LOVE and BALANCE (discussed with a Christianity lens)

According to E.M. Forster, a sound state of mind is the prerequisite for building a new world. He believes that architects, contractors, marketing boards, etc., will never be able to build a new world by themselves. They must be inspired by the proper spirit. The people for whom they are working must also have the proper spirit. Unless the people are worried about it, a new world cannot be constructed.

The proper spirit cannot be love although most people will say so. Forster explains that love is a great force in private life but it does not work in public affairs. It has been tried again and again. It has always failed. It has failed because we can only love what we know personally. And we cannot know much. He says that tolerance is the quality most needed for building a new world after the war. This is the sound state of mind which will enable different races and classes who may not love each other to settle down to the work of reconstruction.

Hmmm I'd say that tolerance is a branch from love tho. Obviously love won't apply the same way everywhere

thats a convenient way to put it yes

but that's not supposed to be the answer? we have to judge our semantics veerry closely, no? cs Frankly the idea of love for Christians does not apply to society— esp society today :D.

ehehn it would work if we as christians teach society a basis of love first,—— but since this argument certainly does not categorize tolerance as part of the 'concept of agape', and deals with the more conventional idea of 'love', i don't think it isss fair to argue from that angle,,, it'll just be a red herring to the argument presented

hmm i thought as humans we are unable to fully demonstrate agape in the first place

Hmmm Again, it is not about demonstrating. It is the idea that we uphold. When majority of the Society cannot even comprehend what is all-encompassing, unconditional love, then what is the point of assuming that they know of it, much less practice it? That would ultimately be another digression no?The definition of Agape is relevant, but it is not, In context to the argument here lah

where would tolerance be originating from in the first place? Since in the argument it separates it from agape and the concept of love

tolerance would be rationality

and ultimately makes life and living easier in the long run. I can argue the same thing for love, but i think that theres a difference in terms of the quality involved

So where does rationality stem from like can you then say it's stemming from the ideas of the flesh

oooh well you can definitely say that, but it would be terribly convenient don't you think? and also another red-herring to the argument — because it derails to a certain branch of theology, (the source of the understanding of good and evil from the lens of the Abrahamic Faiths).

hmmm okYA truuu i get this

we are arguing about rationality in terms of what works and what does not work—in the tried and tested observations regarding the workings of the world.
and even if we pursue the 'ideas of the flesh', how does it help to answer arguments? it be so what? Other than providing a convenient option for avoidance, i personally don't see other forms of relevance huhu

But theres an argument that can theoretically work tho— which is the very exclusion of God and God's Will in an argument would deem the argument futile, as it is an incomplete equation.

ooh like a paradox

i think im not too clear of what the argument is for...is it for christians to bear in mind or non-believers as a whole?

but i think then overall now i wanna ask is also so what?

we keep loving those in private and personal contexts but does this mean we still can't integrate the Christian love in driving the world forth, which, because tolerance doesn't seem to have a godly basis, would almost be like ??conforming??????

i meeaaaann if people want to see it that way then it be their choice ooo but i think it ties into the topicwe discussed last time abt cultural assimilation; its like a snake swallowing its own tail— if we don't try to understand and contribute to the world, then we expire. But if we enter the world and make it better, part of our identities would also expire. It depends how strong you are lo

Gg I think that we have to be more inclusive, because the audience and subject of this argument does not only concern Christians. There are people of other Faiths who live in our society too, and thus, we have to use the conventional semantics in order to minimize misinterpretations and further digression from  the main argument, which is how to make society as a whole better.  Not just society from a Christian-tinted view, but society as a whole. Hence we cannot poke the neutral language that is the bridge

ahhhh okay hmmm then it does give a lot more sense

(you can even say that poking the bridge of our neutral semantics can be considered selfish , as it could lead to a bottleneck of problem solving which decreases quality of living ghghghg)

kiiinda a paradox, yes, but tbh the God I believe in wiLL interfere on His own terms soooo even if our arguments go the right way, theres nothing we can do to change hearts, unless we do it by crook (by lying and sugarcoating).

sooo the dilemma is that we  can only win if God is on our side.

But that in itslef is open to introspection. SHouldnt we be on God's side instead of Vice versa? And if we are on God's side, we can be rest assured that things are going/have been going according to His will

ergo no point in arguing against conventions of society, it is counterproductive.

ahh lol for this i like to think that it's mainly about your perception of winning in the first place if you keep God's plans and will in mind then ofc you can say you're winning all day err day no?

ahhh winning an argument to win a soul is quite difficult in itself imo and it depends what you;re arguing in the first place

yeh very true but then that's why i think that it is futile to throw in God's semantics to complicate "tolerance"the entire network of God's ideologies can be integrated into the argument, but now it is a case of should we integrate it into the argument ?from a more radical christian's pov, we should. Because we are here to root out the ideals of the world and spread the spiritual ideals of God's kingdom.

but this is a view against tolerance, because instead, it is more towards the profession of "Love" in order to "save" souls, which directly introduces more conflict instead of solving it more neutrally

 Forster finds positive militant phrases like ‘I will purge this nation’, ‘I will clean up this city,’ terrifying and disgusting. He explains that when there were fewer people in this world, these phrases might not have mattered.  However, when one nation is mixed up with another, when one city cannot be organically separated from its neighbours, they have become horrifying. Today, if such militant ideals are sought to be put in practice, there will be tremendous damage both in terms of life and material.

