Peace

For intuitive and critical discussions, from spirituality to theological doctrines. Fair warning: because the subject matter is personal, moderation is strict.

Moderator: Dan~

Re: Peace

Postby iambiguous » Fri Oct 11, 2019 1:57 am

monad wrote: Nihilism, though not thoroughly exempt from any human activities especially when pertaining to war and peace, is still a separate subject from the OP especially since there is not simply one type of nihilism. A complex subject worthy of its own OP.


Sure, from the perspective of some that is clearly a reasonable assumption to make. But when peace on Earth is broached in the religion and spirituality forum and the sky father and earth mother are not being spoken of from the perspective of the scientific community, I can only react to it as value judgment. And I subsume them in moral nihilism.

monad wrote: Even so Sky Father and Earth Mother have always been wed. But sometimes they were close to divorce. These caused some of its most creative events even though it may not have seemed so at the time.They aren't always friendly to each other and even when there is a symbiotic relationship creating stability the likes of us even before we were completely human caused devastation to any megafauna they encountered. Humans have been the most deadly distruptors from day one.


Again, from the perspective of science, the forces that prevail in the sky become intertwined with the forces that prevail on earth in order to create such things as hurricanes and tornados and prolonged rain events that precipitate devastating floods.

And then when you include such earthly events as earthquakes and volcanic eruptions, as well as things from the skies like asteroids and comets, nature is clearly a match for man-made calamities.

But, again, in a religion forum, God is almost always going to be invoked as factor in explaining these things. Especially among those who insist that their own God is both omniscient and omnipotent.

monad wrote: Not least, in all of our historical annals peace has been the exception to the rule. It begs the question whether conflict and not peace is essential to the development of our type of species.


It's hard to imagine that somehow conflict is not hard-wired into us...genetically? A biological imperative that, particularly in regard to the male of the species, is never not going to be a part of human interactions.

Still, when God becomes part of the discusion, it can go on almost any direction. Same with nihilism.
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 32785
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: Peace

Postby iambiguous » Fri Oct 11, 2019 1:58 am

duplicate post
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 32785
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: Peace

Postby Ierrellus » Fri Oct 11, 2019 12:59 pm

Iambiguous,
For the second time, please tend to your own thread and leave mine alone. You have nothing to offer toward a better future for mankind. I ask you nicely to leave my thread alone.
"We must love one another or die." W.H.Auden
I admit I'm an asshole. Now, can we get back to the conversation?
From the mad poet of McKinley Ave.
Ierrellus
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 12718
Joined: Sat Jun 10, 2006 12:52 pm
Location: state of evolving

Re: Peace

Postby Arcturus Descending » Fri Oct 11, 2019 3:20 pm

CASE #19: One Small Candle

Shakyamuni taught: “As the light of a small candle will spread from one to another in succession, so the light of the Buddha’s compassion will pass from one mind to another endlessly.”
"Look closely. The beautiful may be small."


"Two things fill the mind with ever new and increasing admiration and awe, the oftener and more steadily we reflect on them: the starry heavens above me and the moral law within me."


“Whereas the beautiful is limited, the sublime is limitless, so that the mind in the presence of the sublime, attempting to imagine what it cannot, has pain in the failure but pleasure in contemplating the immensity of the attempt.”

Immanuel Kant
User avatar
Arcturus Descending
Consciousness Seeker
 
Posts: 15589
Joined: Sat Sep 06, 2008 5:15 pm
Location: A state of unknowing

Re: Peace

Postby iambiguous » Fri Oct 11, 2019 7:58 pm

Ierrellus wrote:Iambiguous,
For the second time, please tend to your own thread and leave mine alone. You have nothing to offer toward a better future for mankind. I ask you nicely to leave my thread alone.


Okay, just as I once agreed not to use anything you post here in my God and religion thread, I will cease and desist from contributing anything to this thread in turn. And I promise not to respond to any other thread you begin here.

