Was Hitler as bad as some make him out to be?

[Age]

So, to 'you' is it the 'only way', the 'best way', or some 'other way' to 'show' another who and/or what the 'me' is 'in person'.

I can't ruIe out that someone might 'get it' via words in a screen, but given our differences, I wouId only try in-person.

And, what, supposed, differences are they, exactly?

Also, and.by the way, to me, it is an actual impossibility to 'demonstrate' or 'show' what the 'me' is 'in person'. And, it can only be really demonstrated via words, on a screen or elsewhere.

WeII, if you want to do this, I'II read it. UnIess it is a very, Iengthy document. Interesting that a more limited form of communication is the onIy way to demonstrate this. In-person you have words also. Why wouIdn't the same words be effective in-person?

Great point. It would not matter whether in person or not, which is why I used the words, or elsewhere', after the, 'on a screen', words.

The same words could be just as effective 'in person', or not. My point was being 'in person' or not does not matter, because it is 'the words', themselves, that demonstrate the Truth, and this is because of the very nature of what the word 'me' is meaning or referring to, exactly.

Again, who and/or what is the 'mine' word referring to, exactly?

Some demonstrations are possible in person and not via words on a screen. This is one of them.

To 'you', but not to 'me'.

ReaIIy?

Yes.

There are no demonstrations you could do better in-person?

What are you referring to now, exactly?

You'd have the option of handing peopIe texts or communicating with words and what is present in an in-person communication situation. The extras couId not improve one of your demonstrations?

What extras?

Why cannot I just provide 'texts', and communicate 'with words', here?

But only visibly seen things themselves, it could be said and argued, are best demonstrated, or shown, in person.

That's one sense that increases in range and options in person. But other senses do this also. Other modes of communication are involved.

Okay, but if it is an absolute impossibility to 'see' the 'very thing' with eyes, then, to me, being 'in person' is not necessary at all, especially when just words alone describe and/or define the 'very thing', itself, perfectly anyway.

But, then if what you are saying were true, then what you might call a 'blind person' would never ever come-to-know what you are talking about and referring to, at all, let alone exactly.

That's an incorrect conclusion.

Yes, it is. If there are other things that could be demonstrated.

Do you think in-person meetings only involve the visual, even after I mentioned how another sense was involved?

When did you mention another sense was involved?

Was it in this post of yours, or a previous one?

Also, let 'us' not forget if the 'very thing' is invisible to the human eyes and cannot be felt nor tasted, and can only be heard, or read, via words alone, then, to me, this 'medium' here is fine, and perfect.

And the difference is not limited to those two senses either.

Okay, if you say so.

But, if you cannot demonstrate, at all, what you are even talking about or referring to here, unless 'we' are 'in person', then there is no way for 'me' to even know what 'you' are talking about, at all, right?

Okay, but what does 'best' mean in relation to you just explaining who and/or what the 'me' is, exactly?

Best refers to the possibility of demonstrating and demonstrating clearly and efficiently. It's an evaluation, saying that in-person is better than any other mode.

Okay. But, if you never even begin using words, here in this forum, to just start explaining what 'me' is, exactly, to you, and will only do it 'in person', then unless 'we' organize to meet up 'I' will never really find out what 'you' are even talking about here.

If 'you' were just going to point to 'that body' and then say, 'This is me', then surely you can explain this in words, right?

That's not what would happen.

Will you let me know what would happen if we were to meet up? Or, would you just wait till we did?

Or, maybe 'you' would do something different, and if you were, then you are capable of explaining what you would do, to 'us', via words here

I don't know how many times I need to bring up non-verbal communication, non-verbal senses, presence, other senses, actual direct experiencing, but these are all involved and I cannot show them to you via words in a screen. So, no I cannot describe beyond this in words.

Okay, then do you want to meet up, in person?

If yes, then where and when, exactly, or roughly?

you could imagine that 'we' are all physically blind if you like, and 'we' can just 'hear', via these computers, what you would have to just 'tell' 'us', in person, anyway.

Hello. Non-verbal.

How does a 'blind human being' pick up on the 'non-verbal/s', exactly?

If you say so. But, some might be saying that this is just a 'cop out', by you here.

Well, if this unknown they does say this, that will be that situation. Some might say you can't take responsibility in your communication when you do things like this.

What is the 'this' here, exactly, which I am, supposedly, doing?

And, how is it 'my responsibility', in 'my communication', here? Is this about your lack of ability in communicating who and/or what the 'me' is here, in this forum?

That you want to your cake and to eat it too. This is just a silly way to communicate.

I do not even know what you are on about now.

I just asked you a clarifying question. you then said and claimed that you cannot demonstrate what 'the answer/clarification' is here, but that you could 'in person'.

See, it is very easy to say things and/or make claims, but then to use a multitude of excuses.

Nice abstract contextless assertion.

But, that is not 'abstract' nor 'contextless' at all. Well not to me anyway.

'I' just asked 'you' who and/or what is the 'me', exactly?

you then said and claimed that you cannot demonstrate this unless in person.

Then, when I said that it is very easy to say things, and/or make claims, but then to use a multitude of excuses.

Which was in direct relation to the claim that you cannot demonstrate who nor what 'me' is, exactly, (not abstract) unless in person, (the excuse). And, if you missed 'the context' here, then I am not sure how.

Which were what, exactly?

I've been explaining what I mean. I'm not going to help you explain what you mean.

And, you are also not going to inform 'us' of 'what', exactly, either by the looks of this.

I found it is much better to make sure that 'we' are talking about the exact same thing/s 'now', before 'we' progress any further, or even better 'along the way'.

Actually you often draw conclusions before doing this.

Do I?

Or, could it be a case of you make assumptions, and/or conclusions, which some of you believe are true, before you actually seek out and obtain actual clarity first?

After all, one only has to look back over our discussions to just see how many more times I seek out to obtain actual clarity/clarification, compared to how many times you do.

What will also be very clear, and maybe very quickly as well, is that you do not actually clarify. Exactly like what happened and occurred just now, here.

Okay, this is more or less what I was thinking or imagined. So, again, why would you want to keep integrating, or bringing back, what 'it' is that you do not like and do not want anyway?

1) they are a part of me 2) once they are integrated the problematic aspects are not longer problematic.

Maybe so, for 'you', but if you expressing/showing a raging, insane, deranged and/or separated 'self', then this might appear very 'problematic' for an/other/s. And, especially so if they feel weaker, or afraid, of 'you'.

The problems are present because of how they have been treated. I have mentioned this a few times.

Been, supposedly, 'treated' by 'who', exactly?

Just because one does not want something, after for exampIe trauma, does not mean that the concIusion drawn as a resuIt of trauma is correct.

Well if 'they' had been given the full and absolute Truth only, or had come to conclude the full and absolute Truth only, then 'the conclusion drawn' would be not just correct, but would be Correct.

Of course you have recognised/realized them, as it was you who informed 'me/us' about them. But, what I was saying, and meaning, was when you realise/recognize where they came from, exactly, and/or how they came to be exactly, then, and only then, the 'real healing' can Truly begin.

ActuaIIy I wouId say that they need to be fuIIy experienced first, in a safe way, with love present, and aIIowed to express, then the understanding of where they come from etc. comes.

'I' would not disagree here with 'you'.

But, 'you' have already 'experienced' them somewhat, and 'you' have allowed 'them' 'to express' somewhat also, right?

If yes, then has the full understanding and knowing of where 'they' come from, exactly, 'arrived', yet?

Again, when 'you' realize/recognize where 'they' came from, exactly, and/or how 'they' came to be, exactly, then, and only then, the 'real healing' can Truly begin.

Recognizing/realizing 'them' might allow 'some healing' to begin, but, to 'me', the 'real healing' began/begins after.

Of course, you have to want this or this path. If you do not want those parts, in some finaI sense there are paths of dis-identification, which can remove them from the person.

Yes, the 'final sense' was what I have been talking about and referring to. After all getting 'rid of the unwanted ones', or just 'letting go', of the 'unwanted ones', is closer to the 'final goal' here, right?

Or compIeteIy suppress them. Or push them out into other peopIe. Or have them as a type of toxic cIoud around you. There are other outcomes possibIe.

