Dont I Get A Choice?

[Steezie]

and does that satisfy you more than loving just one person romantically?

Yes

How do the other parties involved feel about your affects toward the other ones?

If they are polyamorous, then they understand or may even have feelings of their own. I wouldn't engage in a polyamorous relationship with someone who WASN'T polyamorous.

 

[aiki]

What makes you say that?

What makes me say that romantic feelings are fundamentally sexual in focus? Well, if they weren't, they would be platonic feelings of friendship, wouldn't they?

Im sorry, but who died and made you arbiter of human emotions?

Are you sorry? Really? I don't know... In any case, no one has died in order to make me the "arbiter of human emotions." No one that I'm aware of, at least...:o

My point was that love is not primarily a feeling. The Bible describes the greatest kind of love as self-sacrificing. "Greater love has no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends." (Jn. 15:13) Love isn't completely devoid of feeling, of course, but feeling isn't the defining characteristic of love. It is action that seeks the betterment of the other person - even at the expense of oneself - that evidences true love. This is the Christian view of love.

Now, no one is demanding that you agree with the Christian view of love, but if you dismiss it out-of-hand as mere opinion, then you give others the right to do the same to your point of view. This doesn't allow for very useful discussions however...

The vast majority of polyamorous relationships are just as "confining" (unfortunate choice of words) as monogamous ones.

This is obviously not the case. As you've indicated yourself, there is a very plain difference between "mono" and "poly."

Being married means one has resolved to direct one's strongest, deepest, most intimate feelings, thoughts and energy toward just one other person. It means one has promised to endure in such a relationship no matter what. This commitment and its exclusivity are what makes marriage unique. Even without sex no other relationship is like it. Can the polyamorous person say the same? Obviously not.

Again, who died and made you arbiter?

Are you disagreeing with me? If so, perhaps you could give some better rationale for your disagreement than this vague retort.

"Not to be treated differently"? If you're doing something I think is morally wrong, am I supposed to turn a blind eye? If so, how far should I take such a response to things I think are immoral? Doesn't such "blindness" itself become immoral? I can think of instances where it would.

I think not encouraging love is immoral, what do you suggest I do?

I suggest you actually answer my questions.

Peace.

 

[Steezie]

What makes me say that romantic feelings are fundamentally sexual in focus? Well, if they weren't, they would be platonic feelings of friendship, wouldn't they?

Why do you say that romantic feelings are fundamentally sexual in focus?

My point was that love is not primarily a feeling. The Bible describes the greatest kind of love as self-sacrificing. "Greater love has no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends." (Jn. 15:13) Love isn't completely devoid of feeling, of course, but feeling isn't the defining characteristic of love. It is action that seeks the betterment of the other person - even at the expense of oneself - that evidences true love. This is the Christian view of love.

And I see that as a different kind of love than love you might feel for your wife.

Now, no one is demanding that you agree with the Christian view of love, but if you dismiss it out-of-hand as mere opinion, then you give others the right to do the same to your point of view. This doesn't allow for very useful discussions however...

Im sorry if I've been a little defensive but I AM kinda isolated here. I just see love as being more than sexual.

This is obviously not the case. As you've indicated yourself, there is a very plain difference between "mono" and "poly."

In what regard?

Are you disagreeing with me? If so, perhaps you could give some better rationale for your disagreement than this vague retort.

You seem to feel that your definition and yours alone applies to how others feel and that because what I feel disagrees with that, its wrong.

 

[aiki]

Why do you say that romantic feelings are fundamentally sexual in focus?

How is romantic love distinguished from all other kinds of love? Well, why do we say that a man and woman who are simply good friends, who are not involved sexually, are in a platonic relationship rather than a romantic one? Why, when a man and woman have the expectation of sexual intimacy with each other is the relationship suddenly "romantic"? Answer these questions and you'll understand why I think romance is fundamentally directed toward sex. Oh, and please note that I say "fundamentally directed," not "solely directed." Romantic relationships aren't only about sex, just fundamentally so.