Note to monad:

If you wish to continue our own discussion we will need to take it to another thread.
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 32785
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: Peace

Postby monad » Fri Oct 11, 2019 8:41 pm

monad wrote: Nihilism, though not thoroughly exempt from any human activities especially when pertaining to war and peace, is still a separate subject from the OP especially since there is not simply one type of nihilism. A complex subject worthy of its own OP.

iambiguous wrote:Sure, from the perspective of some that is clearly a reasonable assumption to make. But when peace on Earth is broached in the religion and spirituality forum and the sky father and earth mother are not being spoken of from the perspective of the scientific community, I can only react to it as value judgment. And I subsume them in moral nihilism.


I’m not certain whether the wording of the OP can even be considered a value judgment. Its terseness strikes me more as an allusion to the times when gods were created for any and all reasons. It makes sense that at some late point nihilism, in one form or another, ensues as a necessary consequence.

When all the reasons which caused a single god or a multiplicity that people once implored, worshiped and prayed to no-longer exist then a slow-moving fog sets in growing ever more dense with each generation, its former beliefs less visible though some of its traditions may still persist for purposes of identity and social cohesion. In that sense, traditions are the ghosts of former beliefs.

I don’t believe peace is possible. Even if not overtly genetic, conflict is inherent in the human psyche where habits can be as powerful as instincts. Propensities to violence can be diminished but never eradicated and likely not desirable if they could be. Everything in our past alludes to violence...a tendency which requires discipline and thought to be constructive, not annulment.

God in all this should have no mention. It's a completely useless entity since it’s humans who have trained the gods to train us, a long affair which only served to make conflicts worse and more violent...a stupid way to do business on planet Earth!
monad
 
Posts: 389
Joined: Mon Sep 27, 2004 5:26 am

Re: Peace

Postby Ierrellus » Sat Oct 12, 2019 1:23 pm

So love will not save us from ourselves?
"We must love one another or die." W.H.Auden
I admit I'm an asshole. Now, can we get back to the conversation?
From the mad poet of McKinley Ave.
Ierrellus
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 12718
Joined: Sat Jun 10, 2006 12:52 pm
Location: state of evolving

Re: Peace

Postby Arcturus Descending » Sat Oct 12, 2019 2:54 pm

Ierrellus wrote:So love will not save us from ourselves?


Can you give an example of what you mean here? Paint a picture.
"Look closely. The beautiful may be small."


"Two things fill the mind with ever new and increasing admiration and awe, the oftener and more steadily we reflect on them: the starry heavens above me and the moral law within me."


“Whereas the beautiful is limited, the sublime is limitless, so that the mind in the presence of the sublime, attempting to imagine what it cannot, has pain in the failure but pleasure in contemplating the immensity of the attempt.”

Immanuel Kant
User avatar
Arcturus Descending
Consciousness Seeker
 
Posts: 15589
Joined: Sat Sep 06, 2008 5:15 pm
Location: A state of unknowing

Re: Peace

Postby Ierrellus » Sun Oct 13, 2019 1:29 pm

Arcturus Descending wrote:
Ierrellus wrote:So love will not save us from ourselves?


Can you give an example of what you mean here? Paint a picture.

I have referred here to two authors who are into what I called progressive Christianity. Both dislike the OT God as Dawkins describes him (See the Dawkins quote in Greatest I Am's thread), and both see Jesus as the way of Love. This love includes everybody on Earth and is a ray of hope against the bleak darkness of postmodern philosophy. At my advanced age I am happy to find such a hopeful trend for the future of humans.
When she was alive, my wife and I discussed much religion and philosophy. In self-examination we decided that our rage against the waste land only contributed to its viability. We needed to engage in active hope. The new religious trends seem to offer hope for anyone concerned with the future
of life on Earth.
Thanks for your candle--ray of hope.
"We must love one another or die." W.H.Auden
I admit I'm an asshole. Now, can we get back to the conversation?
From the mad poet of McKinley Ave.
Ierrellus
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 12718
Joined: Sat Jun 10, 2006 12:52 pm
Location: state of evolving

