How do Christians Expect to Convert Atheists?

[ken]

Okay.


Projection/interpretation.


Okay.


Okay.


Projection/interpretation.


Okay.


Projection/interpretation.


Okay.

If you are suggesting that I have a belief, then what do you allege that belief to be?

If that is not what you are suggesting, then what is it that you are trying to suggest here?

I'm wanting to suggest that there are two different kinds of statements, actually three.

The first kind is objective description, it includes external facts and also internal phenomenological description. These are generally okay. EG: "I notice you haven't been around for three weeks. I feel lonely."

A second kind of statement is interpretive, this includes evaluations and judgement. It isn't objective, it's projection. EG: "I feel like you don't love me. You are a heartless bastard." These kinds of statements serve nothing and are worth avoiding. They are essentially pathological. They wouldn't have a place in court testimony or a peer reviewed journal.

A third kind of statement is a request or order, when we ask others to do something. EG: "Will you come by next Saturday? Can we play tennis?" There are also requests for information. EG: "How do you feel about the idea of coming to see me next Saturday? Were you out of town for the past three weeks?" These are all usually okay.

I notice you are making evaluations and judgments about My statements. This is projection/interpretation. I feel more confused now about what it is that you are trying to suggest.

Are you saying that I should sent you My statements first, and await your approval with the "Okay" response, before I send them on to others here? Or, are you suggesting that I should talk and respond to immanuel can like we are in some kind of living relationship situation, and in the way you have learned from some psychology course or while in a course of psychology treatment? Or, what is your real intention of explaining different ways to make statements. Are you thinking that I should not do exactly what you are doing?

Personally i think, especially here in a philosophy forum, most people really do not care how I feel. Also, if I say to them what they already know, and thus is purely obvious, then they will quickly turn away from what I write. If I said things in an objective descriptive way like you suggest, for example, "I notice you haven't been around for three weeks. I feel lonely," then I would be criticized for being too boring and too emotive. If I just wrote what you, immanuel can, or any other person wrote or did, and then explained how I felt about that, then we would not proceed. Some people hate the way I talk now, let alone if I started stating what is already obvious.

The purpose of philosophy, to Me anyway, is to argue, logically reason and discuss, things so that we can all keep moving forward and keep progressing further and faster towards where and what we are arguing for. I can not answer for others but what I am arguing for, and logically reasoning about, is how to move towards a truly peaceful and harmonious place for every one.

By the way if you just wanted to suggest that there are two or three or any amount of statements, then why did you not just do that from the outset? I am actually still not quite sure why you wanted to do that, but anyway, Why did you choose to use 'your second kind of statement' by interpreting, which includes making evaluations and judgments about, My statements? Why did you not use 'your first kind of statement' and make objective descriptive remarks, which includes external facts and also internal phenomenological descriptions. You made the valued and judgement call that these are, "generally okay". Or, you could have used any of 'your third kind of statements', and asked Me to do some thing. You do say these are, "usually okay".

Why did you choose to evaluate and judge My statements, by making interpretive statements yourself? You say, "These kinds of statements serve nothing and are worth avoiding. They are essentially pathological. They wouldn't have a place in court testimony or a peer reviewed journal." If they are nothing and especially if they are worth avoiding, then why did you make and use these exact same type of statements yourself, especially when this open forum is actually being peer reviewed all the time?

I am now suggesting that there are more than just the three statements that you suggest. Ones like open-ended questions (and ones that are not open-ended). Statements that are made from and come from logically reasoned discussions and which appear as sound and valid statements (or arguments), which obviously have a conclusive fact that is unambiguous and which can not be logically disputed nor logically disagreed with also.

There are also other statements called paradoxes, which I particularly like, they seem extremely absurd (at first glance) but actually express not just a truth, but thee Truth, which everyone can agree with.

By the way did you notice that I did not make any interpretative statement here with any valued nor judgement call about which statements are okay, generally okay, usually okay, or not worth making like you have done here? Now that we have discussed different kind of statements how are we going to proceed now?

Do you want to specifically highlight the alleged interpretative remarks, themselves, that you allege I have made, so that we can look into them fully and see if they are actually as interpretive, valued, and judged as you have implied they are? If you do not, then Me and others actually have no idea what you are saying is projection/interpretation. For example, I wrote, "The arrogance and self-delusion that comes from immanuel can when desperately trying to hold onto, maintain, and express those beliefs". The beliefs immanuel can has are obvious but if you need them spelt out for you, then one of those beliefs is God exists and absolutely anything opposing this is rejected wholeheartedly by immanuel can. Immanuel can does not listen to things opposing what is believed by immanuel can.

Immanuel can has also written a few times about others being less than immanuel can. An example being here in this thread where immanuel can that some are not as wise. So, they are external facts and thus objective views and now if you want Me to add an internal phenomenological description to make these statements "generally okay", judged by you, then I will say, "I feel disheartened". But be reminded that this feeling will probably dissolve away and change before the end of this sentence, which by the way it has. I now feel somewhat "satisfied". If you want to look at this example further we can. Or if you prefer to look at your other valued and judged, interpretive statement you made regarding Me, then we could look at that one also.

[Seleucus]

If you are suggesting that I have a belief, then what do you allege that belief to be?

If that is not what you are suggesting, then what is it that you are trying to suggest here?

I'm wanting to suggest that there are two different kinds of statements, actually three.