And I see that as a different kind of love than love you might feel for your wife.

Oh, but it isn't! This is precisely the kind of love I strive to enter into with my wife. Again, note that it isn't completely devoid of feeling, just not directed by those feelings. My marriage promise to my wife transcends what I may or may not feel. My main goal isn't to gratify myself through my wife, but to give to her - even when it costs me. I am convinced that without this kind of love in a marriage that marriage is doomed to failure.

You seem to feel that your definition and yours alone applies to how others feel and that because what I feel disagrees with that, its wrong.

I am convinced that the things I believe about love are correct, but that doesn't mean I assume that you or all others agree. At the same time, your anticipated disagreement doesn't mean that I should waver on, or water down, my declarations of what I think is the truth. If I believe I understand the truth in this matter then, yes, I also believe this truth applies to you and everyone else. This is the nature of this kind of truth.

You do realize you are doing to me what you accuse me of doing to you. You think your definition is better than mine and, because my definition doesn't agree with yours, it must then be wrong. Really, all either of us can do is set out what we believe and let the other decide whether to agree or not. I think you're wrong and vice versa and nothing we've said so far has prompted a change in the other's perspective. Well, then, I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. For me, that doesn't mean I will just turn a blind eye to what I believe is the immoral nature of polyamorism and say nothing critical about it. I can't be truly convinced as I am and do that. You may feel the same on your side. So be it.

Peace.

 

[Steezie]

How is romantic love distinguished from all other kinds of love? Well, why do we say that a man and woman who are simply good friends, who are not involved sexually, are in a platonic relationship rather than a romantic one? Why, when a man and woman have the expectation of sexual intimacy with each other is the relationship suddenly "romantic"? Answer these questions and you'll understand why I think romance is fundamentally directed toward sex. Oh, and please note that I say "fundamentally directed," not "solely directed." Romantic relationships aren't only about sex, just fundamentally so.

You are repeating yourself and not answering my question. WHY does romantic love ALWAYS have to be fundamentally directed by sex?

Oh, but it isn't! This is precisely the kind of love I strive to enter into with my wife. Again, note that it isn't completely devoid of feeling, just not directed by those feelings. My marriage promise to my wife transcends what I may or may not feel. My main goal isn't to gratify myself through my wife, but to give to her - even when it costs me. I am convinced that without this kind of love in a marriage that marriage is doomed to failure.

Where is the passion? The fire? It seems to me even a relationship with love that lacks passion is a waste of time.

I am convinced that the things I believe about love are correct, but that doesn't mean I assume that you or all others agree. At the same time, your anticipated disagreement doesn't mean that I should waver on, or water down, my declarations of what I think is the truth. If I believe I understand the truth in this matter then, yes, I also believe this truth applies to you and everyone else. This is the nature of this kind of truth.

But why are you the only one who can be right?

You do realize you are doing to me what you accuse me of doing to you. You think your definition is better than mine and, because my definition doesn't agree with yours, it must then be wrong. Really, all either of us can do is set out what we believe and let the other decide whether to agree or not. I think you're wrong and vice versa and nothing we've said so far has prompted a change in the other's perspective. Well, then, I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. For me, that doesn't mean I will just turn a blind eye to what I believe is the immoral nature of polyamorism and say nothing critical about it. I can't be truly convinced as I am and do that. You may feel the same on your side. So be it.

I dont feel your outlook is the right one for ME. I am also trying to help you understand my position just as I am asking to understand yours.

Peace.[/quote]

 

[aiki]

You are repeating yourself and not answering my question. WHY does romantic love ALWAYS have to be fundamentally directed by sex?

I may seem to be repeating myself because I think what you're asking is self-evident and cannot be explained in any better way than the way I have already explained it. This is why I draw attention to the difference between a platonic and a romantic relationship. It seems very clear to me that a relationship that is platonic necessarily cannot be romantic, or vice versa. The distinction we make between the two kinds of relationships draws attention to the very things I'm saying about sex and romance. If a romantic relationship isn't fundamentally about sex, then it is a platonic relationship and not romantic. It sounds to me, though, like you're trying to suggest that there is a relationship that can be both at the same time. This, for reasons I've recently outlined, I believe is impossible.