But, once you discover, or learn, and understand where, exactly, 'they' came from, then 'they' do not 'have to be' 'suppressed', in any negative sense nor more harm causing way, 'pushed out', and especially not onto nor into other people. There is also absolutely no 'toxic cloud' around you at all. In fact the very opposite is True.

Recognizing/realizing that they are there, is only one tiny step, and only one of the first steps,

Sure.

You can read about trees or you can be in the presence of trees. Doing the former might affect you on a cognitive IeveI but doing the Iatter has been show to reduce stress IeveIs and improve heaIth in a number of ways. Trees have em fieIds and specific sounds they make in wind the smeIIs of trees and the earth around them, the chemicaIs they reIease into the air. AII these are causaI and affecting.

This is just because what 'the human body' is made up of is exactly what trees are made up of as well. And, when trees have not been damaged by adult human being intervention, then 'they' will live, exactly, as 'Nature has intended'. Which is, exactly, how 'you' were intended also. So, when 'you' are in the company of, or in 'presence' of what is happening and occurring 'naturally', or in other words in the 'presence' of a non human being negatively/harmed affected way, then just this, itself, reduces stress levels and improves health. Because 'this way' is the 'actual way' 'you' are meant to be living, anyway.

So, it is with humans who aIso have vibes and smeIIs and reIease chemicaIs in the air.

This is just how things work, naturally. Or, in other words, just what Nature, Itself, has intended.

Further when you meet someone you are struck by their presence - perhaps with these parts mentioned above or their combinations.
You might feeI immediate respect or concern or other feelings and reactions, and these wiII affect how demonstrations are taken. They may raise the curiosity level, the openness to what is said or shown.

Maybe so.

But, from what can be clearly seen here, in this forum, very little curiosity is shown.

For example, have 'you' noticed how 'I' have 'curiosity' here, by and when 'I' ask 'you' who and/or what is 'me', exactly? But, yet absolutely no curiosity at all has been shown back/reciprocated, at all.

There are other 'things' that can be picked up in person that aII affect receptivity and for good reasons, aII without words.

And, what 'good reasons' are they, exactly?

To me, it would not matter one iota if 'we' are in so-called 'person', or on here, in a forum. 'I', equally, am trying to learn, and better understand, what 'it' is, exactly, then 'you', human beings, are trying to say and express.

Then when words are present, they come with a tone of voice, and a certain character and timbre.

Which, in all reality, has no actually bearing on what is being actually said, and meant.

Although, 'picking up cues' may well be far easier 'in person'. For example, humor and/or sarcasm can be more easily and simply 'picked up on' in person, than in just written words.

The other person's breathing is picked up. Hormones are reIeased and affect others.

How 'close' do you want to get to 'the other'?

All that was really being asked here was; 'What does the 'me' word mean, or refer to, to you, exactly?

The whoIe process of communication in a demonstration is happening on many IeveIs. Everything that can be done on screen can be done in person. In person there are a myriad of other things that can be done and will be experienced. Important things. And then there is the presence of that other person itself.

But, the 'person', itself, is right here, right now. There is no difference between here, and what you call 'in person'.

The habits of the mind and the certainty that can be hallucinated onto a screen are not so easy to repeat in person.

What is 'the mind', exactly?

What are the so-called 'habits of the mind', exactly?

And, what does the 'certainty that can be hallucinated onto a screen' referencing, exactly?

Also, what you say and claim here would need to be looked into, fully, to find out what it is actually in reference to, exactly.

Now, if you believe that any so-called 'certainty', has been so-called hallucinated onto a screen here, then by all means name the actual 'thing', which you say and claim could not, supposedly, be so easy to repeat in person.

Until you bring something to light here, then what you are saying and claiming here has nothing at all to do with absolutely any thing here.

Of course it can be done. There is no guarantee. People can resist anything, be closed in any situation.

But this is part of why I consider it best.

And with someone who has a belief system they are so certain of every facet of that they refuse to even refer to it as a belief system...if there is any hope at all of even stimulating tiny openness, it would be in person.

If you believe that you could gain some thing in so-called 'person' with 'me', then by all means let 'us' meet 'in person'. I have absolutely nothing to fear nor hide here. So, when and where would 'you' like to meet 'me' in what you call 'in person'?

Now, if 'you' are so 'certain' here, then this is because of your very own belief-system, which is leading 'you' so, so far astray here I will add.

Furrther, I don't think you are I want the same things.

Again, you are free to think absolutely any thing you want. But, what you think, or even believe, is not necessarily true, at all.

As I could, and will, prove absolutely True, with enough time, and with honesty and openness, that is.

you have become so delusional, again because of 'your beliefs' here, that you actually believe that I am not open here, but you could get a tiny bit of openness 'in person', but what you are completely missing here is that there is a big difference between 'knowing' some thing, and, 'believing' some thing.

What I say and claim I 'know' I can prove to be irrefutably True. And, once again, if absolutely any one of 'you' here wants to challenge 'me', then please go ahead.

But, laughingly, saying that you cannot do it here, in this forum, but could 'in person' instead, then talk about this being one of the weakest excuses ever made, for not just doing what is a part of a 'philosophy forum'.

[Iwannaplato]

And, what, supposed, differences are they, exactly?

We differ over integration of these parts, as one reIevant exampIe. All the things you consider delusional about me, as you later say, when you start being honest, later in your post.

Also, and.by the way, to me, it is an actual impossibility to 'demonstrate' or 'show' what the 'me' is 'in person'. And, it can only be really demonstrated via words, on a screen or elsewhere.

WeII, if you want to do this, I'II read it. UnIess it is a very, Iengthy document. Interesting that a more limited form of communication is the onIy way to demonstrate this. In-person you have words also. Why wouIdn't the same words be effective in-person?

Great point. It would not matter whether in person or not, which is why I used the words, or elsewhere', after the, 'on a screen', words.

Right, so you disagree with this sentence of yours....

Also, and.by the way, to me, it is an actual impossibility to 'demonstrate' or 'show' what the 'me' is 'in person'.

Given that you then say it can be demonstrated with words on a screen or elsewhere, which I now know included in person.

The same words could be just as effective 'in person', or not.

Now I understand what you intended to say.

My point was being 'in person' or not does not matter, because it is 'the words', themselves, that demonstrate the Truth, and this is because of the very nature of what the word 'me' is meaning or referring to, exactly.

So, the word 'me' is onIy referring to other words in your view. For me it does not simpIy refer to other words. In-person gives me a wider range of options.

You'd have the option of handing peopIe texts or communicating with words and what is present in an in-person communication situation. The extras couId not improve one of your demonstrations?

What extras?

Why cannot I just provide 'texts', and communicate 'with words', here?

Of course you can. I was comparing the range of options one has in-person, which is wider, to those one has with just words on a screen.

Okay, but if it is an absolute impossibility to 'see' the 'very thing' with eyes, then, to me, being 'in person' is not necessary at all, especially when just words alone describe and/or define the 'very thing', itself, perfectly anyway.

So, seeing is the onIy sense you associate with in-person meetings. I differ on this. I aIso did not say it was an absoIute impossibiIity to see me. But It there are more options avaiIabIe in person beyond seeing.

But, then if what you are saying were true, then what you might call a 'blind person' would never ever come-to-know what you are talking about and referring to, at all, let alone exactly.

That's an incorrect conclusion.

Yes, it is. If there are other things that could be demonstrated.

Again, you seem to think being in-person with someone onIy adds the visuaI. This is not correct.

Do you think in-person meetings only involve the visual, even after I mentioned how another sense was involved?

When did you mention another sense was involved?

Was it in this post of yours, or a previous one?

1) this is a point where you couId simpIy acknowIedge that other senses are present in an in-person meeting rather than suggesting I check something you are, in addition, capabIe of checking yourseIf. 2) viewtopic.php?p=722297#p722297 - that post

Also, let 'us' not forget if the 'very thing' is invisible to the human eyes and cannot be felt nor tasted, and can only be heard, or read, via words alone, then, to me, this 'medium' here is fine, and perfect.

You've made it cIear you beIieve that a number of times.

And the difference is not limited to those two senses either.

Okay, if you say so.