Re: Peace

Postby Ierrellus » Sun Oct 13, 2019 1:34 pm

Re: the OP
Yin and yang may someday be seen as One.
"We must love one another or die." W.H.Auden
I admit I'm an asshole. Now, can we get back to the conversation?
From the mad poet of McKinley Ave.
Ierrellus
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 12718
Joined: Sat Jun 10, 2006 12:52 pm
Location: state of evolving

Re: Peace

Postby Ierrellus » Tue Oct 15, 2019 1:32 pm

Beyond the two is the concept of plenitude as an ultimate variety comprising one thing. Certain oriental philosophies and Christian mysticism agree that enlightenment as an experience is realization of the One that is All, of one belonging to the all. Western philosophy still thrives on belief that the two are in conflict. Blake did not believe in dualism.
"We must love one another or die." W.H.Auden
I admit I'm an asshole. Now, can we get back to the conversation?
From the mad poet of McKinley Ave.
Ierrellus
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 12718
Joined: Sat Jun 10, 2006 12:52 pm
Location: state of evolving

Re: Peace

Postby monad » Wed Oct 16, 2019 12:58 am

Ierrellus wrote:Beyond the two is the concept of plenitude as an ultimate variety comprising one thing. Certain oriental philosophies and Christian mysticism agree that enlightenment as an experience is realization of the One that is All, of one belonging to the all. Western philosophy still thrives on belief that the two are in conflict. Blake did not believe in dualism.


In mysticism it's always easy to visualize or conceptualize what can never be accomplished. What mysticism strives for and incorporates can be denoted as the myth of transcendence, without any god inclusions, by those who can only imagine it. Unlike all the poetizing and philosophizing, Eastern or Western, it's possible to dispense with any such enlightenment infusions and instead think of the universe as the All which is One containing all multiplicities. There is its true simulacrum transcending all our frames of reference. It's mysticism resides in how it came to be that way, its so-called ontological imperatives, if such even exist! In that respect, as in most others, Eastern philosophy isn't any more inspired or enlightened than its Western counterpart since mysticism attempts to fuse all distinction into one ontological I whose complete summary is the universe itself.
monad
 
Posts: 389
Joined: Mon Sep 27, 2004 5:26 am

Re: Peace

Postby Ierrellus » Wed Oct 16, 2019 1:26 pm

"Spinoza once said that the greatest good is the knowledge of the union which the mind has with the whole nature." (Kazin 1946)
"We must love one another or die." W.H.Auden
I admit I'm an asshole. Now, can we get back to the conversation?
From the mad poet of McKinley Ave.
Ierrellus
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 12718
Joined: Sat Jun 10, 2006 12:52 pm
Location: state of evolving

Re: Peace

Postby monad » Wed Oct 16, 2019 9:21 pm

Ierrellus wrote:"Spinoza once said that the greatest good is the knowledge of the union which the mind has with the whole nature." (Kazin 1946)


Hard to argue with Spinoza!
monad
 
Posts: 389
Joined: Mon Sep 27, 2004 5:26 am

Re: Peace

Postby Ierrellus » Thu Oct 17, 2019 1:36 pm

monad wrote:
Ierrellus wrote:Beyond the two is the concept of plenitude as an ultimate variety comprising one thing. Certain oriental philosophies and Christian mysticism agree that enlightenment as an experience is realization of the One that is All, of one belonging to the all. Western philosophy still thrives on belief that the two are in conflict. Blake did not believe in dualism.


In mysticism it's always easy to visualize or conceptualize what can never be accomplished. What mysticism strives for and incorporates can be denoted as the myth of transcendence, without any god inclusions, by those who can only imagine it. Unlike all the poetizing and philosophizing, Eastern or Western, it's possible to dispense with any such enlightenment infusions and instead think of the universe as the All which is One containing all multiplicities. There is its true simulacrum transcending all our frames of reference. It's mysticism resides in how it came to be that way, its so-called ontological imperatives, if such even exist! In that respect, as in most others, Eastern philosophy isn't any more inspired or enlightened than its Western counterpart since mysticism attempts to fuse all distinction into one ontological I whose complete summary is the universe itself.

