Tolerant / Intolerant

[Anarkey]

....

...Okay.  You know what?  People giving FNH a hard time on his religion is also getting way too close to the line.

I apologize for using my smackdown tone.  I freely admit to having used it, obviously in reaction to "none of y'all understand what Christianity or sin actually are".  Oh, look, my buttons successfully pushed!  Sorry about that.

That said, I really, really DO want to know what tradition this "falling away from Christianity" business comes from and what it actually means, you know, doctrinally.  Hence the bulk of my prior post being framed in questions...does it mean this?  or that? or the other?  Maybe this is not the thread for it, but if your morality is based in your religion, then I think it's fair to want to better understand how that religion works.  I suppose I can try to use my google-fu though I'd appreciate FNH's clarification.

And I promise not to talk about embryos and/or stem cell research, Michael.

[FNH]

Let's say for the purpose of arguement that homosexuality is a sin.  (I don't actually agree with this, but that's another story.)

I'm basing my statement on - 1 Corinthians 6:9.  Which you can look up at BibleGateway.com ( I'm not sure how to post links here. )

I'm fat.  Gluttony is a sin -- it says that somewhere in the Bible.  I'm also a Christian.  Can I still be a Christian while I continue to stock up on lattes and chocolate chip muffins?  I've met quite a few Christians who are also fat who would not be happy if this was the view. 

The same Bible reference refers to Idolatry.  Gluttony "can" be considered as Idolatry.  However my own walk with the Bible has not yet clarified that point.  I have heard it preached.

My religious understanding is that to turn to Idolatry is to turn your back on God, if you do that then He will turn his back on you.

people who want to get married should be allowed to be married.

I'll pose this question to you, then (and to anyone else): Should there be any limitations on who is allowed to get married?

There should be limitations from a Biblical viewpoint. 

Were there not any restrictions I believe you would find Sons marrying Mothers etc etc.

[FNH]

If you continue to willingly knowingly Sin you have fallen away from Christianity. 

Are you saying God does takebacks? "Oh yeah, puny human, I know you gave your heart to Jesus and all, but then you went and sinned again so go be burned with the chaff."

My understanding is :- No takebacks.  But turn your back on God and he will turn his back on you.  Yes , you will sin again  its human nature, and Grace follows repentance.  However in the context of a Homosexual Marriage which I've already defined as Sin  ( as I understand it ) the couple have turned their back to God.  They have decided to put their own wants and desires above the wishes of God. 

So with my definitions and my understanding I ask how can a repeat thief, who knows its wrong, who knows its against Gods law continue thieving and claim to be Christian. 

I hope I have now explained my position and viewpoint.  I apologise to anyone who thought I was trying to tell them what to be or think.  I gave my definition of Sin in order to clarify what I thought was unclear.  The word "Sin" gets bandied around so much and is so misused that its true meaning can be lost and misunderstood.

[ClintMemo]

I'm basing my statement on - 1 Corinthians 6:9.  Which you can look up at BibleGateway.com ( I'm not sure how to post links here. )

Thanks...
btw, you can just type in a link in the text
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Corinthians%206:9&version=31

The passage is:
"Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders"

I'm assuming that this assumes that women wouldn't be hiring male prostitutes or that female prostitutes are covered by adultery?

[Anarkey]

Ah, ok, I did a little searching and I see where I'm having the problem...it seems that the "falling away from Christianity" language and likewise the "God turns his back on you" idea are related to apostasy, aka the Unpardonable Sin. 

Hebrews 6:4-6 would be the relevant citation. 

I'm not sure there's a whole lot of room for expanding that idea into regular run-of-the-mill sins like thieving, lying and murdering. 

So to go upthread a bit

What sins are so dreadful that the willful commission of them shall cause you to fall from His grace forever even if you've accepted Jesus Christ as your personal Lord and Savior?  Which ones are minor enough that He is willing to let them slide?  And how do you tell the difference?