Where is the passion? The fire? It seems to me even a relationship with love that lacks passion is a waste of time.

You seem to be framing this particular point in what I'm writing in a one-or-the-other mindset. I never said that there was no passion in my marriage, or that my love for my wife was devoid of "fire." I only said that mature love, godly love, cannot use passion or fire as its foundation. Any one who has been married more than a short time can tell you that romantic passion waxes and wanes. The fluctuating nature of these feelings makes it a very poor foundation for loving anyone. There has to be a deeper root for love, something more stable and persevering, that serves as the ground upon which a husband relates to his wife. I have explained to you in my last post what kind of love that is.

But why are you the only one who can be right?

The nature of truth denies the idea that everyone can be right about a particular thing even though they all disagree about it. For instance, if I say love is fundamentally a self-sacrificing action and you disagree and say it is fundamentally romantic passion, we may both be wrong, or one of us may be right, but we cannot both be right. This would contravene the basic law of logic known as the Law of Non-Contradiction. Take a simpler example: If I point to my car and say "The car is green," and my wife points to the same car and says, "The car is purple," we cannot both be right. It must be one color or the other (assuming that the car is one solid color); it cannot be both. We can see in this that truth is naturally exclusivistic. If the truth is that the car is green, all other colors are excluded; the car is not blue, or pink, or yellow, etc, etc. In other words, there can be only one right answer to the question, "What color is the car?"

In the same way, the matter you and I have been discussing has, I believe, only one right answer. We can't both hold opposing views and still both be correct. If we try to do this, we become logically fallacious in our thinking and confuse truth with opinion. We may both of us be wrong, or one of us is right and the other not, but we cannot both be right. I think I am right. Because our views diverge as they do I cannot believe I am right and think that you, too, are also right. The nature of truth (and basic logic) won't allow it. Now, I may also be wrong, but I have yet to be convinced of this. Until I am, I will continue to think as I do.

I dont feel your outlook is the right one for ME. I am also trying to help you understand my position just as I am asking to understand yours.

Just because I think you're wrong doesn't mean I don't understand what you're saying. I have to understand what you're saying to be able to assess it as right or wrong. In other words it is, in part, because I do understand what you're saying that I think it is wrong.

Also, I don't think I'm giving you merely my "outlook." I believe I understand the truth of this matter. You, on the other hand, seem to be approaching our discussion with a very postmodern outlook: Truth is whatever you choose to make it; truth is ultimately unknowable and subjective. This is suggested in the phrase you use: "the right one for me." But Truth isn't like a pair of shoes you buy, or paint you choose to color your bedroom walls; it isn't a flavor, or a preference. So it is that when we come to the place where we must agree to disagree, I don't go away thinking that we have had merely a divergence of opinion, but that you are completely mistaken in your view of the truth of the matter. This doesn't mean I have any personal dislike for you - far from it! I don't get a hate on for someone who thinks 2 + 2 = 5; I don't agree with their arithmetic, but this isn't a basis for burning them at the stake. At the same time, I don't tolerate this kind of mistaken addition, or promote it. Imagine how foolish this would be when buying something, or building a house, or doing my banking!

Peace.

 

[Celticflower]

I think you guys are at an impasse. You each have your own views on this matter and neither is going to change position. Maybe it is time to move on?

 

[Steezie]

I think you guys are at an impasse. You each have your own views on this matter and neither is going to change position. Maybe it is time to move on?

I can only speak for myself in saying I am not trying to change his position but to understand why he has reached some of the conclusions he has and to try to help him understand my positions because I dont feel there is mutual understanding.