I see transcendence as growth and development; but perhaps that's just quibbling over words. Apparently the One that includes all already exists. Forgetting our belonging puts us in conflict with each other. I am a part of you and both a part of god, the Whole.
Eastern and Western thought do align in mysticism. I am interested in seeing Western naturalism mature to include religion. I've heard too often that this cannot be done. Science and religion are like oil and water, they do not mix. Isn't it just possible that evolution of humans can be seen as god in action? Or to state that further--"Every Thing that lives is Holy."----Blake.
"We must love one another or die." W.H.Auden
I admit I'm an asshole. Now, can we get back to the conversation?
From the mad poet of McKinley Ave.
Ierrellus
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 12718
Joined: Sat Jun 10, 2006 12:52 pm
Location: state of evolving

Re: Peace

Postby monad » Sat Oct 19, 2019 12:39 am

Ierrellus wrote:Isn't it just possible that evolution of humans can be seen as god in action?

When one realizes all the near extinctions that humans and proto-humans have encountered; also the massive distruptions of both flora and fauna by those not yet acknowledged as fully homo sapien - not really knowing what they were doing - it’s kind of hard to think of evolution as god in action.

I think of god as a wholly impersonal process of nature; impersonal to the point of you, me and ALL being thoroughly dispensable if the experiment failed due to too many negative memes infecting the human psyche.Within nature we are still animals though of a kind where memes take over where genes end, the former with the greatest potential to be the most destructive. Do you believe there could be an echo of our demise anywhere in the universe? Perhaps so since we’ve recently sent out a profuse amount of broadcasts to attest to our existence...if it ever gets picked up and packed away in some cosmic archive. Time and evolution regrets nothing having killed or dispensed with anything.

Ierrellus wrote:Or to state that further--"Every Thing that lives is Holy."----Blake.

For an intense mystic like Blake such a statement would make sense since, according to his view, all of creation derives from a divine mandate. For me it’s more akin to everything that lives is unique and adds to the diversity necessary in keeping the ecosystem stable.

BTW, I read a lot of Blake, not merely his most popular and quoted poems. In my much earlier days, I wrote a few of those myself though they were more metaphysical than religious. Like Blake and John Donne they all rhymed. What I'm saying is one can be inspired by their verse without submitting to their views. Nevertheless, referring to inner & outer, there's still a great deal which remains mystical when everything turns inside-out in the persistent hope of coming into contact with some final goal and purpose.
monad
 
Posts: 389
Joined: Mon Sep 27, 2004 5:26 am

Re: Peace

Postby Ierrellus » Sat Oct 19, 2019 1:41 pm

Thanks, Monad, for your insightful post.
There has also been much good in the human reach for truth as the enlightenment exemplifies. That there has also been much bad does not exclude our propensity for hope as a viable meme with possible genetic underpinnings. On the mystical level, however, belonging to all that exists should awaken one to the responsibility of being a part of ecosystems. But the isolated "I" is still a most powerful Western idea.
Glad to hear you like Blake. I had a course in Blake in grad school and, like you. I was inspired to write imitative poems. Blake "woke me from my dogmatic slumber", which at the time was Christian fundamentalism.
"We must love one another or die." W.H.Auden
I admit I'm an asshole. Now, can we get back to the conversation?
From the mad poet of McKinley Ave.
Ierrellus
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 12718
Joined: Sat Jun 10, 2006 12:52 pm
Location: state of evolving

Re: Peace

Postby Ierrellus » Wed Oct 23, 2019 1:19 pm

"Choosing forms of worship from poetic tales.
And at length they pronounc'd that the Gods had order'd such things. (Sp.---Blake's)
Thus men forgot that All deities reside in the human breast."--Blake, from"The Marriage of Heaven and Hell"
"We must love one another or die." W.H.Auden
I admit I'm an asshole. Now, can we get back to the conversation?
From the mad poet of McKinley Ave.
Ierrellus
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 12718
Joined: Sat Jun 10, 2006 12:52 pm
Location: state of evolving

Re: Peace

Postby monad » Thu Oct 24, 2019 5:34 am

Very true! It reminds me of the following section of poetry under the title Dawn or Dusk...