Apostasy would be the sin above all others, the one that cannot be looked past, the one He is not willing to let slide.  I think apostasy is pretty rigidly defined in this scenario as denial of Christianity (after an acceptance of it, of course, renunciation seems to be the key issue), at least if you're using Hebrews as the basis for it.

OTOH, Peter committed this exact sin when he denied Christ, and was forgiven for it...so I don't feel all emphatically certain about the unpardonability of apostasy. 

Nonetheless, the author of Hebrews was serious about how awful it is to find enlightenment and then willfully cast it aside...he both says that it is impossible to regain, and that were it possible your would be crucifying Christ all over again.

My understanding is :- No takebacks.  But turn your back on God and he will turn his back on you.  Yes , you will sin again  its human nature, and Grace follows repentance.

Oh good, no takebacks.  That seems pretty standard.  However, I'm still a little shady on what "turning your back on God" entails unless it's apostasy.  If you mean apostasy, then you might expand on how dishonoring your parents, gambling, or any other specific sin might qualify as apostasy.

[FNH]

Oh good, no takebacks.  That seems pretty standard.  However, I'm still a little shady on what "turning your back on God" entails unless it's apostasy. 

My Views :

It seems obvious that if you live you life against the teaching of Chirst, then you arn't a Christian.  In that situation you have rejected the path laid down.

It's my belief that simply claiming your Christian is not enough, the teachings demand more, they demand that you confess Christ with your mouth and your heart.  If your hearts not in it...

i.e. If a player doesn't do what the coach says, and doesn't put the effort in, he's not a team player.

[ClintMemo]

This brings up another issue I've had a hard time understanding - old testament vs new testament.  If the two disagree, the most obvious example being "an eye for an eye" vs "turning the other cheek," which is correct?  It seems like the new testament should take precedence, at least for Christians.  If that's the case, then it seems like Peter denying Jesus three times and then being forgiven for it later would make "turning away from God" no longer the unforgivable sin. 
It seems like when I see Christians denouncing one behavior or another, it's always based on an old testament passage, and it always makes me think "sure, but did Jesus have anything to say about that?"  I was actually encouraged when I started seeing people wearing "what would Jesus do?" paraphenalia.  I am hoping to see a generation of the kind-hearted, non-judgemental, well-spoken pacifists like the one I remember hearing about in church.

[wherethewild]

Sorry, but I have to back up a bit and ask a question. I went looking for the Corinthians quote and found it to say this:

 9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,

which is different to

The passage is:
"Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders"

and then I found this, which seems to be all different Bible releases:

http://bible.cc/1_corinthians/6-9.htm
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NASB: Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, (NASB ©1995)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
GWT: Don't you know that wicked people won't inherit the kingdom of God? Stop deceiving yourselves! People who continue to commit sexual sins, who worship false gods, those who commit adultery, homosexuals, (GOD'S WORD®)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
KJV: Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ASV: Or know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with men,
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BBE: Have you not knowledge that evil-doers will have no part in the kingdom of God? Have no false ideas about this: no one who goes after the desires of the flesh, or gives worship to images, or is untrue when married, or is less than a man, or makes a wrong use of men,
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DBY: Do ye not know that unrighteous persons shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not err: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor those who make women of themselves, nor who abuse themselves with men,
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WEY: Do you not know that unrighteous men will not inherit God's Kingdom? Cherish no delusion here. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor any who are guilty of unnatural crime,
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WBS: Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WEB: Or don't you know that the unrighteous will not inherit the Kingdom of God? Don't be deceived. Neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor male prostitutes, nor homosexuals,
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
YLT: have ye not known that the unrighteous the reign of God shall not inherit? be not led astray; neither whoremongers, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor sodomites,


So my question is, how can you decide which version, suffering from whatever manipulation, is the right one to follow? And how can you be sure if any of them are correct? And if so much freedom is taking in rewriting modern versions of the Bible, how can you be sure that it didn´t happen a lot through the centuries? It´s an honest question by the way.

[Anarkey]

It seems like the new testament should take precedence, at least for Christians.  If that's the case, then it seems like Peter denying Jesus three times and then being forgiven for it later would make "turning away from God" no longer the unforgivable sin.

