board77

I'm not a literalist either--thank God. Too much contradiction for one poor brain to contain. Furthermore I look at the physical universe scientifically, which rules out a lot of Scripture as literal truth.

In answer to your question--Here, too, it seems to me that impulses of the heart ought not to be sins--just as you can't make vows about them, but only about your actions, you ought not to be held accountable for impulses you don't act on. And I think those laws in the Old Testament were meant to control people's behavior. Covetous behavior is disruptive to the community.

Of course, we have Christ saying that bit about someone who looks on a woman with lust has committed adultery with her in his heart. <flip, flip> Matthew 5:28. That's in the middle of some really tough talk from Christ {"If your right eye causes you to sin, tear it out and throw it away"), and I'm not qualified to expound on it. {Though is "adultery of the heart" a sin on the level of actual physical adultery? Or is it just dangerous because of what it might lead to?)

That enormous issue aside, whether or not impulses we don't act on are actually sinful, it certainly isn't healthy to live inside feelings like that for long. And inevitably there will be some bad consequence, even if it's just making ourselves ill. So we're taught to ask God (at least) for help when caught in a loop like that.

There--a semi-taught believer's take.

I am not a believer, I'm afraid. I'm a fence-sitter of the Judaic persuasion.

The comment which caught me is "it certainly isn't healthy to live inside feelings like that for long".

Quite so! They are feelings that cannot, by definition, be shared and therefore one can lose perspective and a grip on reality by losing ones self in what cannot be anything but fantasy (unless one decides to act on that impulse of the errant heart)

Perhaps THAT is the danger; that one loses ones self.

There's an interesting idea in Judaism I am put in mind of here - the concept of commandments (or laws, requirements - in Hebrew mitzvot) and that in order to protect these laws, to ensure that one does not transgress against them, one puts a 'fence' around the law.

So - it transgresses the law to commit adultery. In order to ensure that one is not tempted - indeed, to ensure that one does not even accidentally fall into temptation - there are further requirements that are observed (ie modesty of dress; no touch between the sexes outside marriage or parenting; one is not ever left alone with a person of the opposite sex, etc). There is a core of altruism in this - to take care that one does not fall into temptation or into sin, to live one's life cleanly, without having harmed one's own soul or the soul of another - though I tend not be to able to see it quite so disingenously as a rule.

Prim - yes! I agree with that - you can't promise someone that you'll love them forever ... you can only take vows on actions. Wow - that's so true and beautiful.

Anyway

To put forth my own view on recent posts - I'm a very black and white creature in some respects, and not even a lot of slapping around in life have taken that out of me. When I love someone it is not just hormones or attraction or intellection attraction - it is also a concious, rational, real world mind decision to COMMIT to them, and because of that I just don't pay attention to any other things that might be floating around. Any temptation that does try to sneak in HAS to be stomped on, no matter how, weli, temping! it is! Because that is a dangerous route to take. As Prim says, it is dangerous, and if you allow a little slack, a corner of the mind to play around with the idea, to have little naughty pleasant fantasies about it - you may open a crack that's gonna run, and then everything goes pearshaped. So I just don't do that - I know myself, and I have enough to fight with daily without adding such things to the pile! Therefore, I don't tempt it.

The impulse per se is not a sin, methinks. Acting on it, even if the acting is STILL only in your mind, like running little fantasies or paying attention, starts the danger zone.

Maybe that's what Christ referred to, in a way. As soon as the thought is there and the lust, the attraction, the desire, is there, and you think anything but "No" to that, you have started a road that could hurt like heck.

Of course, I have a very narrow view on this, because betrayal has hurt me before!

I suspect most people have been there, at least once.

Of course! I'd even say ALL people, because really, betrayal big and small is just a normal byproduct of the human condition. And people deal different.

And betrayal magnitudes differ tremendously. What I described above may seem a bit extreme but really, that is just the way I function. My way if dealing, if I could describe it like that.

Make sense to me. Why go that way if it will only cause trouble and strife - even if that trouble and strife is internal?

But it's interesting that one can speak of different magnitudes of betrayal. I'm not so sure about that.

No easy answer here.

My first thought is truth - I need to be able to get thru the world knowing that most of what I see and hear from those around me is true. I've gone long periods of time without someone I love nearby, but I couldn't manage a day if I had to navigate through a sea of lies from everyone I met.