I may seem to be repeating myself because I think what you're asking is self-evident and cannot be explained in any better way than the way I have already explained it. This is why I draw attention to the difference between a platonic and a romantic relationship. It seems very clear to me that a relationship that is platonic necessarily cannot be romantic, or vice versa. The distinction we make between the two kinds of relationships draws attention to the very things I'm saying about sex and romance. If a romantic relationship isn't fundamentally about sex, then it is a platonic relationship and not romantic. It sounds to me, though, like you're trying to suggest that there is a relationship that can be both at the same time. This, for reasons I've recently outlined, I believe is impossible.

I think the disconnect is that you seem to feel that you seem to believe that a relationship of romantic love is founded mostly on sex; I strongly disagree. I think you are compartmentalizing things to make them fit.

You seem to be framing this particular point in what I'm writing in a one-or-the-other mindset.

From what you've said before, thats the impression you give.

I never said that there was no passion in my marriage, or that my love for my wife was devoid of "fire."

What you said made it sound very much that way.

I only said that mature love, godly love, cannot use passion or fire as its foundation. Any one who has been married more than a short time can tell you that romantic passion waxes and wanes. The fluctuating nature of these feelings makes it a very poor foundation for loving anyone. There has to be a deeper root for love, something more stable and persevering, that serves as the ground upon which a husband relates to his wife. I have explained to you in my last post what kind of love that is.

Im not disagreeing that a marriage founded on pure passion has a good chance of failing.

The nature of truth denies the idea that everyone can be right about a particular thing even though they all disagree about it. For instance, if I say love is fundamentally a self-sacrificing action and you disagree and say it is fundamentally romantic passion, we may both be wrong, or one of us may be right, but we cannot both be right. This would contravene the basic law of logic known as the Law of Non-Contradiction. Take a simpler example: If I point to my car and say "The car is green," and my wife points to the same car and says, "The car is purple," we cannot both be right. It must be one color or the other (assuming that the car is one solid color); it cannot be both. We can see in this that truth is naturally exclusivistic. If the truth is that the car is green, all other colors are excluded; the car is not blue, or pink, or yellow, etc, etc. In other words, there can be only one right answer to the question, "What color is the car?"

There is no reason in the world we cant both be right or wrong. In your car analogy, if we are looking at a car that is dark blue and you say that it is blue and I say that it is black, we are both correct; the car has aspects of both. I often find that the idea of absolute truth comes from a lack of focus on details and details can be extremely important.

In the same way, the matter you and I have been discussing has, I believe, only one right answer. We can't both hold opposing views and still both be correct. If we try to do this, we become logically fallacious in our thinking and confuse truth with opinion. We may both of us be wrong, or one of us is right and the other not, but we cannot both be right. I think I am right. Because our views diverge as they do I cannot believe I am right and think that you, too, are also right. The nature of truth (and basic logic) won't allow it. Now, I may also be wrong, but I have yet to be convinced of this. Until I am, I will continue to think as I do.

Again I am not trying to change your mind, just trying to help you understand how I feel and trying to understand how you feel; I must confess a lot of your thinking is very alien to me.

Just because I think you're wrong doesn't mean I don't understand what you're saying. I have to understand what you're saying to be able to assess it as right or wrong. In other words it is, in part, because I do understand what you're saying that I think it is wrong.

A lot of your responses suggest that you dont understand what I'm talking about and Im sure a lot of the confusion on my end is due to the fact that I dont clearly understand a lot of your thinking as well.

Also, I don't think I'm giving you merely my "outlook." I believe I understand the truth of this matter. You, on the other hand, seem to be approaching our discussion with a very postmodern outlook: Truth is whatever you choose to make it; truth is ultimately unknowable and subjective. This is suggested in the phrase you use: "the right one for me." But Truth isn't like a pair of shoes you buy, or paint you choose to color your bedroom walls; it isn't a flavor, or a preference. So it is that when we come to the place where we must agree to disagree, I don't go away thinking that we have had merely a divergence of opinion, but that you are completely mistaken in your view of the truth of the matter. This doesn't mean I have any personal dislike for you - far from it! I don't get a hate on for someone who thinks 2 + 2 = 5; I don't agree with their arithmetic, but this isn't a basis for burning them at the stake. At the same time, I don't tolerate this kind of mistaken addition, or promote it. Imagine how foolish this would be when buying something, or building a house, or doing my banking!