Actually, ClintMemo (small pedantic correction here) Hebrews is post-gospel, and thus post-Christ, chronologically speaking.  It's not Old Testament.  Though in my personal scale, the gospels >> the epistles, so my interpretation is in accord with your ideas about precedence.

I often wonder what's all this business about the new covenant and Christ, if you're just going to go back to the same old 613 laws from the Torah?

Observe as I neatly tie two forum threads together: I love Vonnegut's suggestion that we post the Beatitudes in public places instead of the 10 commandments.  "Blessed are the peacemakers" in the Pentagon.  Yeah.  Love that.

[BlairHippo]

What sins are so dreadful that the willful commission of them shall cause you to fall from His grace forever even if you've accepted Jesus Christ as your personal Lord and Savior?  Which ones are minor enough that He is willing to let them slide?  And how do you tell the difference?

Apostasy would be the sin above all others, the one that cannot be looked past, the one He is not willing to let slide.  I think apostasy is pretty rigidly defined in this scenario as denial of Christianity (after an acceptance of it, of course, renunciation seems to be the key issue), at least if you're using Hebrews as the basis for it.

OTOH, Peter committed this exact sin when he denied Christ, and was forgiven for it...so I don't feel all emphatically certain about the unpardonability of apostasy. 

Nonetheless, the author of Hebrews was serious about how awful it is to find enlightenment and then willfully cast it aside...he both says that it is impossible to regain, and that were it possible your would be crucifying Christ all over again.

Wow.  Here I thought I was just a garden-variety areligious smartass.  It would seem that as an ex-Christian, the Bible has specifically identified me as having committed the worst sin imaginable.  In a weird way, I'm almost proud.

(Of course, Peter getting away with it makes it even more personal, seeing as I'm named after the guy.  No, I don't just share a name with him -- Mom had the Apostle Peter in mind when she named me.)

My Views :

It seems obvious that if you live you life against the teaching of Chirst, then you arn't a Christian.  In that situation you have rejected the path laid down.

It's my belief that simply claiming your Christian is not enough, the teachings demand more, they demand that you confess Christ with your mouth and your heart.  If your hearts not in it...

i.e. If a player doesn't do what the coach says, and doesn't put the effort in, he's not a team player.

That makes perfect sense in the abstract -- I would think that God would have a problem with you stabbing your neighbor in the throat for Jesus.

But what hangs me up is how it's being applied here.  If homosexuality is against the teachings of Jesus, why didn't he have anything to say on it?  Jesus said things like "Love thy neighbor as thyself."  I don't recall "Avoideth ye the buttsex, seriously, for it doth squick me out" ever coming up in Sunday School.  Leviticus is Old Testament, and Jesus' actual teachings are often at odds with the Old Testament.  Corinthians was written by Paul.  What did Jesus ever have to say about it?

[FNH]

So my question is, how can you decide which version, suffering from whatever manipulation, is the right one to follow? And how can you be sure if any of them are correct? And if so much freedom is taking in rewriting modern versions of the Bible, how can you be sure that it didn´t happen a lot through the centuries? It´s an honest question by the way.

Some are translated from original greek.  Some are translated by Greeks.  Some are translated by Americans. Some are written in word for word translation, some in phrase for phrase. Some are re-written from Olde english into modern english.  Some are re-written with bias for personal gain.

Fortunately there are Greek-English guides.  Every single word from the bible can looked up.  Doing so is very helpful.  Its also very useful to have a cultral context for the text,  for instance "bowels" meant something differn't from what we in modern english think, you might translate that into "heart and soul, your very being".

Many claim the King James version is the very best.  I cant provide any proof to back that up, or disprove it.  That's why I "study" it.

[DKT]

Wow.  Catching up from yesterday...

FNH, I want to apologize to you if I came off harsh yesterday.  It's not my intention to be a jerk, and I hope I didn't come across as one to you, but if I did, I'm sorry.