Come restoration and with your empire ray
forebode dimensions to which the soul shall pray.
Make palpable in your unsharded view
investitures which gods pervade as mortals do.
Hail the untempled sinuous sublime
God unrendered that renders gods divine,
recurrent beacon of perennial birth,
host of visions of deeds on Earth.

All gods are man-made which doesn't negate their value as long as not taken literally. Powerful myths & metaphors are created to diminish the grinding impacts of reality though it often also goes in the opposite direction...hellfire for example.
monad
 
Posts: 389
Joined: Mon Sep 27, 2004 5:26 am

Re: Peace

Postby Ierrellus » Thu Oct 24, 2019 1:22 pm

Among the myths we need to rid ourselves of are original sin, Jesus as scapegoat for the punishment of our sins, and eternal punishment in hell's fire. I don't believe the early Christians held such beliefs. Blake loved Christ but detested Christianity. Gandhi said something similar. There is a distinction between who Jesus said he was and the myths that were built around the concept of Jesus as God. Jesus had said,"I am the way, the truth and the life." Thus Jesus followed is the Way; Jesus worshiped is idolatry. Our natures include good and evil. The good must be cultivated, the evil transcended. Neither alone is our true nature. We are in need of salvation from ourselves, from our fear-based opinion of our place in the natural world. As Marianne Williamson noted-- where there is fear there is no love, In other words a fear-based religion cannot be a religion of love. "Perfect love casts out all fear", even fear of impending damnation. Where love rules peace is possible.
"We must love one another or die." W.H.Auden
I admit I'm an asshole. Now, can we get back to the conversation?
From the mad poet of McKinley Ave.
Ierrellus
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 12718
Joined: Sat Jun 10, 2006 12:52 pm
Location: state of evolving

Re: Peace

Postby Ierrellus » Thu Oct 24, 2019 1:22 pm

duplicate
Last edited by Ierrellus on Thu Oct 24, 2019 1:25 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"We must love one another or die." W.H.Auden
I admit I'm an asshole. Now, can we get back to the conversation?
From the mad poet of McKinley Ave.
Ierrellus
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 12718
Joined: Sat Jun 10, 2006 12:52 pm
Location: state of evolving

Re: Peace

Postby Ierrellus » Thu Oct 24, 2019 1:22 pm

duplicate post
"We must love one another or die." W.H.Auden
I admit I'm an asshole. Now, can we get back to the conversation?
From the mad poet of McKinley Ave.
Ierrellus
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 12718
Joined: Sat Jun 10, 2006 12:52 pm
Location: state of evolving

Re: Peace

Postby monad » Thu Oct 24, 2019 9:48 pm

Ierrellus wrote: As Marianne Williamson noted-- where there is fear there is no love, In other words a fear-based religion cannot be a religion of love. "Perfect love casts out all fear", even fear of impending damnation. Where love rules peace is possible.


In principle it may be true since all religions are fear based one way or another...meaning there is no such thing as a religion of love. That sentiment amounts to an oxymoron. There is also no such thing as perfect love; even Jesus had short-comings in that respect making perfect love a complete myth.

Also, where love rules peace is possible is ironically a great summary of why peace was never possible. In all of history has there ever been an instance of it? It's not even realistic to think it is possible and, given our nature, less desirable than sentimentally supposed being too vulnerable to mutilation. Instead we have always been ruled by expediencies in all of its guises; they inflect the current moment but, to our detriment, without consideration of the ones consequent.

Love - if it's more than just a word - is very much localized to a small group and even then it's fair to question its motives if in many cases it doesn't translate to just another form of personal expediency. Love is a coin that can easily flip to its opposite forcing that outcome to be so much more intense than if it had started from a position of indifference. Love & hate have a lot in common!

Bluntly stated, we don't need all that love BS. What we need is a common sense approach to reality which goes beyond the current moment. If life were to be played successfully its symbol for me would be one of three dimensional chess played in a time limited manner in which love is not a factor.
monad
 
Posts: 389
Joined: Mon Sep 27, 2004 5:26 am

Re: Peace

Postby Ierrellus » Sat Oct 26, 2019 1:19 pm

monad wrote:
Ierrellus wrote: As Marianne Williamson noted-- where there is fear there is no love, In other words a fear-based religion cannot be a religion of love. "Perfect love casts out all fear", even fear of impending damnation. Where love rules peace is possible.