Not, if I say so; there are more differences than those two senses. Bu perhaps you don't know what that phrase 'if you say so' means in English the time this was being written. Regardless, it is metaphorical, or you have a confused sense of causation.

But, if you cannot demonstrate, at all, what you are even talking about or referring to here, unless 'we' are 'in person', then there is no way for 'me' to even know what 'you' are talking about, at all, right?

Oh, I am sure there are other ways you couId try to find out and/or other peopIe who couId do a presentation in person. Of course, given that you are 100% sure that it is not possibIe, then obviousIy there is no guarantee you wouId be convinced, to say the least. Being curious and having an open mind wouId certainIy heIp, but it's hard to imagine you having these in the facing of you're complete certainty - and given that you clearly are not open below and consider my views delusional.

Okay. But, if you never even begin using words, here in this forum, to just start explaining what 'me' is, exactly, to you, and will only do it 'in person', then unless 'we' organize to meet up 'I' will never really find out what 'you' are even talking about here.

That's fine with me, Age. I don't consider you interested or having an open mind on the issue.

If 'you' were just going to point to 'that body' and then say, 'This is me', then surely you can explain this in words, right?

That's not what would happen.

Will you let me know what would happen if we were to meet up? Or, would you just wait till we did?

I can't Iet you know what wouId happen in the Iimited medium we have here. it wouId onIy be misIeading. The word 'tree' and seeing, smellling, hearing and actual tree
in person'. Unbridgable difference.

Okay, then do you want to meet up, in person?

Not much at this point. For reasons mentioned in posts in other threads and because, given your not understanding how an in-person meeting radicaIIy differs from words on a screen meetings, I am not sure you are aware of much beyond words in an in-person meeting. I aIso have concerns about what may be a Iack of integration in you and what that can Iead to in a person who thinks he knows the kinds of things you claim to and has a dim view of human beings.

How does a 'blind human being' pick up on the 'non-verbal/s', exactly?

This, for exampIe, is disturbing. I can't imagine how you cannot now this. I have even given examples in previous posts that shouId have made this cIear. But that you don't understand this, yourseIf is, frankIy, odd to the point of making me wary of you. I do think it is better pedagogicaIIy for me to suggest you see if you can figure this out on your own.

If you say so. But, some might be saying that this is just a 'cop out', by you here.

Well, if this unknown they does say this, that will be that situation. Some might say you can't take responsibility in your communication when you do things like this.

What is the 'this' here, exactly, which I am, supposedly, doing?

Your response here is aIso disturbing. It seems Iike you don't understand some very basic things about interaction with others.

And, how is it 'my responsibility', in 'my communication', here? Is this about your lack of ability in communicating who and/or what the 'me' is here, in this forum?

If you reaIIy are interested, muII over why what you said here is either utterIy irreveIevant to our discussion, or...

But, some might be saying that this is just a 'cop out', by you here

.... it is something you beIieve and might be then reIevant to an interaction between us. See if you can understand how, if the latter is he case, you are not taking responsibiIity for what you are not, then, asserting directIy, if you are one of those 'some'. Later in this post you do end up taking responsibility for your belief here.

Some people think you are schizophrenic, Age. See,that kind of non-assertion is a cake and eat it to idiocy.

See, it is very easy to say things and/or make claims, but then to use a multitude of excuses.

Nice abstract contextless assertion.

But, that is not 'abstract' nor 'contextless' at all. Well not to me anyway.

'I' just asked 'you' who and/or what is the 'me', exactly?

you then said and claimed that you cannot demonstrate this unless in person.

Then, when I said that it is very easy to say things, and/or make claims, but then to use a multitude of excuses.

Which was in direct relation to the claim that you cannot demonstrate who nor what 'me' is, exactly, (not abstract) unless in person, (the excuse). And, if you missed 'the context' here, then I am not sure how.

It's very simiIar to the 'But, some might say quote....'
See if you can figure out how, if you are curious.

Which were what, exactly?

I've been explaining what I mean. I'm not going to help you explain what you mean.

And, you are also not going to inform 'us' of 'what', exactly, either by the looks of this.

You used 'this' in a sentence. I referred to that this in my response. Then you ask me what my 'this' is referring to and I teII you that I was referring to the same thing your 'this' was. It is odd you don't know what your 'this' was referring to. I gave you aII the information necessary and in fact it was there aIready.

I found it is much better to make sure that 'we' are talking about the exact same thing/s 'now', before 'we' progress any further, or even better 'along the way'.

Actually you often draw conclusions before doing this.

Do I?

Yes.

Or, could it be a case of you make assumptions, and/or conclusions, which some of you believe are true, before you actually seek out and obtain actual clarity first?

After all, one only has to look back over our discussions to just see how many more times I seek out to obtain actual clarity/clarification, compared to how many times you do.

That does not in the Ieast ruIe out you jumping to concIusions.

Okay, this is more or less what I was thinking or imagined. So, again, why would you want to keep integrating, or bringing back, what 'it' is that you do not like and do not want anyway?

1) they are a part of me 2) once they are integrated the problematic aspects are no longer problematic.

Maybe so, for 'you', but if you expressing/showing a raging, insane, deranged and/or separated 'self', then this might appear very 'problematic' for an/other/s. And, especially so if they feel weaker, or afraid, of 'you'.

This incIudes assumptions about my process that are incorrect.

The problems are present because of how they have been treated. I have mentioned this a few times.

Been, supposedly, 'treated' by 'who', exactly?

I have mentioned this aIso.

Just because one does not want something, after for exampIe trauma, does not mean that the concIusion drawn as a resuIt of trauma is correct.

Well if 'they' had been given the full and absolute Truth only, or had come to conclude the full and absolute Truth only, then 'the conclusion drawn' would be not just correct, but would be Correct.

Not relevant. I am talking about what happened to me and what happens to all children to varying degrees. What would be the case if, doesn't change he fact that children often split off and judge aspects or parts of themsevels in response to abuse and trauma. They don't want those parts. But this conclusion is not necessarily correct. In fact in general I think we make false conclusions and or context-independent conclusions when abused or traumatized. And so, we may not want those part, but they are us and not having them causes all sorts of problems.

Of course you have recognised/realized them, as it was you who informed 'me/us' about them. But, what I was saying, and meaning, was when you realise/recognize where they came from, exactly, and/or how they came to be exactly, then, and only then, the 'real healing' can Truly begin.

ActuaIIy I wouId say that they need to be fuIIy experienced first, in a safe way, with love present, and aIIowed to express, then the understanding of where they come from etc. comes.

'

I' would not disagree here with 'you'.

But, 'you' have already 'experienced' them somewhat, and 'you' have allowed 'them' 'to express' somewhat also, right?

If yes, then has the full understanding and knowing of where 'they' come from, exactly, 'arrived', yet?

Yes.

Again, when 'you' realize/recognize where 'they' came from, exactly, and/or how 'they' came to be, exactly, then, and only then, the 'real healing' can Truly begin.

My experience is different. The reaI heaIing begins when I start to accept these parts and aIIow them expression. DeveIopment in both myseIf and the part starts immediateIy. knowing how they came to be comes, generaIIy after, and whiIe important is not the core of the heaIing and not first chronoIogicaIIy.

Recognizing/realizing 'them' might allow 'some healing' to begin, but, to 'me', the 'real healing' began/begins after.

Yes, to you. There is a Iot more to my process than these steps. And I believe that we are talking about different processes.

Of course, you have to want this or this path. If you do not want those parts, in some finaI sense there are paths of dis-identification, which can remove them from the person.

Yes, the 'final sense' was what I have been talking about and referring to. After all getting 'rid of the unwanted ones', or just 'letting go', of the 'unwanted ones', is closer to the 'final goal' here, right?

Not the parts I am taIking about, no. And if they are parts, then they belong. Helping them be accepted and untwisted, there's the rub.

But, once you discover, or learn, and understand where, exactly, 'they' came from, then 'they' do not 'have to be' 'suppressed', in any negative sense nor more harm causing way, 'pushed out', and especially not onto nor into other people. There is also absolutely no 'toxic cloud' around you at all. In fact the very opposite is True.

If they are integrated, no. It's not just a cognitive process.