Again, I find the idea of absolute truth very difficult to accept simply because there ARE no absolutes, which isnt even absolute in and of itself.

Again with the car, if I see a car as green, someone else may come along who is colorblind and sees the car as white. Am I wrong? Is he wrong? We are both doing the same thing, observing reflected light from an object. We tend to think of what WE as individuals see as "normal" however we forget that sometimes changes in perspective can result in changes in what you actually see.

 

[Digit]

Again with the car, if I see a car as green, someone else may come along who is colorblind and sees the car as white. Am I wrong? Is he wrong? We are both doing the same thing, observing reflected light from an object. We tend to think of what WE as individuals see as "normal" however we forget that sometimes changes in perspective can result in changes in what you actually see.

Creepy, I used this exact analogy the other day. :o

I've not read the rest of the thread, but I think this can be summed up by saying there are three sides to any story, yours, theirs, and the truth.

Yours - green.
Theirs - white.
Truth - whatever colour it actually is.

Whilst both are saying what is actually true to them personally, it may not accurately reflect the actual state of things.

As a random aside - I have just eaten 3 Curly Wurlys. That was a mistake.

 

[aiki]

I think the disconnect is that you seem to feel that you seem to believe that a relationship of romantic love is founded mostly on sex; I strongly disagree. I think you are compartmentalizing things to make them fit.

*Sigh* Well, I've explained as much as I think is necessary. I can't help how you will filter my explanation and how you will choose to emphasize my points in your thinking. I "compartmentalize" and you distort. As I said, we shall have to agree to disagree, I guess.

What you said made it sound very much that way.

Again, you will make assumptions about what I don't say based on the filters you have. I really can't help that...

There is no reason in the world we cant both be right or wrong. In your car analogy, if we are looking at a car that is dark blue and you say that it is blue and I say that it is black, we are both correct; the car has aspects of both.

Actually, you said that the car was "dark blue." Both "blue" and "black" are, then, close to the truth, but not precisely on it. Both of us are, in your analogy, incorrect about the real, particular, color of the car. One may get away with holding to this kind of near truth in some instances, but, as I pointed out in my arithmetic analogy, in others it can be catastrophic.

I often find that the idea of absolute truth comes from a lack of focus on details and details can be extremely important.

As I just pointed out, it is precisely because you have not been detailed that you are willing to accept that "blue" and "black" are the same as "dark blue".

I must confess a lot of your thinking is very alien to me.

Unfortunately, your kind of thinking is not alien to me at all. The North American culture is rife with fallacious, postmodernist ideas.

A lot of your responses suggest that you dont understand what I'm talking about and Im sure a lot of the confusion on my end is due to the fact that I dont clearly understand a lot of your thinking as well.

No, I get where you're coming from. I just don't agree with it. It would be more diplomatic, I suppose, to just chalk up our impasse to "confusion" but I don't think I am confused at all. I think your view is incorrect, not confusing.

Again, I find the idea of absolute truth very difficult to accept simply because there ARE no absolutes, which isnt even absolute in and of itself.

That you are willing to assert this as you just did shows how profoundly illogical your thinking can be. Logically, you cannot assert absolutely that there are no absolutes and then qualify your absolute assertion by saying it isn't actually absolute. This is a classic example of a self-refuting statement. Essentially, you are, in making the statement, also denying it. This is bad enough, but you also seem quite at ease with the glaring illogicality of your declaration. Now that is very disturbing!

Again with the car, if I see a car as green, someone else may come along who is colorblind and sees the car as white. Am I wrong? Is he wrong? We are both doing the same thing, observing reflected light from an object. We tend to think of what WE as individuals see as "normal" however we forget that sometimes changes in perspective can result in changes in what you actually see.