The first kind is objective description, it includes external facts and also internal phenomenological description. These are generally okay. EG: "I notice you haven't been around for three weeks. I feel lonely."

A second kind of statement is interpretive, this includes evaluations and judgement. It isn't objective, it's projection. EG: "I feel like you don't love me. You are a heartless bastard." These kinds of statements serve nothing and are worth avoiding. They are essentially pathological. They wouldn't have a place in court testimony or a peer reviewed journal.

A third kind of statement is a request or order, when we ask others to do something. EG: "Will you come by next Saturday? Can we play tennis?" There are also requests for information. EG: "How do you feel about the idea of coming to see me next Saturday? Were you out of town for the past three weeks?" These are all usually okay.

I notice you are making evaluations and judgments about My statements. This is projection/interpretation. I feel more confused now about what it is that you are trying to suggest.
...
Why did you choose to evaluate and judge My statements, by making interpretive statements yourself?
...
Do you want to specifically highlight the alleged interpretative remarks, themselves, that you allege I have made, so that we can look into them fully and see if they are actually as interpretive, valued, and judged as you have implied they are?

Yes, a certain amount of interpretation and projection is probably inevitable. But no, overall, competent therapists and psychologists will tend to agree on the categorization of utterances to either the category of fact/feeling or interpretive/protective regardless of whether they are trained in cognitive behavioral therapy, solution-focused brief therapy, Christian counseling, or other.

Personally i think, especially here in a philosophy forum, most people really do not care how I feel. Also, if I say to them what they already know, and thus is purely obvious, then they will quickly turn away from what I write. If I said things in an objective descriptive way like you suggest, for example, "I notice you haven't been around for three weeks. I feel lonely," then I would be criticized for being too boring and too emotive. If I just wrote what you, immanuel can, or any other person wrote or did, and then explained how I felt about that, then we would not proceed. Some people hate the way I talk now, let alone if I started stating what is already obvious.

That's right. Some of the communication on this discussion forum probably isn't going to serve you in meeting your needs and living a rich meaningful life.

The purpose of philosophy, to Me anyway, is to argue, logically reason and discuss, things so that we can all keep moving forward and keep progressing further and faster towards where and what we are arguing for. I can not answer for others but what I am arguing for, and logically reasoning about, is how to move towards a truly peaceful and harmonious place for every one.

Agree. It is probably worthwhile finding facts that will inform our action decisions and the requests of others we make.

I am now suggesting that there are more than just the three statements that you suggest. Ones like open-ended questions (and ones that are not open-ended). Statements that are made from and come from logically reasoned discussions and which appear as sound and valid statements (or arguments), which obviously have a conclusive fact that is unambiguous and which can not be logically disputed nor logically disagreed with also.

Analysis of utterances is a well established field in the area of psychotherapy and also spirituality. Certain grammatical forms and vocabulary are indicative of utterance types. I've pasted an introductory worksheet below with answer key to help you get something of the spirit of it.

There are also other statements called paradoxes, which I particularly like, they seem extremely absurd (at first glance) but actually express not just a truth, but thee Truth, which everyone can agree with.

You find those sorts of statements fun and enjoy them?

For example, I wrote, "The arrogance and self-delusion that comes from immanuel can when desperately trying to hold onto, maintain, and express those beliefs".

Yes, using quotes really helps to preserve objectivity.

The beliefs immanuel can has are obvious but if you need them spelt out for you, then one of those beliefs is God exists and absolutely anything opposing this is rejected wholeheartedly by immanuel can.

Interpretation/projection. Use quotes.

Immanuel can does not listen to things opposing what is believed by immanuel can.

Interpretation/projection. Use quotes.

Immanuel can has also written a few times

Okay.

about others being less than immanuel can.

Interpretation/projection. Use quotes.

An example being

Okay.

here in this thread where immanuel can that some are not as wise.

Interpretation/projection. Use quotes.

So, they are external facts and thus objective views and now if you want Me to add an internal phenomenological description to make these statements "generally okay", judged by you, then I will say,

Interpretation/projection.

"I feel disheartened".

Okay.

But be reminded that this feeling will probably

Interpretation/projection.

dissolve away and change before the end of this sentence, which by the way it has.

Okay.

I now feel somewhat "satisfied".

Okay.

If you want to look at this example further we can. Or if you prefer to look at

Okay. Thanks for asking. I'm open. You go ahead and make the call.

your other valued and judged, interpretive statement you made regarding Me,

Interpretation/projection. Use quotes.

then we could look at that one also.

Okay. Your call. I'll be happy with either course of action you take.

Here is the worksheet:

Observation or Evaluation?

For the following statements, do you regard the speaker to be making an observation free of evaluation? If not, please give an example of an evaluation-free statement that matches the situation.

1. “One of the best ways to learn cooking is simply to practice, practice, practice.”
2. “The boss is procrastinating around this decision.”
3. “You lied to me about your grades.”
4. “My husband hardly expresses any affection.”
5. “You are arguing with me for the fourth time this week.”
6. “Barry said the only way to learn cooking is to practice, practice, practice.”
7. “They made fun of the fact that I served pigs’ feet for dinner.”
8. “You drove the car without first getting my permission.”
9. “They are destroying the environment.”
10. “The doctor refuses to explain anything to me.”

