRONG to someone else, I have no way to know how they would wish to be done (unless I ask permission before whatever I say or do, which I doubt anyone including atheists do)

its more realistic to use a gauge that I actually KNOW(like how I wish to be treated) when trying to appropriate my own actions and words with other people

as far as standards of ethics, my observation has been the mainstream ethic seems to be that if something doesnt HARM someone else, its ok to do it, that its 'personal'

Christian ethics makes very few decisions mere 'personal' ones and has us more connected in our responsibility towards others, towards family, towards community,

this is a much higher standard, in my opinion, if your friends believe in it thats great, but thats not the general consensus I am witnessing amongst most of the secular world during this lifetime,,,

and the religios standards requires or demands no thought argument has gotten old,,,, as old as any other argument that tries to state that merely following a (man made)law is indicative of not THINKING

I dont think it has to be classified. I do so because my experience has been that 'society' (human beings in general) seem to accept a much lower standard of ethics than 'christians'

sure it is. but you're the one whose argueing that christians have higher standards because they are christians. neither your point nor mine is relevant is it?




of course. but you didn't seem to consider demographic reasons when you stated that in general christians have a higher standard of ethics. i'm simply throwing your argument logic right back atcha.



realistic for you perhaps and i'd agree realistic for most christians. but not realistic to me. of course you have no way to know what someone would wish done upon them until you get to know them so why would you do upon them what you'd do upon you? that makes it all about you, no? selfish.



that's one ethical standard, i agree. but i go out of my way as much as anybody to not harm others as do my secular friends but i cannot say that about all of my christian friends. you claimed your experience, i'm simply claiming mine.




tell that to the kkk who are all christians.




i used the kkk as an example of lower ethical standards. can you give an example of a secular group who lives an ethical standard below yours?




one and the same. both man made and biblical laws are designed to require no thought. you obey or else. unless you don't get caught of course.

msharmony,

I would be interested to know how you arrived at this conclusion.
I mean perhaps there are a lot of people who just claim to be Christians when it is convenient for them.

I know they seem to talk a good game. But do all Christians walk the walk? I doubt it....

Are the large majority of secular non-Christians less ethical or have less personal standards?

The religions itself repressed women. The Catholic Church comes from the old school and if a man died his wife then became the responsibility of his brother.

The religions itself repressed women. The Catholic Church comes from the old school and if a man died his wife then became the responsibility of his brother.

Repressed women? Gee I dunno, I like the idea of the brother thing if you marry a guy with a handsome and likeable brother!

Seriously though, I think that women should be civil to their spouses. I was lucky enough to divorce without a battle. We just wanted to close the chapter and move on after so many years. Both of us had flaws and both realized that it takes two to tango. Most divorces are as a result of 50/50 flawing, immaturity, disrespectfulness, or whatever you want to call it, even though it's hard to admit that at first.

I think it' particularly important for women who have children to maintain at least "reasonably polite" contact with their spouses, although though they may often have to use the phrase, "well guess we'll just have to agree to disagree" (which you may even consider using when he says you have an unchristian attitude.) Often that phrase stops arguments from going further, especially if you quickly change the subject afterward.

Plain and simply, no two people will ever agree on everything all the time anyway, and when there are kids in the marriage, it's a lot of stress relief for them when parents are civil.

My conclusion comes from my experiences and conversations in christian circles as compared to those of the general public or mainstream forums like these

the underlying standard for the latter , in my experience, seems to lie in the idea that very few things are harmful to anyone unless they cause some immediate and personal physical harm, and therefore very few things should be considered 'wrong' , or even 'illegal'


In christian circles, there has been (again, in my experience) more of a focus on a GREATER PURPOSE for humankind as a group and human spirits (as opposed to just the flesh) which leads to there being concern for far more than just what causes 'physical' harm,,,,or what seems to have some IMMEDIATE negative impact

in christian circles , people seem to be more convinced of a design for things, in mainstream circles people seem to be convinced that we all just randomly follow our own self made designs,,,,


When I ask something of a christian or christians, I am generally expecting/wanting an opinion of how that thing fits in with Gods design for us, it makes sense from a standpoint of someone who believes in such a thing myself to seek advice from others who are familiar and likewise interested in such a goal

anyone not believing in Gods design(as stated in the bible, that is) is not likely to take what IM asking seriously or is not likely to give me an answer in line with the information I am seeking(information from a biblical standpoint)

I have to admit that I have received a great deal of warmth and friendliness from most Christians even when they discover that I am not one of them. There are exceptions of course.

I have no doubt that if I walked into any Church here in town that I could easily make many friends.

I think you get back what you put out Jeannie,, warmth begets warmth

a mischaracterization of what I said which was

' my experience has been that 'society' (human beings in general) seem to accept a much lower standard of ethics than 'christians'


NOTICE THE DISCLAIMER of 'my experience has been'

of course someone running for a marathon is going to train a bit harder than someone merely trying to stay fit

likewise, someone who is concerned with the guidelines for healthy SPIRITUAL living is more likely to study and train a bit harder than those who just feel it will work itself out without the same effort,,,

as far as following rules requiring no thought,, that is another misnomer by those who have some issue with rules EVEN if they make sense

people choose all the time what rules they will follow, including christians, so the idea they give no thought before they act in concordance or in rebellion is nonsensical at best

i understood well that it was simply your experience. i simply related my own, quit different experience.



but one need not rely on a god to train morally. and of course not knowing what 'spiritual living' is i obviously would not bother training for it.



make senese to whom? i see the bible as nonsense so i've constructed my own rules for living an ethical life. doing so required a lot more thought than simply reading a bible and listening to ministers to form a moral compass.



i understand your thinking. i think differently.