home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Xref: sparky soc.singles:35148 alt.romance:15606
- Newsgroups: soc.singles,alt.romance
- Path: sparky!uunet!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!news.acns.nwu.edu!nucsrl!ddsw1!karl
- From: karl@ddsw1.mcs.com (Karl Denninger)
- Subject: Re: About Dating Outside One's Group....
- Message-ID: <C08IvI.H5J@ddsw1.mcs.com>
- Date: Sat, 2 Jan 1993 16:23:41 GMT
- Distribution: na
- References: <1992Dec30.104358.12959@wetware.com> <1992Dec30.144226.184@cbfsb.cb.att.com>
- Organization: MCSNet, Chicago, IL
- Lines: 73
-
- In article <1992Dec30.144226.184@cbfsb.cb.att.com> jjd1@cbnewsg.cb.att.com (james.j.dutton) writes:
- >In article <1992Dec30.104358.12959@wetware.com> drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux) writes:
- >>jjd1@cbnewsg.cb.att.com (james.j.dutton) writes:
- >>] In article <lk168jINN42f@news.bbn.com> pdsmith@bbn.com (Peter D. Smith) writes:
- >>] >
- >>] >Shelley -- keep up the search! Compromise is possible on so many things,
- >>] >but not on (deeply felt) religious principles. Dating someone outside of
- >>] >one's faith goes well for a while, but how can you respect someone whose
- >>] >entire religious beeing is based on error?
- >>]
- >>] Which pretty well encapsulates anyone with religious beliefs.
- >>
- >>James,
- >>
- >>prudence dictates that you back off on this one.
- >
- >Full speed ahead. Prepare for ramming speed. Damn the torpedoes. Rig for
- >depth charges.
-
- Oh, I disagree with (I think Pete, or perhaps James) up there.
-
- Religious beliefs are not always exclusionary. I will give an example:
-
- I call myself "Sabaean". This describes both a philosophical and
- religious belief system. Part of Sabaeanism's >CORE< principles are
- the concept that one must respect another's choice. This, of
- course, includes the religious choices of those who disagree with
- you. Another is a strong frowning on hypocracy.
-
- Therefore, it is perfectly possible for me to have a fulfilling relationship
- with any person of any denomination as long as that particular value (the
- respect of choice) is bilateral.
-
- Not all persons, of course, live their religious or philosophical beliefs.
- Many, in fact most, derive their own beliefs from a central core, and when
- they get done they frequently don't match the "original" definition that
- some would have you use.
-
- Therefore, there is frequently no problem.
-
- >As a full fledged member in bad standing of the "Once an altar boy always an
- >altar boy" yachting club I must say A gored cow(and many altar boys) is a happy
- >cow.
-
- Perhaps. I, as well, was an Altar Boy at one time long ago ;-)
-
- >Actually my post was in response to Peters line:
- >>] > Dating someone outside of
- >>] >one's faith goes well for a while, but how can you respect someone whose
- >>] >entire religious beeing is based on error?
- >>]
-
- Aha. Now that is a different matter. If one takes the point of view that
- there is only one "true" religion or philosophical bent, and that (of course)
- is yours, and all others are false and based on error, then yes, you would
- have a problem dating someone who is not of your faith.
-
- That is, if you're not a hypocrite.
-
- >>But I would feel safe to say, that when we
- >>get down to real core values, rather than implementation
- >>specific details, we do NOT compromise. [1]
- >
- >I'm with ya.
-
- Yep. But one's core values are, by and large, a choice. Depending on what
- you choose they may not need to be compromised to be flexible and compatible
- with many others.
-
- --
- Karl Denninger (karl@ddsw1.MCS.COM, <well-connected>!ddsw1!karl)
- Data Line: [+1 312 248-0900] Anon. arch. (nuucp) 00:00-06:00 C[SD]T
- Request file: /u/public/sources/DIRECTORY/README for instructions
-