Answer key

1. “All the people in my cooking group say that one of the best ways to learn cooking is simply to practice, practice, practice.”
2. “The boss told us she would announce the decision by last week, but we still haven’t heard.”
3. “I heard you say you passed all your courses, but this report card shows two F’s.”
4. “My husband hasn’t kissed me for two weeks.”
5. “This is the fourth time this week that you stated you disagree with something I’m saying.”
6. If the speaker actually heard Barry say, “The only way to learn cooking is to practice, practice, practice,” the speaker is stating what was heard without adding any evaluation.
7. “When I served pigs’ feet for dinner, I heard laughter and someone saying, ‘Where are the toenail clippers when we need them?’”
8. If both parties (e.g. parent and teenager in a family) are in clear agreement regarding what constitutes “first getting permission,” then I would consider the speaker to be making an observation free of evaluation.
9. “They have clear cut over 90 percent of this territory, and are still continuing.”
10. “The doctor did not say anything to me about what causes the pain or what can be done.”

[ken]

I'm wanting to suggest that there are two different kinds of statements, actually three.

The first kind is objective description, it includes external facts and also internal phenomenological description. These are generally okay. EG: "I notice you haven't been around for three weeks. I feel lonely."

A second kind of statement is interpretive, this includes evaluations and judgement. It isn't objective, it's projection. EG: "I feel like you don't love me. You are a heartless bastard." These kinds of statements serve nothing and are worth avoiding. They are essentially pathological. They wouldn't have a place in court testimony or a peer reviewed journal.

A third kind of statement is a request or order, when we ask others to do something. EG: "Will you come by next Saturday? Can we play tennis?" There are also requests for information. EG: "How do you feel about the idea of coming to see me next Saturday? Were you out of town for the past three weeks?" These are all usually okay.

I notice you are making evaluations and judgments about My statements. This is projection/interpretation. I feel more confused now about what it is that you are trying to suggest.
...
Why did you choose to evaluate and judge My statements, by making interpretive statements yourself?
...
Do you want to specifically highlight the alleged interpretative remarks, themselves, that you allege I have made, so that we can look into them fully and see if they are actually as interpretive, valued, and judged as you have implied they are?

Yes, a certain amount of interpretation and projection is probably inevitable.

That is just an excuse for you doing exactly what you say others should avoid doing.

I asked you, "Why did you choose to evaluate and judge My statements, by making interpretive statements yourself?"

So, why did you choose to do what you say others should avoid doing?

But no, overall, competent therapists and psychologists will tend to agree on the categorization of utterances to either the category of fact/feeling or interpretive/protective regardless of whether they are trained in cognitive behavioral therapy, solution-focused brief therapy, Christian counseling, or other.

Do you not try to blame others for what you, yourself, can not do. Blaming others will not help you. Also, if you accepted responsibility for what you can not do, then you would just admit this instead of trying to blame others. Surely you already know it is better to accept and take responsibility for your own behaviors instead of trying to blame others. Or are you not aware of this yet?

You replied directly to some of My remarks with "interpretation/projection", which implies that is what I was doing. I asked you if you "want to specifically highlight the alleged interpretative remarks," so that we could take a more thorough look at them. But if you do not want to, then just say so. Further to this, if you can not, then just say that also. Unlike you I do not judge. But trying to make excuses for what you do and/or trying to blame others for what you do or do not do is not showing the best "side" of you.

Personally i think, especially here in a philosophy forum, most people really do not care how I feel. Also, if I say to them what they already know, and thus is purely obvious, then they will quickly turn away from what I write. If I said things in an objective descriptive way like you suggest, for example, "I notice you haven't been around for three weeks. I feel lonely," then I would be criticized for being too boring and too emotive. If I just wrote what you, immanuel can, or any other person wrote or did, and then explained how I felt about that, then we would not proceed. Some people hate the way I talk now, let alone if I started stating what is already obvious.

That's right.

What is supposedly right?

Some of the communication on this discussion forum probably isn't going to serve you in meeting your needs and living a rich meaningful life.

What parts of "the communication on this discussion forum" do you think/believe are not going to serve Me in meeting My needs and living a right meaningful life?
By "discussion forum" do you mean the whole philosophynow forum? Or, just this thread? Or, what exactly?
How and why do you think/believe you know what is going to serve Me best?
What are the supposed needs that you think/believe I need?
Why do you think/believe that I am not already living a rich meaningful life?

The purpose of philosophy, to Me anyway, is to argue, logically reason and discuss, things so that we can all keep moving forward and keep progressing further and faster towards where and what we are arguing for. I can not answer for others but what I am arguing for, and logically reasoning about, is how to move towards a truly peaceful and harmonious place for every one.

Agree.

What do you agree with, or on, exactly?

It is probably worthwhile finding facts that will inform our action decisions and the requests of others we make.

To Me there is no 'action' decisions. There is, however, 'behavior' decisions. If you want to delve into this further we can but for now I will leave it alone.

I know you might make requests of others, but I certainly do not. So, please do not use the 'we' word when you are making assumptions, jumping to conclusions, and/or having beliefs about Me. What you do does NOT necessarily mean that I also do the same.

By the way I already have the facts that will show what behaviors will lead to a truly peaceful life for every one. What I do not yet have however is the communication skills to express this properly, which is why I say I could learn a lot from you, if only you could teach in a much better way.

I am now suggesting that there are more than just the three statements that you suggest. Ones like open-ended questions (and ones that are not open-ended). Statements that are made from and come from logically reasoned discussions and which appear as sound and valid statements (or arguments), which obviously have a conclusive fact that is unambiguous and which can not be logically disputed nor logically disagreed with also.