On the other hand, when I was deep in depression, I "knew" I was not loved by anyone, and I "knew" that I was telling myself the truth. When actually, I had a very tenuous and distorted handle on reality, and a strongly loving family that was quietly keeping me alive.

So I guess I need both.

*trots back in to answer the question implied* :mrgreen:

Impenitent:

To me, betrayal comes in different magnitudes, yes.

Example:

1. Relationship in progress. Pillow talk and stuff. But no explicit "house rules" about what stays private and what could be shared about maybe, with friends, over a glass of tipple, because we're young and still think love == mindreading.
2. Something I feel was PERSONAL dangnabbit gets spilled.
3. I find out and get hopping mad because I told that thing to the person in confidence.
4. I actually THINK about it, and a) the person wasn't EXPLICITLY TOLD the thing was told in confidence, I didn't state it, and b) their motive was honourable. ( No details :mrgreen: I know it sounds funny, but just work with me, here. )

So: Betrayal of trust yes, but it is not a HIGH magnitude betrayal. There is softening circumstances. I can completely forgive and get over something like that. AND learn from it.

Another example:

1. "Better half" in the works. We have the chat about the whole relationship thing. Promises to be faithful and all. And I trust the bugger.
2. He wanders.
3. I find out and get hopping mad because bloody hell ... !!
4. And kick his ass out the door after he starts his sentence with: "But I ..." Yes, YOU, YOU "just" wanted to sample something because YOU wanted it. YOUR itch more important than my trust? Selfish twit you, then, and I don't do selfish twits. ( that sounded a lot less dirty in my mind btw :mrgreen: ). Please get hit by the door on the ass on the way out.

So: Betrayal of trust, HIGH magnitude. Direct selfish betrayal for own selfish needs, and a direct breach of a mutual promise. I totally kick your sorry ass out of my life for something like that.

So, that's the kind of thing I mean with orders or magnitudes, or at least, that I was referred to. Or something. Pity me trying to write tricksy code with this craaaaazzzzy mind. I can hardly think straight

I thought that was what you meant, Griff. I understand it too. (and you SO do NOT have a crazy mind; you are so astute. That mind of yours seems to penetrate cleanly through to the heart of matters.)

But I'm just not sure that I see the grey there. I used to, and it was my first reflex when I read your post, but I think now I see it a little more sharply.

It is either betrayal, or it is not - and for the definition lies in whether there's love, I think.

Is there love in the heart when the little white lie is told? When the secret was shared? I guess for me betrayal is when the best interests of the one 'betrayed' are shunted aside. It depends on whether the heart stays true.

Love, friends, love.

Jesus preached love all the time, and even Pliate had to ask back "What is truth?".

Love is one of the few things where conviction, imho, is more relevant than truth, but where the danger of turning into obsession is as much as valid.

"Would you choose truth or love?"

When I see a question like this, I ask first if can it be reflected in a simple real-life choice.

So many of these questions of the kind “Would you choose door one or door two?” are so much hot air, since you could never really face that choice in real life. For example, a question like “Would you choose a life without love and world peace, or a life with love and world misery?” sounds deep and philosophical, but is really very stupid and pointless.

I put the question of “Would you choose love or truth?” somewhere in the middle ground when judged merely as a question. But it is open-ended enough to lead to very deep discussion, so this is not a criticism of Axordil’s original question at all.

The only way I can see to make the stark choice between love and truth into a real world question is to phrase it this way: Would you choose truth, which would end the apparent love, or would you choose love, even though to maintain the love you must be blind to much, deceived about much, and not even know or remember you are blind and deceived?

The answer to this question might seem to turn on the notion of acceptance or rejection of blissful ignorance, since that seems to be what is required to choose love over truth. But to my mind the point of true importance is that the choice is really between truth and shallow, static love. This is the major point many, many people have made in this thread: love without truth is not really love at all. And further, there is this simple calculation: as long as the shallow deceptive love is held onto, there is no possibility of true love growing. But once the shallow, deceptive love is released, then the opportunity for a deeper love based in truth comes around again, even if it may seem far off and hopeless in the face of what has just been lost.

The deeper point of this thread, at least in my view, is to explore the nature of love, and what role truth plays in love. I will give my own ideas on this in a later post.

--Faramond

Quote:

for Christmas she gave me a painting--her take on Van Gogh's "Starry Night"! I'll have to get a photo up as an avatar sometime.

I would love to see that. That's the truth.