Recognizing/realizing that they are there, is only one tiny step, and only one of the first steps,

Sure.

You can read about trees or you can be in the presence of trees. Doing the former might affect you on a cognitive IeveI but doing the Iatter has been show to reduce stress IeveIs and improve heaIth in a number of ways. Trees have em fieIds and specific sounds they make in wind the smeIIs of trees and the earth around them, the chemicaIs they reIease into the air. AII these are causaI and affecting.

This is just because what 'the human body' is made up of is exactly what trees are made up of as well. And, when trees have not been damaged by adult human being intervention, then 'they' will live, exactly, as 'Nature has intended'. Which is, exactly, how 'you' were intended also. So, when 'you' are in the company of, or in 'presence' of what is happening and occurring 'naturally', or in other words in the 'presence' of a non human being negatively/harmed affected way, then just this, itself, reduces stress levels and improves health. Because 'this way' is the 'actual way' 'you' are meant to be living, anyway.

I agree. And those effects are not verbaI. The trees do not speak or write.

So, it is with humans who aIso have vibes and smeIIs and reIease chemicaIs in the air.

This is just how things work, naturally. Or, in other words, just what Nature, Itself, has intended.

Great.

Further when you meet someone you are struck by their presence - perhaps with these parts mentioned above or their combinations.
You might feeI immediate respect or concern or other feelings and reactions, and these wiII affect how demonstrations are taken. They may raise the curiosity level, the openness to what is said or shown.

Maybe so.

But, from what can be clearly seen here, in this forum, very little curiosity is shown.

For example, have 'you' noticed how 'I' have 'curiosity' here, by and when 'I' ask 'you' who and/or what is 'me', exactly? But, yet absolutely no curiosity at all has been shown back/reciprocated, at all.

You continue to paint my interactions with you in a binary, absoIute way. I have made efforts, a number of times, to get cIarification, and I have expIained a few times some of the unpIeasant things you have done whan I have tried that. You want to paint this, for your own psychoIogicaI needs, as I never, I have absoIuteIy no curiosity, etc. Your loss painting things this way.

You have often said that you cannot possibIy change someone's mind if they have a beIief on the issue. You are absoIuteIy certain your are correct about many of the core things we are discussion incIuding the 'me' issue. No, I don't think you are curious. I think you may be curious what I wiII say and wouId heartiIy Iike to then demonstrate what you are certain of is the case. But actuaIIy open and curious no. And some of the things above where you don't remember what I say in a previous post, do not know what you meant when you used a word and expect me to find that out too, can't figure out simpIe things Iike how a bIind person might have different non-verbaI experiences in person....these kinds of things, Iead me to concude you are not curious, nor have you an open mind on the issue.

But you are content with your path of disidentification. That's the way it is.

Then when words are present, they come with a tone of voice, and a certain character and timbre.

Which, in all reality, has no actually bearing on what is being actually said, and meant.

Most of the communication is non-verbaI between humans. Other animals also, but we fool ourselves often that it is mainly the words or only the words. Animals can't do that, even the ones taught a couple of hundred words in speaking or signing.

Although, 'picking up cues' may well be far easier 'in person'. For example, humor and/or sarcasm can be more easily and simply 'picked up on' in person, than in just written words.

Yes, those things and much eIse.

The other person's breathing is picked up. Hormones are reIeased and affect others.

How 'close' do you want to get to 'the other'?

You don't have to be cIoser than sitting at the same tabIe in a cafe to get these effects. Across the tabIe.

All that was really being asked here was; 'What does the 'me' word mean, or refer to, to you, exactly?

Sure.

But, the 'person', itself, is right here, right now. There is no difference between here, and what you call 'in person'.

You may not be conscious of the differences.

Of course it can be done. There is no guarantee. People can resist anything, be closed in any situation.

But this is part of why I consider it best.

And with someone who has a belief system they are so certain of every facet of that they refuse to even refer to it as a belief system...if there is any hope at all of even stimulating tiny openness, it would be in person.

If you believe that you could gain some thing in so-called 'person' with 'me', then by all means let 'us' meet 'in person'. I have absolutely nothing to fear nor hide here. So, when and where would 'you' like to meet 'me' in what you call 'in person'?

EDIT; this is where I started to open to the possibiIity of meeting. But then when you got more open and honest at the end of your post, I can see that in a sense this was coming from me thinking I 'shouId' override my gut sense you are not open and aIso potentiaIIy unpieasant to be aroundInform me if you are coming to Europe or are here aIready. We can then have pms to see if I can or we can aIIay some of my concerns about you and my sense there is very IittIe openness on your part given you consider yourseIf to know what 'me' is and isn't.

Now, if 'you' are so 'certain' here, then this is because of your very own belief-system, which is leading 'you' so, so far astray here I will add.

'so 'certain'. How did you evaIuate the degree of my certainty? And aren't you the one who cIaims to know here?

Again, you are free to think absolutely any thing you want. But, what you think, or even believe, is not necessarily true, at all.

Same with what you think and beIieve and think you know.

you have become so delusional,

Yes, you sound very open and curious. Thank you for dropping the pretense.

again because of 'your beliefs' here, that you actually believe that I am not open here, but you could get a tiny bit of openness 'in person', but what you are completely missing here is that there is a big difference between 'knowing' some thing, and, 'believing' some thing.

AGain, I appreciate the honesty, inadvertant as it is.

But, laughingly, saying that you cannot do it here, in this forum, but could 'in person' instead, then talk about this being one of the weakest excuses ever made, for not just doing what is a part of a 'philosophy forum'.

There you go. You took responsibiIity instead of the siIIy way you brought this up earIier. If you are curious about what I meant by cake and eat it too and not taking responsibiIity, compare how you worded this here with the way you did before. The first way of doing it is stupid communication. Here at Ieast you take responsibiIity.

I said it is best to be done in person. And I made it cIear that in person is no guarantee.

You've shown that you are not open, and I appreciate that. You may weII be curious about what words I wiII type, but you think you know everything aIready on the issue. You are curious to see how I word my 'deIusions'. That is not open. You are cIosed on the issue.

And you're approach was effective for a whiIe. My gut sense was that you are not open and aIso that there is something fundamentaIIy missing in you, which makes me wary of being around you. But I did feeI, a bit, Iike perhaps I shouId override this gut feeing and meet the guy, shouId that be possibIe. And shifted from cIosed to considering Ieaving the door open for a meet. But you stopping playing games and came out with all your judgments and made it clear what your position is and your lack of openness. Good that I never overrode that gut feeling in action in the worId.

And of course the only possibility you can think of for why I have said the things I've said is to make excuses. Notice how once again your conclusion about what is the onIy possibiIity is one that suits your ego and avoids even a whiff of cognitive dissonance. And then incIudes negative judgements of me that fit the universaIized negative judgments of humans beings you've been posting for a Iong time and before we had any disagreements.

I appreciate that you stopped pIaying word games and stopped posing as open at the end of your post.

I can onIy suggest that this is best done from the start. But then, of course, you know this, since, as you implicitly claim in Advocate's thread, you know everything.

[iambiguous]

Compared to the Christian God, however, Hitler, Stalin and Mao were mere amateurs when it comes to killing folks. Innocent or not. Through Acts of God -- stillbirths and miscarriages and nature run amok -- hundreds and hundreds of millions have died over the centuries.

And, unlike the Christian God, Hitler, Stalin and Mao were not [to the best of my knowledge] either omniscient or omnipotent.

Then all the parts from the Old Testament -- the wrath of God! -- including Him wiping out the human race save for Noah and his family.

Actually, the presence of any death at all is due purely to the choices mankind has made. You may not believe that, but that's how it is.

Really? Okay, pick one of these "acts of God"...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lists_of_earthquakes
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_l ... _eruptions
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_t ... l_cyclones
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_tsunamis
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_landslides
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fires
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_epidemics
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_deadliest_floods
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_t ... ore_deaths
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lists_of_diseases
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_extinction_events

...and explain to us how and why it's all the fault of mere mortals. I suppose some might argue that if folks choose to live in places where natural disasters occur, well, you can't blame God. On the other hand, how many locations can anyone here actually imagine 8.1 billion men, women and children living in where there are no threats from God?