Analysis of utterances is a well established field in the area of psychotherapy and also spirituality. Certain grammatical forms and vocabulary are indicative of utterance types. I've pasted an introductory worksheet below with answer key to help you get something of the spirit of it.

Why are you doing this for Me?

Do you do this for any one else?

For example, I wrote, "The arrogance and self-delusion that comes from immanuel can when desperately trying to hold onto, maintain, and express those beliefs".

Yes, using quotes really helps to preserve objectivity.

Using quotes does NOT necessarily help to "preserve" objectivity. Either some thing is said or written objectively or it is not. The only reason I used quotes there was because that was an exact quote of what I wrote previously.

What is really amusing here is last time I wrote that exact same phrase, you replied with, "interpretation/projection" but now you say the quotes "preserves objectivity". How could objectivity be in there now, and preserved, when last time there was none and there was only "interpretation/projection"?

So, what does "preserve objectivity" here actually mean?

The beliefs immanuel can has are obvious but if you need them spelt out for you, then one of those beliefs is God exists and absolutely anything opposing this is rejected wholeheartedly by immanuel can.

Interpretation/projection. Use quotes.

"God exists". Does this now help you to see and understand what immanuel can's beliefs are?

Immanuel can does not listen to things opposing what is believed by immanuel can.

Interpretation/projection. Use quotes.

You are telling me to use quotes, so where do you suggest I use quotes here?

Immanuel can has also written a few times

Okay.

Thanks for your approval here. Just out of curiosity are you a teacher of some sort? And/or did you just learn about observation and interpretation and were really excited about what you discovered and so want every one else to discover and learn about it also? Or, some thing else? Do you think you will go on for the rest of your life marking and grading people's writings with "Okay" and "interpretation/projection"? Or, is just Mine? How long do you think you will continue doing this for?

I am not suggesting that I am not learning from it and you, but an informative teacher guides the student on with instructions and examples also.

Just saying "interpretation/projection" is more or less just saying "wrong" AND this is of not much use in helping others learn what IS "right".

about others being less than immanuel can.

Interpretation/projection. Use quotes.

Do you get a "high" from telling others what to do?

"about others being less than immanuel can". Is that better sir or maam? If not, then why NOT?

here in this thread where immanuel can that some are not as wise.

Interpretation/projection. Use quotes.

"here in this thread where immanuel can that some are not as wise". Is that better sir or maam?

So, they are external facts and thus objective views and now if you want Me to add an internal phenomenological description to make these statements "generally okay", judged by you, then I will say,

Interpretation/projection.

What part exactly is interpretation/projection, maam or sir?

The first part of My sentence up to "and" was in reference to an earlier sentence therefore if that previous sentence was in fact external facts then that thus would be objective views, and therefore this first part of My sentence would not be interpretation/projection.

The second part of that sentence was just saying that if you wanted Me to add an emotive word so that My statements would be "Okay" to your judgmental view of what a "generally okay" statement is, then I would add the emotion that I was feeling at the time, which is exactly what I did do.

So, again, where and what part exactly of that sentence of Mine is interpretation/projection?

But be reminded that this feeling will probably

Interpretation/projection.

All I did was remind you to remember about what really happens in life, that is internal feelings/emotions change. So, how could that be interpretation/projection?

If you want to keep continuing to make evaluations and judgmental calls about My sentences, by making interpreted/projection statements, then at least have the decency to answer ALL questions that I have asked you. You want to come across as the knower of how to make utterances properly, then you should very easily be able to answer ALL of My open-ended, clarifying questions very easily and very concisely.

[Seleucus]

You write, "interpretation/projection", sometimes in reply to what I write. You also wrote that intrepretive/projective "statements serve nothing and are worth avoiding". I replied by showing where and how you also interpret/project, you then write back, "Yes, a certain amount of interpretation and projection is probably inevitable".

Are you able to explain why you write in such a highly contradictory manner?

If interpretive/projective statements are probably inevitable then how can they also be nothing and are worth avoiding as you say they are?

How can they be avoided if they are actually probably inevitable?

Providing some examples with your answer would help clarify this for us.

You also wrote,"You find those sorts of statements fun and enjoy them?" in reply to Me stating that I particularly like paradoxical statements. Are you asking Me or telling Me? If you are asking, then your sentence does not work, but it would work if you started with "Do ...", but if you are telling, then the sentence works just how you wrote it but without the question mark at the end? So, which one of the two is it?

You further wrote, "I'm open", but your replies to Me do not show nor prove to Me that you are open. For example I wrote, "If you want to look at this example further we can. Or if you prefer to look at" (You cut My sentence short here for some reason) Then you replied, "Okay. Thanks for asking. I'm open. You go ahead and make the call."

But you did not explain what the "Okay" was in relation to exactly.
I did NOT ask a question, but you said, "Thanks for asking."
You wrote, "I'm open", but just saying something does not make it true.
You then wrote, "You go ahead and make the call".
What do you want Me to make a call about exactly?

If you were truly open, then you would have noticed I said, "If YOU want to look at this example further we can", that therefore means the call is up to you. NOT Me.

So, what are you saying, "Okay" for?
What question do you think I was asking in your cut-down, shortened version of My sentence?
What are you open to exactly?
What call exactly are you trying to give Me permission to make?

Clarify these questions for Me, then I might understand better what it is that you have been trying to say here in this thread.

