Is belief 100%?

In your example TZB with the apple, would you say that deciding between giving pete the apple because he smells is a measure of ones integrity, or ones adaptability? Kind of like the joke I toss around here as I get older with my wife, "It's not that I didn't hear you dear I just have selective hearing disease". If you are testing your belief and adapting then that is study and evolution of your belief and idea, if you are doing it out of spite is it then a failure of your own integrity, of which the line between the two is difficult to define I would think?

Edan wrote: The compromise with oaths is affirmation.. the affirmation says 'I am already doing this' and 'I honestly intend to continue doing it', without any possibility of one compromising their own beliefs should they no longer agree with it. As it has been pointed out, nobody is static and so it makes no sense to me to require people to make promises based on 'static' expectation. TOTJO accepts these, as does the law in many countries.

(Sorry Tellahane, I edited the post you thanked).

I understand , as i said if a compromise is possible and an affirmation is already in place as you state there is nothing stopping you from being commited is there ?

Tellahane wrote: In your example TZB with the apple, would you say that deciding between giving pete the apple because he smells is a measure of ones integrity, or ones adaptability? Kind of like the joke I toss around here as I get older with my wife, "It's not that I didn't hear you dear I just have selective hearing disease". If you are testing your belief and adapting then that is study and evolution of your belief and idea, if you are doing it out of spite is it then a failure of your own integrity, of which the line between the two is difficult to define I would think?

You are seeing this as a dichotomy, flexibility vs integrity, which I don't think is true. It's both. What I see as adaptability you might consider a measure of my poor integrity. What I feel is a crack in my integrity, you might perceive as a positive flexibility. It depends entirely on the context, individuals and situation. There is no one answer to this question.

Edan wrote: (Sorry Tellahane, I edited the post you thanked).

You get a thank you regardless =p

tzb wrote:

Tellahane wrote: In your example TZB with the apple, would you say that deciding between giving pete the apple because he smells is a measure of ones integrity, or ones adaptability? Kind of like the joke I toss around here as I get older with my wife, "It's not that I didn't hear you dear I just have selective hearing disease". If you are testing your belief and adapting then that is study and evolution of your belief and idea, if you are doing it out of spite is it then a failure of your own integrity, of which the line between the two is difficult to define I would think?

You are seeing this as a dichotomy, flexibility vs integrity, which I don't think is true. It's both. What I see as adaptability you might consider a measure of my poor integrity. What I feel is a crack in my integrity, you might perceive as a positive flexibility. It depends entirely on the context, individuals and situation. There is no one answer to this question.

That's kind of what I figured that was heading...

I'm kind of in a situation which brought this discussion up where I know of someones choices in belief but they selectively ignore their own belief for specific situations and for some reason that annoy's the crap out of me. Like with Intent to ignore it. I'll have to figure out why that annoys me so much. It's been an issue for the last 3 months or so.

Edit: I work hard to destroy my pet peeves and this is a new one...*growl stare*

Amyntas wrote:

Edan wrote: The compromise with oaths is affirmation.. the affirmation says 'I am already doing this' and 'I honestly intend to continue doing it', without any possibility of one compromising their own beliefs should they no longer agree with it. As it has been pointed out, nobody is static and so it makes no sense to me to require people to make promises based on 'static' expectation. TOTJO accepts these, as does the law in many countries.

(Sorry Tellahane, I edited the post you thanked).

I understand , as i said if a compromise is possible and an affirmation is already in place as you state there is nothing stopping you from being commited is there ?

I didn't say that there wasn't (or was... not sure which is right)..

Edan wrote:

Amyntas wrote:

Edan wrote: The compromise with oaths is affirmation.. the affirmation says 'I am already doing this' and 'I honestly intend to continue doing it', without any possibility of one compromising their own beliefs should they no longer agree with it. As it has been pointed out, nobody is static and so it makes no sense to me to require people to make promises based on 'static' expectation. TOTJO accepts these, as does the law in many countries.

(Sorry Tellahane, I edited the post you thanked).

I understand , as i said if a compromise is possible and an affirmation is already in place as you state there is nothing stopping you from being commited is there ?

I didn't say that there wasn't.

I dont understand your last reply , you did not say there was not what ?

Amyntas wrote:

Edan wrote:

Amyntas wrote:

Edan wrote: The compromise with oaths is affirmation.. the affirmation says 'I am already doing this' and 'I honestly intend to continue doing it', without any possibility of one compromising their own beliefs should they no longer agree with it. As it has been pointed out, nobody is static and so it makes no sense to me to require people to make promises based on 'static' expectation. TOTJO accepts these, as does the law in many countries.

(Sorry Tellahane, I edited the post you thanked).

I understand , as i said if a compromise is possible and an affirmation is already in place as you state there is nothing stopping you from being commited is there ?

I didn't say that there wasn't.

I dont understand your last reply , you did not say there was not what ?

I mean that I didn't say anything about there not being a commitment.

Edan wrote:

Amyntas wrote:

Edan wrote:

Amyntas wrote:

Edan wrote: The compromise with oaths is affirmation.. the affirmation says 'I am already doing this' and 'I honestly intend to continue doing it', without any possibility of one compromising their own beliefs should they no longer agree with it. As it has been pointed out, nobody is static and so it makes no sense to me to require people to make promises based on 'static' expectation. TOTJO accepts these, as does the law in many countries.

(Sorry Tellahane, I edited the post you thanked).

I understand , as i said if a compromise is possible and an affirmation is already in place as you state there is nothing stopping you from being commited is there ?

I didn't say that there wasn't.

I dont understand your last reply , you did not say there was not what ?

I mean that I didn't say anything about there not being a commitment.

i never said that you or anyone else were not commited , why so personal ? I a was talking in general ?