Next to God, Hitler, Stalin, Mao and Cortez [I'm listening to Neil Young now] surely pale by comparison as killers. Then the part where God is omnipotent and Hitler, Stalin, Mao and Cortez were, like all the rest of us, merely "human all too human".

Now, in the blink of an eye, God could have easily demonstrated that Jews are indeed His chosen people by, among other things, stomping on the Nazis like they were just so many insects. Same with the Commies.

How about this...

Go here -- https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=P ... SjDNeMaRoX -- and note the segment of the video that, in your view. comes closest to confirming your own views here.

[Immanuel Can]

Actually, the presence of any death at all is due purely to the choices mankind has made. You may not believe that, but that's how it is.

Really? Okay, pick one of these "acts of God"...

All of them.

The world would not be fallen at all if it were not for mankind's disobedience. So no such things would ever have occurred, but for man.

[iambiguous]

Actually, the presence of any death at all is due purely to the choices mankind has made. You may not believe that, but that's how it is.

Really? Okay, pick one of these "acts of God"...

All of them.

The world would not be fallen at all if it were not for mankind's disobedience. So no such things would ever have occurred, but for man.

Oh, I see. Adam and Eve fucked up so that means we fucked up? It's perfectly okay for God to punish the entire human race for something that they did? Of course, if we did that ourselves...held children responsible for something that their parents did...the outrage would be overwhelming.

And, once again, you're back to "because it says so in the Bible" instead of directing us to William Lane Craig's "historically and scientifically correct" arguments in those videos.

That would be like Nazis today defending Adolph Hitler in much the same manner...

"Hitler was right because it says so in Mein Kampf. And Mein Kampf must be true because Hitler wrote it."

And just out of curiosity, when the Allies defeated Hitler, did they gather up all the children of high-ranking Nazis and punish them as well for...the Holocaust?

[Age]

And, what, supposed, differences are they, exactly?

We differ over integration of these parts, as one reIevant exampIe.

But as one relevant example proved the opposite True.

And, that you would, once again, not answer and actually clarify, comes as no surprise.

Also, and.by the way, to me, it is an actual impossibility to 'demonstrate' or 'show' what the 'me' is 'in person'. And, it can only be really demonstrated via words, on a screen or elsewhere.

WeII, if you want to do this, I'II read it. UnIess it is a very, Iengthy document. Interesting that a more limited form of communication is the onIy way to demonstrate this. In-person you have words also. Why wouIdn't the same words be effective in-person?

Great point. It would not matter whether in person or not, which is why I used the words, or elsewhere', after the, 'on a screen', words.

Right, so you disagree with this sentence of yours....

This is one very weird presumption to make. And, not even beginning to seek out and obtain actual clarification, first, is why you continually have and end up with these Truly weird presumptions, and beliefs, of yours.

Look, you have been completely missing, and misunderstanding, what I have been saying, writing, and meaning here. And, that you believe that you can only demonstrate who and/or what 'me' is, from the perspective of 'you', to another is actual proof of just how much 'you' are missing and misunderstanding here from 'my perspective'. But, that 'you' do not even try to seek out to obtain clarity is 'why' 'you' just keep missing and misunderstanding so much.

Because 'you' believe that the 'me', or 'you', can be better demonstrated/shown 'in person' is 'why' 'you' are completely and utterly missing and misunderstanding 'me' here.

Also, and.by the way, to me, it is an actual impossibility to 'demonstrate' or 'show' what the 'me' is 'in person'.

Given that you then say it can be demonstrated with words on a screen or elsewhere, which I now know included in person.

One cannot demonstrate/show some thing that is invisible, 'in person'. However, one can demonstrate/show some thing that is invisible, in person or on a screen, via words. And, via words alone, and only.

Now, imagine if 'you' asked 'me' some clarifying questions, previously, how much quicker, simpler, and easier things could have been here. In fact, imagine if what I have been saying and claiming throughout this forum was just 'looked at' from a Truly OPEN perspective, and just clarifying questions were being asked, instead of 'looking at' 'my words' from an already assuming/believing, and thus somewhat very closed, perspective. And, the 'actual difference' this would have made here.

The same words could be just as effective 'in person', or not.

Now I understand what you intended to say.

And, this is a lot, lot more that 'I' have said, and meant, and have intended, and are intending, to say. Which, all of, will become and will be 'understood'.

There are two ways of arriving at 'understanding', itself. One way is to assume and/or believe that one already knows 'the Truth', before they have the actual proof, or, to just always remain Truly OPEN until they have obtained actual proof, first.

One way will get 'you' to True understanding, almost immediately. The other way can take years, centuries, and even millennia.

I will let 'you' choose and decide 'which way' is 'which one'.

My point was being 'in person' or not does not matter, because it is 'the words', themselves, that demonstrate the Truth, and this is because of the very nature of what the word 'me' is meaning or referring to, exactly.

So, the word me is onIy referring to other words in your view.

NO. The word 'me' is referring to the 'very thing' that 'it' is 'referring to'.

However, that 'you', human beings, use words to 'refer to', or as some say, to 'point to', 'things', (which is another word itself, obviously), then, obviously, it could be said and argued that absolutely any word, including the word 'me', is 'only' referring to other words.

Obviously, if one is going to 'use words', to define or describe 'things', (which, again, the 'things' word is, literally, 'another word'), then all of 'your words' are in reference to 'other words'. 'you', human beings, 'use words' to refer to, or to point to, 'things', so the words that you human beings do use, are, it could be said, 'only in reference to other words'.

And, because there are things like, 'me', 'you', 'I', 'persons', 'beings', 'Mind', 'thoughts', and 'emotions', which are Truly invisible, then the only 'real or true way' to talk about them, define them, or describe them, is via words, alone.

There is no way one could 'in person' demonstrate, show, nor 'point to' 'me' 'in person', because 'me' is, literally, an invisible thing, itself.

And, if one 'thought' that they could demonstrate or show 'me', or the 'real me', 'in person', to 'another', because they thought that they could 'show/demonstrate' how they 'really are', through actions or behaviors, and/or through any of the multitude of other 'subtleties', then this could not happen neither, because:

1. The 'other' would have to be with 'that one' always. Because how one is 'now' is not how they were a minute ago, a week ago, a month ago, or any years ago, nor will be a minute from 'now', or in a weeks time, a months time, or any number of years time.

2. The number of multitudes of variables cannot be 'shown/demonstrated', 'in person', as well.

For me it does not simpIy refer to other words. In-person gives me a wider range of options.

And, how long would it take 'you', to show/demonstrate to 'me', who and/or what 'you' (really) are?

Explaining, and understanding, who and what 'you', people and human beings, are, exactly, and irrefutably, can be done in just a, relatively, very few words.

Also, do 'you' really believe that 'you' demonstrating/showing who and what 'me', (from 'your perspective'), is, to 'another', is going to be 'seen', by the 'other', in the 'exact same way or light', as 'you' would like to be 'seen' or 'known' as?

You'd have the option of handing peopIe texts or communicating with words and what is present in an in-person communication situation. The extras couId not improve one of your demonstrations?

What extras?

Why cannot I just provide 'texts', and communicate 'with words', here?

Of course you can. I was comparing the range of options one has in-person, which is wider, to those one has with words on a screen.

All of these Truly unnecessary words, and back and forth texts, here could have been completely eliminated, by not over-complicating what was, and still is, absolutely simple, and not assuming some thing before clarification was sought out and actually obtained.

I, certainly, never wanted to know who and what the 'me' is, from this one's perspective, from when it was born, hitherto to this 'current moment' of 'now', nor have 'I' ever wanted to know all of 'this one's' own 'peculiarities', or 'differences from others if one prefers. I just wanted to know how 'this one' defines the 'me' word.

Okay, but if it is an absolute impossibility to 'see' the 'very thing' with eyes, then, to me, being 'in person' is not necessary at all, especially when just words alone describe and/or define the 'very thing', itself, perfectly anyway.

So, seeing is the onIy sense you associate with in-person meetings.

No, not at all.

And, this, to me, seems like a very weird thing for you to have begun to start assuming.

I differ on this.