Actually, what is your purpose for being here in this forum?

I could learn a lot from you, if only you explained yourself better. Just writing "interpretation/projection", after some of my comments, does not convey what it is that you are wanting to convey. What is it exactly that you are trying to convey?

Remember you have learned things that others have not, so to make things easier for Me, and maybe others as well, replying with more than just two worded sentences might help us all out.

Further to this I wrote, "then we could look at that one also." and you replied with, "Okay. Your call. I'll be happy with either course of action you take."

Again, what is it your supposedly "Okay" with and/or in relation to exactly?
Again, what is my call in relation to exactly?
I do not know what choice of action I could take. Could you enlighten us further about this?
And, I am happy that you will be happy also.

By the way it was I who was suggesting that if you wanted to look further at the example I gave or if you wanted to look at another example of what YOU were accusing Me of, THEN WE COULD do so. Therefore, it was up to YOU to make the decision of what to do. If you were truly open, then you would have known that already.

Here's another worksheet. No answer key, but I feel very confident in my answers. Have a look and see if you can catch the pattern, tell me if you agree.

Observation or Evaluation?

1. Your new book bag is awesome!
E

2. Denise is wearing a cast on her right arm.
O

3. I spent three hours yesterday doing my math homework.
O

4. Only stupid kids never get fractions right.
E

5. Gregory believes he is everybody’s boss, but I think he is just a jerk.
E

6. After I told Gregory to stop pushing in the line, he pushed me too.
O

7. Our lunchroom is too noisy and crowded.
E

8. Frankie keeps talking to me when I am trying to read.
O

9. I never get fractions right. I’m so stupid!
E

10. Denise broke her arm playing volleyball.
O

11. Frankie is so annoying.
E

12. Ruben cried when Gregory pushed him out of the line.
O

13. Mr. Richardson has to be the funniest teacher in the universe.
E

14. William told the teacher that he saw when I ripped the library book.
O

15. Denise and I are best friends.
E

16. Letitia drinks her milk with pancakes’ syrup.
O

17. The science test was too long.
E

18. William betrayed me when he told the teacher what I did.
E

19. Stand up for your rights, Ruben! Stop being such a crybaby!
E

20. Letitia was cruel when she told Casey to stop laughing like a hyena.
E

What about this discussion? Christian and atheist are both interpretation. We can say "people who identify as", or perhaps we could label people based on an inventory of behaviors and survey of beliefs. We could look at statistics, if there are any which are reliable, of people who identified as atheists converting to Christianity. We might be able to conduct ethnographic analyses of people who identified as atheist and try to identify common patterns in the data. There appear to be quite a few articles online about this, that would be the easy place to start, to read a large number of them carefully, look for emergent patterns, and tally them.

[ken]

You write, "interpretation/projection", sometimes in reply to what I write. You also wrote that intrepretive/projective "statements serve nothing and are worth avoiding". I replied by showing where and how you also interpret/project, you then write back, "Yes, a certain amount of interpretation and projection is probably inevitable".

Are you able to explain why you write in such a highly contradictory manner?

If interpretive/projective statements are probably inevitable then how can they also be nothing and are worth avoiding as you say they are?

How can they be avoided if they are actually probably inevitable?

Providing some examples with your answer would help clarify this for us.

You also wrote,"You find those sorts of statements fun and enjoy them?" in reply to Me stating that I particularly like paradoxical statements. Are you asking Me or telling Me? If you are asking, then your sentence does not work, but it would work if you started with "Do ...", but if you are telling, then the sentence works just how you wrote it but without the question mark at the end? So, which one of the two is it?

You further wrote, "I'm open", but your replies to Me do not show nor prove to Me that you are open. For example I wrote, "If you want to look at this example further we can. Or if you prefer to look at" (You cut My sentence short here for some reason) Then you replied, "Okay. Thanks for asking. I'm open. You go ahead and make the call."

But you did not explain what the "Okay" was in relation to exactly.
I did NOT ask a question, but you said, "Thanks for asking."
You wrote, "I'm open", but just saying something does not make it true.
You then wrote, "You go ahead and make the call".
What do you want Me to make a call about exactly?

If you were truly open, then you would have noticed I said, "If YOU want to look at this example further we can", that therefore means the call is up to you. NOT Me.

So, what are you saying, "Okay" for?
What question do you think I was asking in your cut-down, shortened version of My sentence?
What are you open to exactly?
What call exactly are you trying to give Me permission to make?

Clarify these questions for Me, then I might understand better what it is that you have been trying to say here in this thread.

Actually, what is your purpose for being here in this forum?

I could learn a lot from you, if only you explained yourself better. Just writing "interpretation/projection", after some of my comments, does not convey what it is that you are wanting to convey. What is it exactly that you are trying to convey?

Remember you have learned things that others have not, so to make things easier for Me, and maybe others as well, replying with more than just two worded sentences might help us all out.

Further to this I wrote, "then we could look at that one also." and you replied with, "Okay. Your call. I'll be happy with either course of action you take."

Again, what is it your supposedly "Okay" with and/or in relation to exactly?
Again, what is my call in relation to exactly?
I do not know what choice of action I could take. Could you enlighten us further about this?
And, I am happy that you will be happy also.

By the way it was I who was suggesting that if you wanted to look further at the example I gave or if you wanted to look at another example of what YOU were accusing Me of, THEN WE COULD do so. Therefore, it was up to YOU to make the decision of what to do. If you were truly open, then you would have known that already.