I also understand where you pulled the verse from in the Bible.  I just don't buy into it, the same way I don't buy into women having to be quiet in church (1 Corinthians 14) or even cover their heads with hats when they attend service (1 Corinthians 11).

The reason I brought up gluttony is because *my* frustration comes in with the way we Christians raise one sin above the rest (note: I'm lumping myself in here, but I think I've made it clear I *don't* agree homosexuality is a sin).  But nobody's saying I shouldn't be married or whatever.  My point is that I think we're all sinners and we're all kind of screwed but for the grace of God so I don't like prioritizing which sins are worse, so that's where I was coming from.  Again, I apologize if I came off rude before.  I sincerely didn't mean to.

[FNH]

That makes perfect sense in the abstract -- I would think that God would have a problem with you stabbing your neighbor in the throat for Jesus.

With repentance is forgiveness.  Thus you have murderers forgiven and accepted by Christ.  I dont remember the "stabbing your neighbor for Jesus" teaching. :-)

But what hangs me up is how it's being applied here.  If homosexuality is against the teachings of Jesus, why didn't he have anything to say on it?  Jesus said things like "Love thy neighbor as thyself."  I don't recall "Avoideth ye the buttsex, seriously, for it doth squick me out" ever coming up in Sunday School.  Leviticus is Old Testament, and Jesus' actual teachings are often at odds with the Old Testament.  Corinthians was written by Paul.  What did Jesus ever have to say about it?

The New Testament overrides the Old ( to some extent ).  Corinthians was inspired by God.    :-)

[Holden]

Trying to bring this back to the definition of tolerance...How's this for a definition of tolerance/intolerance:

Tolerance: The enduring, permitting, or accepting of something unfit, objectionable, or undesirable.
Intolerance: Taking any action to denounce, restrict, or impede something unfit, objectionable, or undesirable.

Notes:
Tolerant/intolerant does not apply to things you actually approve of.
Tolerant/intolerant comes in degrees, that is, one person may be more tolerant about a specific thing than another person, but less tolerant than a third person, etc.
There are times when being more tolerant is the most appropriate action, and other times when being more intolerant is most appropriate.

[ClintMemo]

It seems like the new testament should take precedence, at least for Christians.  If that's the case, then it seems like Peter denying Jesus three times and then being forgiven for it later would make "turning away from God" no longer the unforgivable sin.

Actually, ClintMemo (small pedantic correction here) Hebrews is post-gospel, and thus post-Christ, chronologically speaking.  It's not Old Testament.

Oh great.
Now I'm even more confused.
Thanks for the info.

[ClintMemo]

Trying to bring this back to the definition of tolerance...How's this for a definition of tolerance/intolerance:

Tolerance: The enduring, permitting, or accepting of something unfit, objectionable, or undesirable.
Intolerance: Taking any action to denounce, restrict, or impede something unfit, objectionable, or undesirable.

Notes:
Tolerant/intolerant does not apply to things you actually approve of.
Tolerant/intolerant comes in degrees, that is, one person may be more tolerant about a specific thing than another person, but less tolerant than a third person, etc.
There are times when being more tolerant is the most appropriate action, and other times when being more intolerant is most appropriate.

works for me

[SFEley]

Tolerance: The enduring, permitting, or accepting of something unfit, objectionable, or undesirable.
Intolerance: Taking any action to denounce, restrict, or impede something unfit, objectionable, or undesirable.

Sold, to the man with Daleks and "EXTERMINATE!" in his userpic.  >8->


...The Daleks make a great test case, actually.  One could put forth an argument that any philosophy that requires one to tolerate a Dalek is too liberal -- since the Dalek is eventually going to end up enslaving and working to destroy your planet.  It's just not utilitarian to tolerate a Dalek.

Rose actually argued the liberal case with some success once, but the only way she succeeded was by making the Dalek a non-Dalek, which made it suicidal anyway.  And then later she destroyed all the Daleks, and helped to do it a second time.  In the old series, the Doctor did the conversion trick a couple times too -- he'd imprint a couple Daleks with human consciences -- but only to fight other Daleks, and he didn't show any pangs when the "good" Daleks died doing it.