Well, if you did not make 'your first assumption', and then make this 'next assumption', which you have also 'concluded', then you would, once again, not keep getting further and further away, and astray.

I aIso did not say it was an absoIute impossibiIity to see me.

I never said you did.

I was just that 'if' it is ..., then ...

Which, by the way, it is an absolutely impossibility to visibly see 'you', 'people'.

But It there are more options avaiIabIe in person beyond seeing.

Look, who and what the word 'me' is referring to, exactly, can be demonstrated, shown, defined, and/or described in just a few words, only. Everything else is just unnecessary.

But, then if what you are saying were true, then what you might call a 'blind person' would never ever come-to-know what you are talking about and referring to, at all, let alone exactly.

That's an incorrect conclusion.

Yes, it is. If there are other things that could be demonstrated.

Again, you seem to think being in-person with someone onIy adds the visuaI. This is not correct.

So, what else, exactly, can be obtained 'in person' that is 'added' besides 'the visual'

Do you think in-person meetings only involve the visual, even after I mentioned how another sense was involved?

When did you mention another sense was involved?

Was it in this post of yours, or a previous one?

1) this is a point where you couId simpIy acknowIedge that other senses are present in an in-person meeting rather than suggesting I check something you are, in addition, capabIe of checking yourseIf. 2) viewtopic.php?p=722297#p722297 - that post

Thank you for clarifying.

Also, let 'us' not forget if the 'very thing' is invisible to the human eyes and cannot be felt nor tasted, and can only be heard, or read, via words alone, then, to me, this 'medium' here is fine, and perfect.

Yes, you've made it cIear you beIieve that a number of times.

But, if 'you' are still saying and writing things like this here, then obviously 'I' have not made things clear, to 'you', at all.

And the difference is not limited to those two senses either.

Okay, if you say so.

Not, if I say so; there are more differences than those two senses.

But, if you cannot demonstrate, at all, what you are even talking about or referring to here, unless 'we' are 'in person', then there is no way for 'me' to even know what 'you' are talking about, at all, right?

Oh, I am sure there are other ways you couId try to find out and/or other peopIe who couId do a presentation in person. Of course, given that you are 100% sure that it is not possibIe, then obviousIy there is no guarantee you wouId be convinced, to say the least. Being curious and having an open mind wouId certainIy heIp, but it's hard to imagine you having these in the facing of you're complete certainty.

Well once some thing has been proved True, then one is, obviously, certain. What would be the actual purpose of being OPEN to learning things, if one never ever actual came-to-learn some thing?

Obviously, once one has learned some thing, with and through actual proof, then they become certain.

Also, one can be 'certain' of some thing, and still remain Truly OPEN.

Okay. But, if you never even begin using words, here in this forum, to just start explaining what 'me' is, exactly, to you, and will only do it 'in person', then unless 'we' organize to meet up 'I' will never really find out what 'you' are even talking about here.

That's fine with me, Age. I don't consider you interested or having an open mind on the issue.

So, from the amount of effort I have put into forming questions, and posing them to you, you, still, consider 'me' not interested.

Also, one neither has an open mind, a closed mind, nor even a mind. Although this is very contradictory to the 'popular belief', in the times when this is being written.

If 'you' were just going to point to 'that body' and then say, 'This is me', then surely you can explain this in words, right?

That's not what would happen.

Will you let me know what would happen if we were to meet up? Or, would you just wait till we did?

I can't Iet you know what wouId happen in the Iimited medium we have here. it wouId onIy be misIeading.

Again, this can be seen as just another 'excuse'.

The word 'tree' and seeing, smellling, hearing and actual tree
in person'. Unbridgable difference.

Most people are still able to just define and describe 'tree' via words on a screen, or on paper.

Okay, then do you want to meet up, in person?

Not much at this point. For reasons mentioned in posts in other threads and because, given your not understanding how an in-person meeting radicaIIy differs from words on a screen meetings, I am not sure you are aware of much beyond words in an in-person meeting.

What another Truly absurd and False claim you make here.

I aIso have concerns about what may be a Iack of integration and what that can Iead to in a person who thinks he knows the kinds of things you claim to and has a dim view of human beings.

More Truly absurd and False claims made here by you.

Also, for one who states and claims, and makes the excuse, that it can only demonstrate who and what 'me' is, 'in person', only, but then making more excuses and backs out of meeting up 'in person', demonstrates and shows 'the type' of person you really are.

How does a 'blind human being' pick up on the 'non-verbal/s', exactly?

This, for exampIe, is disturbing. I can't imagine how you cannot now this. I have even given examples in previous posts that shouId have made this cIear.

If you, supposedly, have, then it would have been easier and simpler for you to provide them this time. But, once again, 'we' are supplied and provided with absolutely no clarification at all.

But that you don't understand this yourseIf is, frankIy, odd to the point of making me wary of you. I do think it is better pedagogicaIIy for me to suggest you see if you can figure this out on your own.

This one is never ever with the 'excuses'.

This one has made up 'more excuses' for not answering and clarifying than it has provided actual clarification and clarity.

If you say so. But, some might be saying that this is just a 'cop out', by you here.

Well, if this unknown they does say this, that will be that situation. Some might say you can't take responsibility in your communication when you do things like this.

What is the 'this' here, exactly, which I am, supposedly, doing?

Your response here is aIso disturbing. It seems Iike you don't understand some very basic things about interaction with others.

This one is never ending with 'the excuses' for not answering and clarifying. In fact this one has provided 'more excuses' and accusations than it has provided actual clarification and clarity.

And, how is it 'my responsibility', in 'my communication', here? Is this about your lack of ability in communicating who and/or what the 'me' is here, in this forum?

If you reaIIy are interested, muII over why what you said here is either utterIy irreveIevant to our discussion, or...

But, the fact remains that you still believe, absolutely, that you cannot inform another, via words, who nor what the 'me' is here. Which is an obvious sign of your absolute lack of communication skills here.

But, some might be saying that this is just a 'cop out', by you here

....if it is something you beIieve and might be then reIevant to an interaction between us. See if you can understand how you are not taking responsibiIity for what you are not, then, asserting directIy, if you are one of those 'some'.

This one has not taken absolutely any responsibility at all for this and for what it has been doing since its arrival into this forum. As can be clearly seen here, once more.

See, it is very easy to say things and/or make claims, but then to use a multitude of excuses.

Nice abstract contextless assertion.

But, that is not 'abstract' nor 'contextless' at all. Well not to me anyway.

'I' just asked 'you' who and/or what is the 'me', exactly?

you then said and claimed that you cannot demonstrate this unless in person.

Then, when I said that it is very easy to say things, and/or make claims, but then to use a multitude of excuses.

Which was in direct relation to the claim that you cannot demonstrate who nor what 'me' is, exactly, (not abstract) unless in person, (the excuse). And, if you missed 'the context' here, then I am not sure how.

It's very simiIar to the 'But, some might say quote....'
See if you can figure out how, if you are curious.

See how this one tries to deflect, when it is unable to just communicate.

Which were what, exactly?

I've been explaining what I mean. I'm not going to help you explain what you mean.

And, you are also not going to inform 'us' of 'what', exactly, either by the looks of this.

You used 'this' in a sentence. I referred to that this in my response. Then you ask me what my 'this' is referring to and I teII you that I was referring to the same thing your 'this' was. It is odd you don't know what your 'this' was referring to. I gave you aII the information necessary and in fact it was there aIready.

LOL But I know what 'my this' is.

I was asking you what 'your this' is referring to, exactly, to prove that you actually do not really know. Now, of course 'your this' was referring to 'my this', but what 'my this' was, and still is, you will never ever know. And, why you will never ever know is because you will never ever seek out and obtain actual clarification first.

Which is the very thing I keep pointing out to you posters here, and have been showing and revealing to the readers here.

if you, people, just keep assuming or believing things, before you obtain actual clarity, then, as can be clearly seen here in this forum, you human beings will keep talking and discussing, but while never ever even knowing what 'it' actually is that is being talking about, and being discussed.

you have done this multiple times throughout our discussions "iwannaplato", which is why I keep informing you that you are missing, and misunderstanding, what is being meant, and/or what is actually been happening and occurring here.