Here's another worksheet. No answer key, but I feel very confident in my answers. Have a look and see if you can catch the pattern, tell me if you agree.

Observation or Evaluation?

1. Your new book bag is awesome!
E

2. Denise is wearing a cast on her right arm.
O

3. I spent three hours yesterday doing my math homework.
O

4. Only stupid kids never get fractions right.
E

5. Gregory believes he is everybody’s boss, but I think he is just a jerk.
E

6. After I told Gregory to stop pushing in the line, he pushed me too.
O

7. Our lunchroom is too noisy and crowded.
E

8. Frankie keeps talking to me when I am trying to read.
O

9. I never get fractions right. I’m so stupid!
E

10. Denise broke her arm playing volleyball.
O

11. Frankie is so annoying.
E

12. Ruben cried when Gregory pushed him out of the line.
O

13. Mr. Richardson has to be the funniest teacher in the universe.
E

14. William told the teacher that he saw when I ripped the library book.
O

15. Denise and I are best friends.
E

16. Letitia drinks her milk with pancakes’ syrup.
O

17. The science test was too long.
E

18. William betrayed me when he told the teacher what I did.
E

19. Stand up for your rights, Ruben! Stop being such a crybaby!
E

20. Letitia was cruel when she told Casey to stop laughing like a hyena.
E

I agree with your answers up to number 9. which could be O and E. Depending on which sentence exactly you are referring to, and how you want to "interpret" them. I did not read the rest.

I feel happy that you feel very confident in your answers. But how do YOU actual feel with-in you when you are "feeling" very confident in your answers? I want to know how you feel in YOU not how you feel in YOUR ANSWERS. Can you see the difference? Did you catch the pattern?

By the way I did NOT catch the pattern in the worksheet and in your confident answers. Can you give Me a clue?

What about this discussion? Christian and atheist are both interpretation. We can say "people who identify as", or perhaps we could label people based on an inventory of behaviors and survey of beliefs. We could look at statistics, if there are any which are reliable, of people who identified as atheists converting to Christianity. We might be able to conduct ethnographic analyses of people who identified as atheist and try to identify common patterns in the data. There appear to be quite a few articles online about this, that would be the easy place to start, to read a large number of them carefully, look for emergent patterns, and tally them.

Why would I want to do this?

What would be the reason for doing anything like this?

If you had read some of My previous writings then you will have noticed that to Me there is no such thing as a christian, an atheist, a muslim, an american, an italian, a doctor, a lawyer, a fisher person, a surfer, a black person, nor a white person, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. I do not make evaluations like these. I only want to express what I know IS true, right, and correct, all the time. I do NOT want to express only that what I could think, value, judge, and interpret as being true, right, and correct, at any time.

I do not particularly care about how many, nor if any, articles there are online about what you are talking about here. Why would I want to start to read a large number of them carefully? I can already see a large number of patterns in life, and the reason I am here is learn to learn how to express My views better. Unless there is one place, or one book, that can show how we ALL can live together in peace and harmony, then I am not really interested in all the other trivial stuff in Life, which you are referring to here. If you can point Me to a place that can truly guide ALL human beings on how to create a better world for everyone, themselves, then I would be very interested in that. I would love to compare it with My views. I am always on the look out of how to simplify how to express much more concisely. Do you think what you want Me to look and see could help Me to express better? If so, then post a link to it.

But why oh why would you want to put more labels on human beings and/or try to categorize them into more and more groups? This to Me does not make any sense. Separating human beings obviously only causes rifts, which obviously would naturally cause more and more separation. I am into showing how ALL people are united as One, instead of trying to find and learn more ways of separating them. The latter is an extremely simple thing to do. In fact you, yourself, are doing it sub-consciously right now.

I am NOT here to "make a difference". I am here to Unite. If and when you discover and learn how the Mind and the brain works, then you will stop seeing and trying to separate things into differing things. You will see and understand how ALL is One.

So, to answer your question, "What about this discussion?" I really do not know how to answer that but I will reply with more questions, "What about it?" What purpose is there in that discussion? Is there any real purpose for it?

[Dontaskme]

QUOTES: by Seleucus

I need to be treated with respect. I'm not going to participate in a discussion with anyone who calls me names. End of discussion.

The following quote is written by Seleucus addressed to vegetariantaxidermy. From the I am an Islamophobe. If you are not, you might not be a moral person. THREAD.

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: ↑Mon Jun 05, 2017 5:32 pm
Seleucus wrote: ↑Mon Jun 05, 2017 5:24 pm
vegetariantaxidermy wrote: ↑Mon Jun 05, 2017 5:17 pm


vegetariantaxidermy asked Seleucus What's your name?

Seleucus replied Rashid.

You gnarly cyst. You rotten slosh of puss. You repulsive and unseemly blob. You wet assed pɾick. You offensive wicked and smelly cⱱnt. You malevolent cur. You hissy and slovenly stray dog.
What was your gross income for 2016?

You defend losers because you identify with them. As if your projections and resentment aren't behind your leftism! You're a leftist because you resent your society that you couldn't keep up with. You are a failure and loser in life and resent the core of your nation. Do something for others. Cure cancer, fly international flights, plan and implement national policy, do something that contributes to your society.
First and last. And address. Phone number. Country code. And to the rest.
Anyway, obviously you're a poor and resentful loser otherwise you would have just said you pulled 50 or 100-thousand pounds and that would have been the end of the conversation. These issues of resentment and protective identification are so central to leftism and Islamic apologism it ought to be the only single reply to every apologetic through this whole discussion.