Ah, but if you know the other fellow is color-blind, that he cannot visually discern color, then you know that he is not physically able to accurately assess the actual color of the car. This is why he is described as being blind to color. If he says the color of the car is white it isn't because it actually is, but because he can't distinguish color at all. Imagine if the color-blind person approached driving with your kind of thinking. He could come up to a traffic light that is glowing red and say to himself, "From my perspective there is no red light, so I may freely pass through this intersection." As you can also imagine, such a driver would quickly and violently cease to drive - or perhaps even live!

Truth isn't merely a matter of perspective. It is that illogical - and, quite frankly, dangerous - thinking, I suspect, that is in no small part responsible for your views on polyamorism.

Proverbs 16:25
25 There is a way that seems right to a man, But its end is the way of death.

Peace.

 

[Steezie]

*Sigh* Well, I've explained as much as I think is necessary. I can't help how you will filter my explanation and how you will choose to emphasize my points in your thinking. I "compartmentalize" and you distort. As I said, we shall have to agree to disagree, I guess.

Look, I can only go off of what you give me. If I'm getting the wrong impression then its YOUR responsibility to say something. I am not a mind reader.

Unfortunately, your kind of thinking is not alien to me at all. The North American culture is rife with fallacious, postmodernist ideas.

Sneer at it all you want, I simply use what I see and know to form the best image possible of the world.

No, I get where you're coming from. I just don't agree with it. It would be more diplomatic, I suppose, to just chalk up our impasse to "confusion" but I don't think I am confused at all. I think your view is incorrect, not confusing.

Yet again, based on your responses, you DONT seem to understand where I'm coming from.

That you are willing to assert this as you just did shows how profoundly illogical your thinking can be. Logically, you cannot assert absolutely that there are no absolutes and then qualify your absolute assertion by saying it isn't actually absolute. This is a classic example of a self-refuting statement. Essentially, you are, in making the statement, also denying it. This is bad enough, but you also seem quite at ease with the glaring illogicality of your declaration. Now that is very disturbing!

Then show me an example of an absolute that is always true.

Ah, but if you know the other fellow is color-blind, that he cannot visually discern color, then you know that he is not physically able to accurately assess the actual color of the car. This is why he is described as being blind to color. If he says the color of the car is white it isn't because it actually is, but because he can't distinguish color at all. Imagine if the color-blind person approached driving with your kind of thinking. He could come up to a traffic light that is glowing red and say to himself, "From my perspective there is no red light, so I may freely pass through this intersection." As you can also imagine, such a driver would quickly and violently cease to drive - or perhaps even live!

My point is that all color is a matter of perspective.

Truth isn't merely a matter of perspective. It is that illogical - and, quite frankly, dangerous - thinking, I suspect, that is in no small part responsible for your views on polyamorism.

Dangerous? How so?

 

[aiki]

Look, I can only go off of what you give me. If I'm getting the wrong impression then its YOUR responsibility to say something. I am not a mind reader.

No, you're not a mind reader. But you have filters, just as I do, that can tend to distort what I'm saying. I have made some effort to clarify my thinking; I am trying to help you understand precisely what I'm getting at.

Sneer at it all you want, I simply use what I see and know to form the best image possible of the world.

Believe me, I'm not sneering. What I felt as I wrote was concern - and some sadness - that postmodernism has so gripped the culture.

Then show me an example of an absolute that is always true.

You're not really addressing my point, here...

In any case, I can give you examples of absolute truths very easily: I love chocolate, the Earth revolves around the Sun, sticking your bare, unprotected hand into a fire for five minutes will badly damage your hand. Will these things that are absolutely true now remain so always? I don't know. I may come to despise chocolate (tho' I really doubt it) and the Sun may one day begin to revolve around the Earth, but that doesn't change the fact that, at the moment, these things are absolutely true.

My point is that all color is a matter of perspective.

And I explained, using your own analogy, that truth is not.

Dangerous? How so?

How is illogical thinking dangerous? Just imagine how a doctor, or lawyer, or general, or judge would answer this question.

Peace.