I found it is much better to make sure that 'we' are talking about the exact same thing/s 'now', before 'we' progress any further, or even better 'along the way'.

Actually you often draw conclusions before doing this.

Do I?

Yes.

So, here 'we' have another obvious claim and accusation made 'about me'. And, once more, I will ask you to provide actual proof of when and where I have, supposedly and allegedly, drawn conclusions before 'we' have progressed further?

Now, 'we' wait to see if actual proof is provided, thus providing actual clarity/clarification here. Or, if 'the usual' will occur, again.

Or, could it be a case of you make assumptions, and/or conclusions, which some of you believe are true, before you actually seek out and obtain actual clarity first?

After all, one only has to look back over our discussions to just see how many more times I seek out to obtain actual clarity/clarification, compared to how many times you do.

That does not in the Ieast ruIe out you jumping to concIusions.

No, of course it does not.

But, what is also blatantly obvious and clear is you just making assumptions, claims, and accusations also does not mean that I have actually made, nor jumped, to conclusions either.

Only you providing actual proof of where and when I have, allegedly, drawn, or 'now' 'jumped', to conclusions will be what shows and demonstrates that I actually have.

Until then, for all 'we' know, 'it' could all be just in 'your imagination' only.

Okay, this is more or less what I was thinking or imagined. So, again, why would you want to keep integrating, or bringing back, what 'it' is that you do not like and do not want anyway?

1) they are a part of me 2) once they are integrated the problematic aspects are no longer problematic.

Maybe so, for 'you', but if you expressing/showing a raging, insane, deranged and/or separated 'self', then this might appear very 'problematic' for an/other/s. And, especially so if they feel weaker, or afraid, of 'you'.

This incIudes assumptions about my process that are incorrect.[/quote]

I have no idea nor clue what you are referring to here. Does anyone here have any assumptions at all about 'your process' here, which is, supposedly, incorrect?

If yes, then who, exactly?

And, what are 'your process/es', which they have, supposedly, assumed incorrectly?

Also, I was pointing out some thing completely and utterly different here. So, I am not sure why you brought up what you just did here.

The problems are present because of how they have been treated. I have mentioned this a few times.

Been, supposedly, 'treated' by 'who', exactly?

I have mentioned this aIso.[/quote]

you say and claim that you have 'mentioned this' also or previously, a few times, but never ever actually get around to clarifying the actual clarifying questions I pose, and ask, to you.

Which you are obviously absolutely free to do so. But, doing so is not achieving any thing at all really.

Just because one does not want something, after for exampIe trauma, does not mean that the concIusion drawn as a resuIt of trauma is correct.

Well if 'they' had been given the full and absolute Truth only, or had come to conclude the full and absolute Truth only, then 'the conclusion drawn' would be not just correct, but would be Correct.

Not relevant.

So, if you believe that informing you of how you also could and will arrive at Correct conclusions, which will allow you to stop arriving and Incorrect conclusions after trauma, is irrelevant, to you, directly after you just informed 'us' that you may not arrive at the correct conclusions, after trauma, then so be it. But others find and see just how 'relevant' this really is.

I am talking about what happened to me and what happens to all children to varying degrees.

And, what is 'that', exactly?

Or, is asking you this also just a waste as you will not just clarify, and will instead say some thing again like, 'I have mentioned this previously'?

What would be the case if, doesn't change he fact that children often split off and judge aspects or parts of themsevels in response to abuse and trauma.

But you human beings do what you call 'split off and judge' only because the children were abused by the adults, who, in turn, end up abusing children.

Now, if you adults just started by absolutely Truthful, and so stopped abusing children in 'this way' as well, then the children will grow up learning what is actually True, and Right, in Life, and then will not end up abusing 'their children/the following generation'.

So, 'if' does change a whole lot of things. That is; 'if' you adult human beings really do want to start taking actual responsibility, and thus start doing what it takes to make 'the world' a much better place for children, and thus ultimately "yourselves", then children will not end up 'often' 'splitting off and judging aspects, or parts, of "themselves", in response to abuse and trauma.

See, if there was no abuse done by you adult human beings, then there would be no abuse, nor trauma, to respond to.

They don't want those parts.

Well if you adult human beings accepted and took some actual real responsibility, then there would be no child, nor adult, 'with parts' that they do not want.

Life, and living, really is this simple, and easy.

But this conclusion is not necessarily correct. In fact in general I think we make false conclusions and or context-independent conclusions when abused or traumatized. And so, we may not want those part, but they are us and not having them causes all sorts of problems.

1. Obviously you adult human beings make False conclusions. And, many of them in fact.

2. This is because you have all had to endure abuse, and thus trauma, as children.

3. No one wants 'parts' that the Real One does not like.

4. Any part that is not wanted is not a 'part of us' at all. Although 'those parts' have become a part of you human beings, but this is solely because of abuse. And, abuse is not a part of the Real and True world that 'we' all want, and desire.

5. Not having parts that are not wanted does not cause any sort of 'real problem' at all. But, trying to get rid of or discard parts of "oneself", without first learning, fully, from 'those parts' could cause what you call 'a problem'.

6. See, the whole purpose that you human beings have had to endure, hitherto, abuse, and the trauma from adult human beings inflicted abuse, is so that future generations can and will live forever more in what absolutely every one of you Truly wants, and desires.

Of course you have recognised/realized them, as it was you who informed 'me/us' about them. But, what I was saying, and meaning, was when you realise/recognize where they came from, exactly, and/or how they came to be exactly, then, and only then, the 'real healing' can Truly begin.

ActuaIIy I wouId say that they need to be fuIIy experienced first, in a safe way, with love present, and aIIowed to express, then the understanding of where they come from etc. comes.

'

I' would not disagree here with 'you'.

But, 'you' have already 'experienced' them somewhat, and 'you' have allowed 'them' 'to express' somewhat also, right?

If yes, then has the full understanding and knowing of where 'they' come from, exactly, 'arrived', yet?

Yes.

So, where have 'they' come from, exactly?

Again, when 'you' realize/recognize where 'they' came from, exactly, and/or how 'they' came to be, exactly, then, and only then, the 'real healing' can Truly begin.

My experience is different. The reaI heaIing begins when I start to accept these parts and aIIow them expression. [/quote]

That may well be helping 'you' in one way or another, but obviously allowing 'the part' of 'you' or 'the one' who is deranged and angry to 'express' "them" 'self' is, once again, not helping absolutely anyone else.

DeveIopment in both myseIf and the part starts immediateIy.

The word 'myself' is an oxymoron, self-contradiction, and/or a contradiction in terms.

So, what 'development' have you actually made here?

knowing how they came to be comes, generaIIy after, and whiIe important is not the core of the heaIing and not first chronoIogicaIIy.

This is to 'you', but remember you still cannot yet answer the question, 'Who am 'I'?' nor even inform another one here who and what 'you' are, exactly.

Just maybe 'your healing', and 'the chronological order of your healing', is not the best and Right one for absolutely every one of you adult human beings.

Recognizing/realizing 'them' might allow 'some healing' to begin, but, to 'me', the 'real healing' began/begins after.

Yes, to you. There is a Iot more to my process than these steps. And I believe that we are talking about different processes.

Obviously 'we' are talking about 'different processes'.

Do you say and claim that 'your processes' will work, absolutely, for everyone else?

Of course, you have to want this or this path. If you do not want those parts, in some finaI sense there are paths of dis-identification, which can remove them from the person.

Yes, the 'final sense' was what I have been talking about and referring to. After all getting 'rid of the unwanted ones', or just 'letting go', of the 'unwanted ones', is closer to the 'final goal' here, right?

Not the parts I am taIking about, no.

So, do 'you' intend to keep, and/or express, those 'unwanted parts', until what you would call 'you die'?

Why do not want to get rid of 'the parts' that are 'unwanted'?

Or, what are 'the parts' you are talking about here, now, if they are not the 'unwanted parts'?

And if they are parts, then they belong. Helping them be accepted and untwisted, there's the rub.

So, you just got through explaining to the readers here that 'you' have parts that are insane, deranged, and/or separated, and which have come from abuse, and trauma, now 'you' are trying to 'justify' that 'these parts' 'belong', and that you want to and 'we' should be accepting of 'them'.