There was one old storyline with the second Doctor -- I believe it might have been The Power of the Daleks -- where a Dalek is berating one of his human collaborators.  The Dalek says something like, "Yes, we are the enemies of the entire universe.  We wish to rule or exterminate all that is not Dalek.  But you?  You fight and kill your own kind.  You disturb us."

To be lectured on morality by a Dalek.  How chilling is that?

[Mfitz]

I'm computerless for a few days and this thread happens...
My brain hurts.

[jrderego]

Tolerance: The enduring, permitting, or accepting of something unfit, objectionable, or undesirable.
Intolerance: Taking any action to denounce, restrict, or impede something unfit, objectionable, or undesirable.

Sold, to the man with Daleks and "EXTERMINATE!" in his userpic.  >8->


...The Daleks make a great test case, actually.  One could put forth an argument that any philosophy that requires one to tolerate a Dalek is too liberal -- since the Dalek is eventually going to end up enslaving and working to destroy your planet.  It's just not utilitarian to tolerate a Dalek.

Rose actually argued the liberal case with some success once, but the only way she succeeded was by making the Dalek a non-Dalek, which made it suicidal anyway.  And then later she destroyed all the Daleks, and helped to do it a second time.  In the old series, the Doctor did the conversion trick a couple times too -- he'd imprint a couple Daleks with human consciences -- but only to fight other Daleks, and he didn't show any pangs when the "good" Daleks died doing it.

There was one old storyline with the second Doctor -- I believe it might have been The Power of the Daleks -- where a Dalek is berating one of his human collaborators.  The Dalek says something like, "Yes, we are the enemies of the entire universe.  We wish to rule or exterminate all that is not Dalek.  But you?  You fight and kill your own kind.  You disturb us."

To be lectured on morality by a Dalek.  How chilling is that?

Not as chilling as knowing that that same Dalek can be completely baffled/immobilized by throwing your fedora over its eye stalk, or that Davros, in his infinite cyber-wisdom installed an "instant death for Davros" toggle switch, in red, on his life-support cyber-chair.

[Heradel]

Coming at it from an atheist perspective, my readings of the bible have always made it seem like Jesus looked at what was, found it bad, and tried to fix what he could. It's always been the best explanation for the Son-of-God bit that I've come up with.

Jesus's message is a shift from the cruel iron man dictator to a more populist, proto-democratic, message. It's unfortunate that it took the rest of humanity two millennia to really get to the point where populism is winning out over dictators, though there certainly are too many of the latter still around.

[ClintMemo]

It's unfortunate that it took the rest of humanity two millennia to really get to the point where populism is winning out over dictators, though there certainly are too many of the latter still around.

and I wouldn't say that the matter has been decided yet.

[ClintMemo]

...The Daleks make a great test case, actually.  One could put forth an argument that any philosophy that requires one to tolerate a Dalek is too liberal -- since the Dalek is eventually going to end up enslaving and working to destroy your planet.  It's just not utilitarian to tolerate a Dalek.

I don't know.  I think saying that something *could* be so evil that committing genocide against it is morally acceptable may be the first step down that long slippery slope that leads to things like the Holocaust.   Self-preservation should be more important, of course, so maybe genocide is only acceptable as the only alternative to racial suicide.
Still.....

[Mr. Tweedy]

There were a couple of thing I'd planned to mention, but I think I'll restrict myself to this:

I'd like to point out that all of you are applying objective moral standards.  Daleks are a great example: You all say that Daleks are evil, by which you mean that their moral system is bad.  You are placing your own moral system which says "tollerate" over and obove their moral system which says "exterminate."  If morality is reletaive, then Dalek morality is every bit as valid as Time Lord morality and we have no grounds to condemn either Daleks or their actions.  If morality is relative, then the Doctor saving Earth from Dalek extermination is not an example of good triumphing over evil, just of one subjective point of view forcibly squashing another.  Without objectivity, there are no grounds to define either party as good or evil.