You green turd, you vomitous and rank slime. You purple and foul fowl. You semen drenched horrid hooker. You transsexual niɠɠer. You plain-looking rapist. You malevolent drug addicted ooze.

Ken, be careful who you mix with on the internet. Just so you know.

[Immanuel Can]

Also, I've noticed when he is faced with the really hard questions about reality..he just ignores them. He has certainly adopted a mechanism of selected hearing.
No offence IC..but you really do like to put others down in a class lower than yourself.

Not at all, actually. I speak of what I know, and imagine others to be doing likewise. I have no stake in seeing anyone put down. But I understand that it's a threat to some people when their ideology is put to the test and fails...and they lash back. I understand it, but feel no need to reciprocate.

I do have "selective hearing," as you put it. In fact, there are particular things you'll note I've chosen routinely not to hear. And they are as follows:

1. Blasphemy in which the speaker is calling Divine Judgment down upon himself. To encourage that would be hostile beyond belief, as it would mean I was encouraging the speaker to harm himself. What kind of person would do that?

2. Personal insults...what's the point? They're irrelevant to any question at all, and they only demean the speaker.

3. Gratuitous contradiction -- contradicting without providing good reasons or rationale. For what's the value of getting into a "Yes it is" / "No it isn't" kind of exchange? Where does such a thing go?

4. Things that could unnecessarily embarrass the speaker if drawn to public attention -- such as missing an all-too-obvious obvious point in some way, or saying something overly stupid that refutes itself. Sometimes it's just better to ignore a very ill-judged remark or argument than to point out its faults.

5. Useless rhetorical flourishes, like swearing, bullying, grandstanding, typing in big font, posting irrelevant pictures or memes...and so on.

There are a few other times I will ignore something, but I choose (I trust) for good reasons in each case.

The key is that I try to respond to issues and ideas, not personalities or gestures of rhetoric.

My axiom is simply that conversation is a privilege on all sides, not a right for anyone; so anyone has a right to choose when and if they respond to anything. When someone engages you, they're doing you a favour (unless they're just doing one of the above things), and it seems reasonable to me to keep it civil. Anybody has a right at any time to decide what they will and will not talk about.

Of course, by email it can be no other way. Anybody who does any of the five above is clearly just blustering about in impotent rage, not focusing on the issues at hand.

I'm also not thin-skinned, if you hadn't noticed; it doesn't bother me a bit what anybody says about me personally. For in the first place, that's nothing to the issue; and in the second, who the heck has any idea here who or what I really am?

Carry on as you see fit. I shall do likewise.

[Seleucus]

I need to be treated with respect. I'm not going to participate in a discussion with anyone who calls me names. End of discussion.

You gnarly cyst. You rotten slosh of puss. You repulsive and unseemly blob. You wet assed pɾick. You offensive wicked and smelly cⱱnt. You malevolent cur. You hissy and slovenly stray dog.

You green turd, you vomitous and rank slime. You purple and foul fowl. You semen drenched horrid hooker. You transsexual niɠɠer. You plain-looking rapist. You malevolent drug addicted ooze.

Ken, be careful who you mix with on the internet. Just so you know.

After asking in fact five (5) times to not be called names, and it not stopping, I changed strategies and let rip every outrageous name I could think of, "unseemly blob", "plain looking rapist", "rotten slosh of puss"; there are about 30 more extreme insults from that same discussion, as I recall "old orange dinosaur" too. No apologies for trying something new when my first strategy didn't work. Looks like vegetariantaxidermy at the time found it generally humorous.

[Seleucus]

Can you give Me a clue?

http://consciouscommunication.ca/observations.pdf

What about this discussion? Christian and atheist are both interpretation. We can say "people who identify as", or perhaps we could label people based on an inventory of behaviors and survey of beliefs. We could look at statistics, if there are any which are reliable, of people who identified as atheists converting to Christianity. We might be able to conduct ethnographic analyses of people who identified as atheist and try to identify common patterns in the data. There appear to be quite a few articles online about this, that would be the easy place to start, to read a large number of them carefully, look for emergent patterns, and tally them.

What would be the reason for doing anything like this?

An objective methodological approach.

If you had read some of My previous writings

Sorry, I have not.

[ken]

Can you give Me a clue?

http://consciouscommunication.ca/observations.pdf

What about this discussion? Christian and atheist are both interpretation. We can say "people who identify as", or perhaps we could label people based on an inventory of behaviors and survey of beliefs. We could look at statistics, if there are any which are reliable, of people who identified as atheists converting to Christianity. We might be able to conduct ethnographic analyses of people who identified as atheist and try to identify common patterns in the data. There appear to be quite a few articles online about this, that would be the easy place to start, to read a large number of them carefully, look for emergent patterns, and tally them.

What would be the reason for doing anything like this?

An objective methodological approach.

If you had read some of My previous writings

Sorry, I have not.

I have asked you well over 20 open-ended clarifying questions just to try and get some idea of what it is you are trying to do here. Yet you have not shown any decency by answering just 1 of My questions. So, I will not again ask why are you responding to what I write?