Faramond wrote:

The answer to this question might seem to turn on the notion of acceptance or rejection of blissful ignorance, since that seems to be what is required to choose love over truth. But to my mind the point of true importance is that the choice is really between truth and shallow, static love. This is the major point many, many people have made in this thread: love without truth is not really love at all. And further, there is this simple calculation: as long as the shallow deceptive love is held onto, there is no possibility of true love growing. But once the shallow, deceptive love is released, then the opportunity for a deeper love based in truth comes around again, even if it may seem far off and hopeless in the face of what has just been lost.

I don't have blissful ignorance about my youngest daughter. She will lie to me and hide what she is doing and feeling, I have no illusions about that at all. She WILL hurt me AND herself, again and again.

I'm resigned to it. But I still love her. Better the shallow deceptive kind of love rather than no love at all. I'm not going to get any better from her, but she IS my daughter and there are many good qualities about her. I can accept her as she is without always getting the complete truth from her.

Maybe we need a more clear definition of the sort of love we are talking about here?

MariaHobbit, I think you at least have a truthful love going there. Sometimes the truth is unhappy. She lies, but you aren't fooled by it. So she's essentially lying to herself.

Yes, you are right. It is not right to call the bond between me and my daughter shallow. I love her a whole lot, despite her flaws. And one of her major flaws is the willingness to easily lie about anything, large or small.

Yet still there is a significant bond between us, and many things that are just plain impressive about her. She's a good kid, she just has this tendancy to revise reality in her mind to what she thinks OUGHT to have happened- and expects others to follow her into this fantasy of hers.

Love is not dependent on truthfulness, but it sure is easier with it.

MariaHobbit, I have no idea what the nature of the love between you and your duaghter is. But this is family love; it is not really chosen, and there are different dynamics there. In my post I am talking more about a love that is chosen.

Here is an alternate question more in line with your scenario perhaps, MH: Do you choose to love your child even though he or she is deceptive, or hold back that love until that child is truthful?

I would choose love here. (I strongly suspect I would at least; I don't have any children.) A child isn't to be tossed aside like a deceptive lover is. The nature of the bond is just completely different here, and I'm sure I'm not the best person to explain this difference.


I wonder, MH, would your answer to this question change if you considered it only about your husband, in the hypothetical sense?

Well, what is love? For me it's when someone else's life (and feelings) are more important than your own. And with that comes the small lies that are a necessary corollary to that.

"Yes, that dinner was lovely."

"No, it doesn't make you look fat."

"No, I don't mind, really."

It makes the other person feel better, and the only person you are really betraying is yourself - but this is the price everyone pays for being in love. For people to successfully be together, there has to be a diminishment of Self in order to enjoy being part of a greater unit. The trick of course is to find a relationship where the diminishment is effortless.

I cannot imagine a relationship succeeding where truth was told 100% of the time.

So when is telling a lie unacceptable? I guess it's when the primary purpose of it is for selfish reasons rather than for enhancing the other person's well being.

So in the real world, you cannot have love without truth, but then you cannot have love without lies, either.

MariaHobbit wrote:

I don't have blissful ignorance about my youngest daughter. She will lie to me and hide what she is doing and feeling, I have no illusions about that at all. She WILL hurt me AND herself, again and again.

I'm resigned to it. But I still love her. Better the shallow deceptive kind of love rather than no love at all. I'm not going to get any better from her, but she IS my daughter and there are many good qualities about her. I can accept her as she is without always getting the complete truth from her.

Maybe we need a more clear definition of the sort of love we are talking about here?

Maria - completely off topic, but I wanted to say it.

As Steve would say "Back when I were young" *remembers own age* errr, well, back when I was in high school, I was pretty much exactly how you describe your daughter. Lied to my parents all the time, was extremely hurtful - I only know of one or two other people, in fact, who I would consider to be as bad of a teenager to my parents as I was. If I were to look at someone like that now, without having gone through it myself, I would think it was impossible for them to come out alright, let alone come out a person I would actually like.

The difference (and only 8 years out of highschool) - I adore my parents. I want nothing more in life than to be just like my mom, who I consider the strongest, most generous and most compassionate person I know. I think I've turned out to be a pretty good person - kind to others, good to myself, etc etc... I don't know how old your daughter is, but maybe there's some hope in there for you




Steve -

I understand Faramond's tendency to analyze objectively a problem he has been presented... I have that tendency myself.