In principle it may be true since all religions are fear based one way or another...meaning there is no such thing as a religion of love. That sentiment amounts to an oxymoron. There is also no such thing as perfect love; even Jesus had short-comings in that respect making perfect love a complete myth.

Also, where love rules peace is possible is ironically a great summary of why peace was never possible. In all of history has there ever been an instance of it? It's not even realistic to think it is possible and, given our nature, less desirable than sentimentally supposed being too vulnerable to mutilation. Instead we have always been ruled by expediencies in all of its guises; they inflect the current moment but, to our detriment, without consideration of the ones consequent.

Love - if it's more than just a word - is very much localized to a small group and even then it's fair to question its motives if in many cases it doesn't translate to just another form of personal expediency. Love is a coin that can easily flip to its opposite forcing that outcome to be so much more intense than if it had started from a position of indifference. Love & hate have a lot in common!

Bluntly stated, we don't need all that love BS. What we need is a common sense approach to reality which goes beyond the current moment. If life were to be played successfully its symbol for me would be one of three dimensional chess played in a time limited manner in which love is not a factor.

Is your negative attitude toward love a product of historical readings about atrocities humans commit? There have been historical eras of peace.
"We must love one another or die." W.H.Auden
I admit I'm an asshole. Now, can we get back to the conversation?
From the mad poet of McKinley Ave.
Ierrellus
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 12718
Joined: Sat Jun 10, 2006 12:52 pm
Location: state of evolving

Re: Peace

Postby monad » Sun Oct 27, 2019 11:35 pm

Ierrellus wrote:
monad wrote:
Ierrellus wrote: As Marianne Williamson noted-- where there is fear there is no love, In other words a fear-based religion cannot be a religion of love. "Perfect love casts out all fear", even fear of impending damnation. Where love rules peace is possible.


In principle it may be true since all religions are fear based one way or another...meaning there is no such thing as a religion of love. That sentiment amounts to an oxymoron. There is also no such thing as perfect love; even Jesus had short-comings in that respect making perfect love a complete myth.

Also, where love rules peace is possible is ironically a great summary of why peace was never possible. In all of history has there ever been an instance of it? It's not even realistic to think it is possible and, given our nature, less desirable than sentimentally supposed being too vulnerable to mutilation. Instead we have always been ruled by expediencies in all of its guises; they inflect the current moment but, to our detriment, without consideration of the ones consequent.

Love - if it's more than just a word - is very much localized to a small group and even then it's fair to question its motives if in many cases it doesn't translate to just another form of personal expediency. Love is a coin that can easily flip to its opposite forcing that outcome to be so much more intense than if it had started from a position of indifference. Love & hate have a lot in common!

Bluntly stated, we don't need all that love BS. What we need is a common sense approach to reality which goes beyond the current moment. If life were to be played successfully its symbol for me would be one of three dimensional chess played in a time limited manner in which love is not a factor.

Is your negative attitude toward love a product of historical readings about atrocities humans commit? There have been historical eras of peace.


I don't wish to sound rude or derisive but Where love rules peace is possible is just a noble sounding sentiment thoroughly useless when it comes to implementation. Peace does not depend on love but compromise where willingness to reach an agreement more often than not, depends on fear especially where mutual interests abound. Love does not foreshadow compromise, except possibly in personal matters. Compromise has always been fundamental to peace, a process by which to reach an acceptable conclusion for all parties; nothing whatever to do with love. Groups who negotiate to reach a consensus don't usually love each other. They do so to avoid an outcome unfavorable and possibly dangerous to both.

Love, overall, has too many deep-rooted defects informing it to be of any use. It's a word which especially these days means nothing...if it ever really meant anything. Within the human psyche it resembles a giant soap bubble that can burst anytime.
monad
 
Posts: 389
Joined: Mon Sep 27, 2004 5:26 am

PreviousNext

Return to Religion and Spirituality



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users