[Dontaskme]

Also, I've noticed when he is faced with the really hard questions about reality..he just ignores them. He has certainly adopted a mechanism of selected hearing.
No offence IC..but you really do like to put others down in a class lower than yourself.

Not at all, actually. I speak of what I know, and imagine others to be doing likewise. I have no stake in seeing anyone put down. But I understand that it's a threat to some people when their ideology is put to the test and fails...and they lash back. I understand it, but feel no need to reciprocate.

Hmm, this is what I mean ...it seems you've changed context from ''people speaking of what they know'' into ''their ideology'' and then you round that off with a passive aggressive statement such as (a knowledge being something they have to defend when that knowing does not pass the test and fails)

...what test Ic? what test?

... who is ''other one'' that is going to judge if what someone internally knows from their heart what is a fail or a tick?

Having an ideology is stamping a personal claim of a particular branch of knowledge as being Gospel truth only. However I've consistently said that all knowledge is an illusory story told by no one on this forum, that means it's okay to believe what feels right and works for you because it's your dream ... So I don't think it's helpful to expect others to hold to the same contextual understandings that are unique to you only, it doesn't work like that, we're all unique.

Self-knowledge or Gnosis is an internal matter and not an intellectual knowledge and Jesus did verbally make that statement himself as written in the Gospel of Luke - Luke 17:20 where it states ''the Kingdom of God is said to be an interior state; "It's within you," Luke says. And here it says, "It's inside you but it's also outside of you." It's like a state of consciousness.''

I interpret that piece of scripture as saying....what is outside of you is also in you, and vice versa...which points to the nondual idea that all is one consciousness expressing itself in formation...in other words, who you are is not in the world, the world is in you. You are in the world but not of it.


Obviously people are going to have their own literary styles of expressing in words what they know internally. I just think it's daft to categorically deny other people their unique understandings as if they were according to your beliefs being blastphemers.

Cut people some slack IC..and try not to act superior over other peoples ideas, which you do sometimes. I respect a person like you who follows the teachings of Christ, simply because I also believe that what he said was the true, and I trust people who tell the truth, it's the right way to go, it's the right way to live...when you tell the truth, you never have to remember anything.

.

.

[Dontaskme]

I need to be treated with respect. I'm not going to participate in a discussion with anyone who calls me names. End of discussion.

You gnarly cyst. You rotten slosh of puss. You repulsive and unseemly blob. You wet assed pɾick. You offensive wicked and smelly cⱱnt. You malevolent cur. You hissy and slovenly stray dog.

You green turd, you vomitous and rank slime. You purple and foul fowl. You semen drenched horrid hooker. You transsexual niɠɠer. You plain-looking rapist. You malevolent drug addicted ooze.

Ken, be careful who you mix with on the internet. Just so you know.

After asking in fact five (5) times to not be called names, and it not stopping, I changed strategies and let rip every outrageous name I could think of, "unseemly blob", "plain looking rapist", "rotten slosh of puss"; there are about 30 more extreme insults from that same discussion, as I recall "old orange dinosaur" too. No apologies for trying something new when my first strategy didn't work. Looks like vegetariantaxidermy at the time found it generally humorous.

Thanks for being open and honest. I understand your motives now and hope you find it in your heart to forgive me for mis-judging you?

[Seleucus]

I have asked you well over 20 open-ended clarifying questions just to try and get some idea of what it is you are trying to do here. Yet you have not shown any decency by answering just 1 of My questions.

Yes. Those questions looked pretty murky to me. I'm advising to avoid the quagmire jungle of interpretation. Would you be willing to put your questions in closed form, yes/no would be best. Stick to facts of the world and phenomenology, and requests for doable actions, that's about the limit of meaningful discussion for me.

If I were to approach this issue of why atheists convert to Christianity, I'd collect up at least a hundred first person accounts. Then I'd take what the converts say at face-value initially and tally up the emergent categories from the overview. Then I'd comb over it psychoanalytically and look for any deeper themes. There might also be a body of literature to review on conversion, atheist conversion, conversion to Christianity, and specifically atheists conversion to Christianity.?

...

I just did a two second look through academic journals, looks like Yang (2005) has come at this topic already. The author takes a much more heavily macro- and meso- level approach, somewhat different from the micro-level ethnographic approach I had suggested. I'm not saying Yang is right or I'm right, evidently there is way more big data available on this than I'd realized. Either way, a literature review, a macro-, meso- and micro-ethnographic level analysis is pretty much what you get. I don't have the time to get deeply into this, but reading Yang Lost in the Market, Saved at McDonald’s: Conversion to Christianity in Urban China plus the first ten personal accounts to come up on google would give you a decent start into this issue.

[Seleucus]

Thanks for being open and honest. I understand your motives now and hope you find it in your heart to forgive me for mis-judging you?

No problem.

[Dontaskme]

who the heck has any idea here who or what I really am?

Exactly my point, who the heck is the other I Am?

EXPRESSION ..It is what it is, otherwise it is what is isn't.

You're spelling it out how it's meant to be ACCORDING TO YOUR WORLD -VIEW is still a reflection of your personal character IC..one that you are deliberately putting out there for others to know, even though you deny you are interested in personal characteristics...even though they are all expressions of the I Am....a bit too perfect for my liking IC..but since you follow JC...I'll let you off. Just as God forgiveness begets forgiveness, you can only forgive others when you forgive yourself.

Notice the underlined statement contains the letters that make up the symbol of ISIS

God certainly does work in mysterious ways.