I would similarly point out the moderators are enforcing their morality on everybody else here.  No one on this board is allowed to insult anyone else, on pain of deletion, and that rule applies to everyone at all times on all threads.  Those who view insults as a valid rhetorical device are out of luck, period, and they aren't allowed to plead for special treatment.  This is an example of an objective standard.  A subjective standard would allow some people to insult sometimes, depending on the circumstance.

Lastly, I would point out that all of you who have argued that my views on homosexuality are incorrect are also applying an objective standard.  You all believe that homosexuality is okay.  You consider that to be a moral fact, and you expect me to recognize it as a fact.  You not only disagree with me, you asert that my views are wrong with the obvious implication that I should alter my views to bring them into line with the correct view.

If any of you honestly believed in subjective morality, then you would ackowledge that my views about homosexuality are just as good as yours.  By arguing that my views are wrong, you are appealing to an objective standard.

[ClintMemo]

There were a couple of thing I'd planned to mention, but I think I'll restrict myself to this:

I'd like to point out that all of you are applying objective moral standards.  Daleks are a great example: You all say that Daleks are evil, by which you mean that their moral system is bad.  You are placing your own moral system which says "tollerate" over and obove their moral system which says "exterminate."  If morality is reletaive, then Dalek morality is every bit as valid as Time Lord morality and we have no grounds to condemn either Daleks or their actions.  If morality is relative, then the Doctor saving Earth from Dalek extermination is not an example of good triumphing over evil, just of one subjective point of view forcibly squashing another.  Without objectivity, there are no grounds to define either party as good or evil.

Not necessarily.  My point above is "would we have the right to exterminate them based on *our* subjective morality?"  Their subjective morality is irrelevant.
There is also the issue of how the two groups relate to each other.  Our right to harm Daleks began when Daleks starting harming us (or possible other races, but that's another topic.)

I would similarly point out the moderators are enforcing their morality on everybody else here.  No one on this board is allowed to insult anyone else, on pain of deletion, and that rule applies to everyone at all times on all threads.  Those who view insults as a valid rhetorical device are out of luck, period, and they aren't allowed to plead for special treatment.  This is an example of an objective standard.  A subjective standard would allow some people to insult sometimes, depending on the circumstance.

Dictatorship gives them the ability to force their subjective morality on everyone else. If they wanted to treat people unequally, they could.

Lastly, I would point out that all of you who have argued that my views on homosexuality are incorrect are also applying an objective standard.  You all believe that homosexuality is okay.  You consider that to be a moral fact, and you expect me to recognize it as a fact.  You not only disagree with me, you asert that my views are wrong with the obvious implication that I should alter my views to bring them into line with the correct view.

No. I would say that we are comparing different subjective moralities with each side trying to justify why theirs is better.

If any of you honestly believed in subjective morality, then you would ackowledge that my views about homosexuality are just as good as yours.  By arguing that my views are wrong, you are appealing to an objective standard.

No, but I would argue that you are every bit as entitled to your subjective morality as anyone else.  I think it is a given that everyone thinks their subjective morality is best.  That's why it's theirs.  I would point out that someone's personal subjective morality is likely to change over time as their point of view and life experiences change.  Sometimes it happens subtly and slowly. Your understanding of issues change. New ideas creep in that you never considered before. (That happened to me during a different thread on this board.)
Other times it happens suddenly.  There is nothing more jarring than discovering that something you held as a lifelong principle is wrong.

[Mr. Tweedy]

But ClintMemo, you keep using terms like "better" and "right/wrong."  On what basis can you use those terms if not on the basis of an obejctive standard?

You say "There is nothing more jarring than discovering that something you held as a lifelong principle is wrong."  Wrong as compared to what?  When you say "I've been wrong all my life," you aren't simply saying that you changed your mind.  You are saying that you have become aware of a truth that you were previously unaware of: A truth that was prevously outside of yourself has been internalized.  Where did that truth come from?