It must be said, however, before I even start this, that I understand there is no way to objectively analyze something that is inherently subjective; something based on feelings and perceptions, like love and trust.

(This is why I like to think about things like math problems, btw... 2 + 2 = 4, and that 's just it. It doesn't wonder if it would be better liked if it were 5. )

All that being said, I've tried to analyze this by imagining a place full of love, but with no trust, and compare it to a place full of trust, without any love, and gauging my imaginary reactions. (Both are grim... there's no way in God's green earth that I would enjoy being in either.)

But I think this analytical mode is flawed... love and truth are not at opposite ends of a continuum. It's not like the question "what would you prefer, silence or deafening sound", where you can imagine a volume control going up and down, blending the two absolutes to different degrees along the path. Love and truth can exist together, or neither can exist. Although they can influence each other, one feeling is not dependent upon the other for its existance.

So I considered this model: Would I rather have a state of perfect truth, without considering love at all, or a state of perfect love, without considering truth at all?

Ah, this becomes easier. There are sharp edges in truth... the sharing of truths is not always an altruistic endeavor. I have seen truth wielded like a two -ided sword, scything down people left and right; I have seen it used to punish; I have seen it used to do nothing more than inflict pain. Generally speaking, truth and honesty are wonderful things... however, I believe that discretion and tact are wonderful as well.

Perfect love, though... oh, yeah. Love that forgives many things, love that protects and uplifts, good old immutable love? (It can be used to hurt, too, of course, but I'm not sure that those tendencies ARE born of love... I think that's quite something else.)

Real love? Where someone else's interests become your own, where someone else's problems concern you, where you can forgive imperfections in someone, and know that they accept yours, because of your shared love?

Well.

I vote for love.

I don't know, Anthriel. The problem I have with your model is that the choice presented is not a real world choice, and it excludes so much in the middle. A state of perfect truth without considering love at all I would reject, for the very reasons you go on to state. Truth by itself is a tool, and without the care of love it can be used for pain and hate. But a state of perfect love without considering truth I frankly consider impossible and absurd. I don't think this option is logically consistent.

Anth said: Real love? Where someone else's interests become your own, where someone else's problems concern you, where you can forgive imperfections in someone, and know that they accept yours, because of your shared love? ... I vote for love.

Well, I don't see how any of this stuff you talk about is happening without truth. Really these things need trust to happen, but trust is built on truth. To forgive and accept imperfections and share problems and make the other persons happiness and concerns your own, you must truly know the other person, and to know the other person he or she must open him or herself up to you, must be vulnerable, and to do that he or she must trust you. First, trust that what you communicate is the truth, and second, trust that what you communicate comes out of a motivation of love.

So, in fact, I think that trust is actually built on both truth and love. And yet love is built on trust, so they are actually built on each other, intimately dependent. I don't think either love or trust comes first and leads to the other --- I think they grow together. And at times there must be leaps of faith, when through faith you put your trust in someone because you see the possibility of love.

But none of this can happen without truth. Faith, in fact, is the affirmation of something as truth even in the face of some doubt. If the truth is violated, the deception will eventually show itself somewhere. A lie cannot persist without having consequences somewhere. (Some might doubt this, and I'd give a detailed explanation for my thinking, but I don't have time right now.) So a lie will be outed in some way, and this will show those involved that the truth has not been respected, and this will give doubts new life, and these doubts, strengthened by painful example, can easily overturn the initial faith that trust was built on, and once trust goes love is doomed.

Truthfulness as I see it does not imply that you say everything on your mind. I think truthfulness and discretion are very compatible. Lidless gave the example of the classic question "Do I look fat in this?" to explain why little lies are necessary. Well shit, why does the question need to be asked in the first place? I see this dance of question and assured answer as a quick and careless path to mental comfort.

I don't understand the point of seeking comfort in your body image by soliciting what may be a lie from your partner. To ask a question expecting that a certain answer must be given, and then to imagine that the answer that must be given is in some way the 'truth' is itself an act of deception. Asking the question with those expectations does violence on truthful communication.

Honestly discussing things that are personally painful may be harder at first, but I think the rewards are lasting, and remove the need for future lies and potential misunderstanding. And there are some things, that if relatively small, can just be avoided in communication. Even in 'true love' not every damn little thing needs to be discussed. Some things can just be left private.

The bottom line is that I didn't vote in the poll, and I don't choose between love and truth because I don't accept that this is a real choice I have to make.

--Faramond