Hey all. Getting right to it:
Last November, a majority of my wife’s family voted trump. I immediately made known my disgust and that I had no interest in maintaining relationships with any of them. My wife is equally appalled, but family is important to her and she chooses to compartmentalise it for the sake of their relationships. That’s her call. Typically, her mother comes to stay at our house for an extended period as we live far away, and this year I tolerated her being here for the sake of my wife.
But now, thinking about the next visit and how bad things have gotten, I can’t even stand the thought of having her in my house, let alone being in the same room as her. I really don’t want her here at all, but I will again tolerate her for my wife’s sake. However I think it’s likely that I will make myself pretty scarce during that time.
So the ethics question is - given that I expressed my distaste after the election but still remained cordial, is it ok, ethically speaking, to become more resentful as the consequences of their actions become more apparent? Or, given that what has happened since is pretty much out of everyone’s hands, am I locked in to the level of hostility I showed immediately after?
I guess the distilled version is - a person does X, I express disapproval. Is it ethical to express MORE disapproval as additional unforeseen consequences of X become apparent?
Thanks for your thoughts!
Edit to Clarify - My mother in law is not MAGA and I don’t think she’s enjoying any of it. She thinks we can “just not talk about it” and everything will be fine. However she has become more racist and judgemental (anti-trans etc) in recent years. Hates Joe Biden and Kamal Harris but can’t or won’t say why. Thanks for the responses so far and I’ll try to respond, but I’m about to start work shortly.
The mark of the beast was a reference to Nero.
Which was known by the people at that time. (Which is why when it was translated into or from Greek- I forget which version was first,) the Greek version’s number was changed to reflect the Greek pronunciation of Nero as Neron.
Daniel’s “Antichrist” was similarly understood to be about a ruler contemporary to when the book was written.
I suspect your attacks on Pope Leo are politically motivated and you’re spouting whatever bullshit sounds good to justify it.
Nero was 616, not the trihexa, from my research on the matter. I verily feel for you, since you’re trying to shift blame away from the Antichrist Beast Popes, as Vicarus Filii Dei (the Latin for “Vicar of Christ”) = 666. It’s clear you’re taking the Mark on the right hand by obeying the Pope.
Preterism was created by the Jesuits (around the same time futurism was), and its purpose was to shift blame away from the Pope (because they knew the Pope was the Antichrist since Simon Magus started Cahtolicism, and not Peter (who was elsewhere at the time)).