^ this is why i think certain terrorists are justified tbh

they are fighting a spiritual war, one that builds for a spiritual kingdom and a demolishment of the physical one (that they view as abominable)

^they are then painted as "terrorists" in the conventional and neutral tongue of the world, but who knows? in the eyes of God, they may well be harbingers and Prophets of Salvation

haaaa that's why the objective of the argument matters 

for the sake of discourse and apologetics ya sure but not evangelism

eheh i think that it does merit in Evangelism because apologietics iS part of it.

we just have to know if the subject is genuinely receptive to our arguments or is just coming to pick a bone and fight

but either way i think the dangerous thing with apologetics where evangelism is concerned is that it can lose sight very easily of the whole point and foundation of Christianity

eventually some people have the idea that if they can prove God created the world its doneso and they score a believer

eeei but then that's 

part of what consists of the divine argument too no?

We are God's vessels. IF we can prove God's existence through his Word, then why not? We are messengers! We are blessed with Logos, Ethos, Pathos, and if that's what helps to win a soul, then hmmm maybe choosing to do nothing and just 'praying for you' when the person is clueless is a direct avoidance of the responsibility given to you by God

this is a really positive and CORRECT stance 

and also something I'd like to witness sometime soon because a lot of the apologetics I see happening aren't concerned with reminding people of Jesus' sacrifice

So bottom line, YES apologetics is important and YES it can take its effect in convincing , but how many people actually remember that the Gospel also includes acknowledging the gravity of God's punishment and the crucifixion 

From what Ive seen, in an argument it's easy to give in to pride and superiority and in people like Bob it's quite prevalent

But if I find there're people who engage in healthy discourse and in a mature and humble manner, keeping God in mind, then I will most definitely say it passes the vibe check

i think im not too clear of what the argument is for is it for christians to bear in mind or non-believers as a whole?

i think that there can be a tailored argument that appeals to christians, but tbh i think that its for those who are not mature la bcs we're not living in a Christian utopia, we need to be equipped to fight spiritual wars

mmm i think that's what i was thinking from the start lololol how can it be tailored for christians i still have ✨hope✨

ya i think that there can be a tailored argument that appeals to christians, but tbh i think that its for those who are not mature la bcs we're not living in a Christian utopia, we need tobe equipped to fight spiritual wars

heh a version of the tailored one would be:

No matter what society is experiencing now, it is our duty to present our Love through actions and proclamation of the Word as a testimony to our Faith.

And through our good works, we have Faith that God will touch their eyes and open their hearts to true joy and the experience of true Love. 

Also Pray for them to receive the big picture of what Love is from God. Soften their hearts to receive the Word, and break away from the evil of societal conventions

We cannot do much, but in contrast to undo Ages of sin and shame, we need to do what we can in order to prise the scales from their eyes and make them see :D
step by little step. Persecution? Allahu Akbar. God is great and we have Faith. It is natural for Evil to resist. Step by step, and you shall bring salvation to those you love

yknow i realised jn 

that maybe i think you're not as vocal about our faith in class because i've forgotten to take the point of view of a non-believer

Elaborate

This gon be joocy

Thoughts of a dry brain in a dry season

Its just that you mention things which are supposedly more thought provoking But perhaps not enough

Or not with the same effect as intended upon a non believer 

Because I already have thought about the things you say

Hmmm I think using the parable of the seeds be better

What's the use of sowing seeds on rocky soil?

You need to till the land until it is fertile first

And then only sow the seeds. Or else you'll waste them (energy, patience, chance/oppoturnity)=(applying to both the speaker and receiver)

The seeds used for salvation should not be scattered without thought. There are laws and plans of nature the farmer has to follow. The weather. The law of work. Common sense.  All of which is already gifted to us from the tree of knowledge. To not use these talents would be an insult to God, even if we use "on fire" as an excuse to be brash and spread the seeds everywhere

^that's logic heh 

Prime example here, I'm not using pathos, I'm using logos and it's probably very blunt and hurtful to many people. That would be me not recognizing that I have to till the land before I spread the seed (foreplay before seeding)

Truth is still truth, but there is a way to spread it effectively hohohohI think?

So are you saying that you don't necessarily have the intention to provoke thought in the class peeps?

Or that you do, but without considering the conditions

???????I'm disappointed in u smhh All of what I said and you arrive at this conclusion

I'd rather you be disappointed than me not knowing and CLARIFYING

Because you told me that you say things in class to provoke thought

And from what I understand

From everything we said: tilling the land

Is that it ?? doesn't actually provoke thought?? necessarily??

.....fine as much as I don't like it I'm gonna put a dog in there

Finally

seesaw is unbalanced on one end bcs the springs are cranky and not oiled- its stuck! no matter how much i push or shove my weight on the other end, it won't budge.
What do i have to do? I have to balance it out by oiling it-- before i can make it functional again--before it comes down to the playing field, where we can actually seesaw once again without prejudices.

OIL THE SPRINGS.

Mmm ya I notice u use more logos than pathos

Probs part of the reason why you give me intp vibes 70% of the time

Because I do not need to use energy for pathos with you as you don't seem like the kinda person who lives on pathos. But yea in terms of life changing arguments I tend to use logos more since its something concrete --- unlike pathos, that can easily be overridden with a stronger pathos argument

Basically

The whole point of provoking thought and challenging one's worldviews in the class somewhat acts as an introduction and, while not meant to achieve what the seed of the Gospel should right away, sets the groundwork for it to be planted better Did I get that right.

maybe