Jump to content

Meadowchik

Members
  • Content Count

    2,401
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1,882 Excellent

6 Followers

About Meadowchik

  • Rank
    Separates Water & Dry Land

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Female
  • Interests
    Applied Mathematics, Travelling, People, Raising Children, Writing

Recent Profile Visitors

2,066 profile views
  1. None whatsoever? Individualism and transcendence are both paradigms of independent identity. Immanence and connectedness are both paradigms of inseparableness from other entities and elements. They both pose dilemmas to us. Therefore, their congruence could mean that resolving the more immediately relatable (possibly easier) dilemma could prove insightful for resolving the other.
  2. Do you see the parallels between transcendence and individualism? And between immanence and connectedness? Both former terms, respectively, are like an ultimate version of both latter terms.
  3. Part may be disobedience, but other parts can be obedient. So whatever good they accomplish can bear good fruit.
  4. I'll maker it simpler for you: if handbook says not to hold disciplinary councils over matters being disputed in the courts, then that helps prevent the holding of disciplinary courts because someone has filed charges or taken someone to court. Even if "influence" is attempted by a misguided leader, the rule reduces that leaders ability to enforce any influence over a judicial matter.
  5. Maybe this last tangent points to theological best practices: many churches extend open invitations to all while still having "fine print," or conditions for fully participating. Conditions can be important because they can further the church's purpose. I think it follows that the purity and consistency of conditions is essential to a thelogy's integrity.
  6. This reminds me of the individualism versus connectedness in humanity, which would be characteristics passed down from the divine. And they present a paradox as well. Resolving my example may provide insight into resolving the transcendence versus immanence. Individualism is like our own personal transcendence, and immanence is like the total connectedness of the collective.
  7. Furthermore with legalisation can come more research which had been previously neglected once it had been classified without the correct evidence. Thus far it seems there may be different risk factors, like age of use, potency, and pre-existing health issues. This once better understood, that data can be used so that significant mitigation can be implemented.
  8. That's highly generalistic about kids. Some are raised in environments which impacts the likelihood that they talk about everything that happens to them. I was the fifth of eight with parents who were deeply depressed for several years of my childhood. There were experiences I had--the way other adults treated me--which were illegal and at best negligent--but at the time it did not even occur to me to tell them, and they were usually too overwhelmed to ask about how events went. If they had known at the time, my parents would have been mortified.
  9. We were talking about this story of the science societies and BYU. Please don't conflate.
  10. There's lines at what is or isn't legally acceptable even inpluralistic societies, but there can be space between discretion and law for some choices. Indeed, one society's right to base decisions based on their beliefs is part of that pluralism. That same right is what BYU and the science societies are exercising.
  11. Sure. A gay person who does not act out that disposition in their personal relationships complies with the Honor Code. Yup. You win!
  12. That's quite a stretch from this example. No one is being excluded for being white or heteronormative.
  13. Why would iyo the policy not likely prevent interference in those examples?
×
×
  • Create New...