 

[Steezie]

No, you're not a mind reader. But you have filters, just as I do, that can tend to distort what I'm saying. I have made some effort to clarify my thinking; I am trying to help you understand precisely what I'm getting at.

You are simply responding to my questions with "because that's the way it is"

[quoteBelieve me, I'm not sneering. What I felt as I wrote was concern - and some sadness - that postmodernism has so gripped the culture.[/quote] Im sure.

You're not really addressing my point, here...

Which is?

In any case, I can give you examples of absolute truths very easily: I love chocolate, the Earth revolves around the Sun, sticking your bare, unprotected hand into a fire for five minutes will badly damage your hand. Will these things that are absolutely true now remain so always? I don't know. I may come to despise chocolate (tho' I really doubt it) and the Sun may one day begin to revolve around the Earth, but that doesn't change the fact that, at the moment, these things are absolutely true.

So truth IS relative; its relative to time. These things may be true now but in future they may change. Absolute truth is true all of the time regardless of the time you look at it.

And I explained, using your own analogy, that truth is not.

You basically just said that it was; the perspective of time (and yes time is a perspective)

 

[aiki]

So truth IS relative; its relative to time. These things may be true now but in future they may change. Absolute truth is true all of the time regardless of the time you look at it.

No, you're wrong. As I said, it is absolutely true that the Earth revolves around the Sun. That this may change does not make this truth less absolute now. It is convenient for you to conflate "absolute" with "permanent" in order to assert the relativity of truth, but your conflation of these terms simply reveals that you don't actually know what "absolute" means.

Peace.

 

[98cwitr]

do you find yourself loving one more than the other at times?

 

[Steezie]

No, you're wrong. As I said, it is absolutely true that the Earth revolves around the Sun. That this may change does not make this truth less absolute now. It is convenient for you to conflate "absolute" with "permanent" in order to assert the relativity of truth, but your conflation of these terms simply reveals that you don't actually know what "absolute" means.

Why is absolute truth something that can be flexible?

do you find yourself loving one more than the other at times?

Not being in a poly relationship currently I couldnt answer that question.

 

[aiki]

Why is absolute truth something that can be flexible?

"Flexible" and "changeable" aren't exactly the same thing.

Peace.

 

[Gilbert Funk]

I used to be almost militantly monogamous; the idea of having another person in the relationship was almost repulsive. But as I got older, I was forced to examine the question and I found that a lot of the earlier negative feelings towards the idea were gone and that I actually was feeling very receptive to the idea. This wasnt something where I sat down and thought about it then changed my mind.

That's right, you simply relied on your base instinctual nature to do what feels good, regardless of whether or not it is healthy for your mind or your soul. Congratulations, you have evolved your thinking right back into the stone age, where the animals of all species run on instinct without conscience or thought.

Anyone can be a pig. It takes discipline and hard work to rise above the animals.

 

[Steezie]

"Flexible" and "changeable" aren't exactly the same thing.

Peace.

Now you are splitting hairs

That's right, you simply relied on your base instinctual nature to do what feels good, regardless of whether or not it is healthy for your mind or your soul. Congratulations, you have evolved your thinking right back into the stone age, where the animals of all species run on instinct without conscience or thought.

אהיה אשר אהיה

 

[aiki]

"Flexible" and "changeable" aren't exactly the same thing.

Peace.

Now you are splitting hairs

Weren't you saying something in earlier posts about being detailed and how careful distinctions made a big difference? You wrote:

There's a big difference between 100mg of a medication and 1000mg of a medication. That extra zero is a small thing that makes a big difference, the same is true here.

(Emphasis mine)

And:

...details can be extremely important.

In light of these remarks I should think you'd appreciate the value of the distinction I'm making above.

The whole matter of the nature of truth is expansive and would require rather a lot of writing to clarify, and define, and argue. Doing so is unnecessary, however, in light of all that has already been written on the matter. If you want to know more, read Ravi Zacharias, or Alvin Plantinga, or C.S. Lewis, or any of the other philosophers who argue in favor of absolute truth.

Peace.