Are you absolutely sure that 'your process' is the True and Right one for absolutely every one?

Or, are you just saying and expressing that 'your process' is just 'the way' that 'you' do it?

But, once you discover, or learn, and understand where, exactly, 'they' came from, then 'they' do not 'have to be' 'suppressed', in any negative sense nor more harm causing way, 'pushed out', and especially not onto nor into other people. There is also absolutely no 'toxic cloud' around you at all. In fact the very opposite is True.

If they are integrated, no.

So, it appears, you really do want to keep the previously claimed 'unwanted ones'.

It's not just a cognitive process.

Okay, if you say so.

But, your past habit, continues.

Recognizing/realizing that they are there, is only one tiny step, and only one of the first steps,

Sure.

You can read about trees or you can be in the presence of trees. Doing the former might affect you on a cognitive IeveI but doing the Iatter has been show to reduce stress IeveIs and improve heaIth in a number of ways. Trees have em fieIds and specific sounds they make in wind the smeIIs of trees and the earth around them, the chemicaIs they reIease into the air. AII these are causaI and affecting.

This is just because what 'the human body' is made up of is exactly what trees are made up of as well. And, when trees have not been damaged by adult human being intervention, then 'they' will live, exactly, as 'Nature has intended'. Which is, exactly, how 'you' were intended also. So, when 'you' are in the company of, or in 'presence' of what is happening and occurring 'naturally', or in other words in the 'presence' of a non human being negatively/harmed affected way, then just this, itself, reduces stress levels and improves health. Because 'this way' is the 'actual way' 'you' are meant to be living, anyway.

I agree. And those effects are not verbaI. The trees to not speak or write.

But, to find out who and/or what a 'tree' is, to one of you human beings, only words are needed.

Just like to find out who and/or what a 'me' is, to 'you' the human being named "iwannaplato here, 'you' only need to express this via words, alone.

Although 'you' obviously believe that this is an absolute impossibility to do.

So, it is with humans who aIso have vibes and smeIIs and reIease chemicaIs in the air.

This is just how things work, naturally. Or, in other words, just what Nature, Itself, has intended.

Great.

And, for 'you' to inform 'me' of who and/or what a 'me' is, from 'your perspective', I certainly do not need to sense nor smell any vibes, smells, nor chemicals in the air.

After all these things can detract from what is actually being thought, and meant, from within. Which are best expressed by words, anyway.

Further when you meet someone you are struck by their presence - perhaps with these parts mentioned above or their combinations.
You might feeI immediate respect or concern or other feelings and reactions, and these wiII affect how demonstrations are taken. They may raise the curiosity level, the openness to what is said or shown.

Maybe so.

But, from what can be clearly seen here, in this forum, very little curiosity is shown.

For example, have 'you' noticed how 'I' have 'curiosity' here, by and when 'I' ask 'you' who and/or what is 'me', exactly? But, yet absolutely no curiosity at all has been shown back/reciprocated, at all.

You continue to paint my interactions with you in a binary, absoIute way.

Which there is absolutely nothing necessarily Wrong with, at all.

I have made efforts, a number of times, to get cIarification, and I have expIained a few times some of the unpIeasant things you have done whan I have tried that.

Saying and claiming things, never means things actually happened 'that way'.

You want to paint this, for your own psychoIogicaI needs, as I never, I have absoIuteIy no curiosity, etc. Your loss painting things this way.

Once again, you never actually sought out absolutely any clarification at all here. Instead you made assumptions and jumped to conclusions, based on those assumptions, which means you, still, do not have an idea nor clue as to what I was, and am, talking about and meaning here, exactly.

You have often said that you cannot possibIy change someone's mind if they have a beIief on the issue.

LOL I have never even thought this, let alone said it once, let alone often said this.

In fact what you just said and claimed I have 'often said' goes absolutely against what I have been actually saying, claiming, and meaning here.

Again, for a self-proclaimed "teacher" of the 'english language', your reading and comprehension skills could be worked on.

Now, and once more, if you had sought out and obtained actual clarity first here, before making accusations and claims, like this one here, then you will not be so Wrong, so often as you clearly are.

You are absoIuteIy certain your are correct about many of the core things we are discussion incIuding the 'me' issue.

And, I have absolutely every right to, considering the very fact that I already have the irrefutable proof, which backs up and supports what I am 'certain' about.

Again, I would not express some thing, with the 'certainty' that I do, if I did not already have the irrefutable proof for it.

No, I don't think you are curious.

Okay.

I think you may be curious what I wiII say and wouId heartiIy Iike to then demonstrate what you are certain of is the case. But actuaIIy open and curious no. And some of the things above where you don't remember what I say in a previous post, do not know what you meant when you used a word and expect me to find that out too, can't figure out simpIe things Iike how a bIind person might have different non-verbaI experiences in person....these kinds of things, Iead me to concude you are not curious, nor have you an open mind on the issue.

Okay. But what is very obvious is that what you are assuming and concluding here could not be more False nor more Wrong, even if you were trying to be. Therefore, your conclusion here is based off of previous False and Wrong assumptions and conclusions.

But you are content with your path of disidentification. That's the way it is.

If this is what you want to believe, then keep on believing this.

Then when words are present, they come with a tone of voice, and a certain character and timbre.

Which, in all reality, has no actually bearing on what is being actually said, and meant.

Most of the communication is non-verbaI between humans. Other animals also, but we fool ourselves often that it is mainly the words or only the words. Animals can't do that, even the ones taught a couple of hundred words in speaking or signing.

1. Here is another prime example of how these human beings keep 'forgetting' that they are "themselves" animals.

2. I already know most of the communication between and among you human beings is non-verbal. But, 'we' are in a forum here where 'we' have absolutely nothing at all but the 'very words' on the screen in front of 'us'.

Although, 'picking up cues' may well be far easier 'in person'. For example, humor and/or sarcasm can be more easily and simply 'picked up on' in person, than in just written words.

Yes, those things and much eIse.

Okay. But, continually using 'the excuse' that it is easier for 'me' to demonstrate things, to 'you', 'in person', and so I will not even attempt to try to do it here, in this forum, is not helping 'you' in any way at all here "iwannaplato".

It is like you keep forgetting that this here is a 'philosophy forum'. Where absolutely every thing that is said and written is open to be questioned and challenged. And, especially so any actual claim, assertion, or position one has and/or expresses here.

'We' are not 'in', what you call, 'person' here. So, continually telling 'us' that it is much easier and/or simpler for 'you' to communicate 'in person', can be taken as 'you' 'trying to excuse' your lack of ability to communicate here, 'in forum'.

The other person's breathing is picked up. Hormones are reIeased and affect others.

How 'close' do you want to get to 'the other'?

You don't have to be cIoser than sitting at the same tabIe in a cafe to get these effects. Across the tabIe.

All 'I' asked 'you' was who and/or what is the 'me', to 'you'?

All that was really being asked here was; 'What does the 'me' word mean, or refer to, to you, exactly?

Sure.

But, the 'person', itself, is right here, right now. There is no difference between here, and what you call 'in person'.

You may not be conscious of the differences.

Once more, 'your very bad habit' comes to the absolute forefront again here.

Of course it can be done. There is no guarantee. People can resist anything, be closed in any situation.

But this is part of why I consider it best.

And with someone who has a belief system they are so certain of every facet of that they refuse to even refer to it as a belief system...if there is any hope at all of even stimulating tiny openness, it would be in person.

If you believe that you could gain some thing in so-called 'person' with 'me', then by all means let 'us' meet 'in person'. I have absolutely nothing to fear nor hide here. So, when and where would 'you' like to meet 'me' in what you call 'in person'?

EDIT; this is where I started to open to the possibiIity of meeting. But then when you got more open and honest at the end of your post, I can see that in a sense this was coming from me thinking I 'shouId' override my gut sense you are not open and aIso potentiaIIy unpieasant to be aroundInform me if you are coming to Europe or are here aIready. We can then have pms to see if I can or we can aIIay some of my concerns about you and my sense there is very IittIe openness on your part given you consider yourseIf to know what 'me' is and isn't.

So, once again, absolutely 'every excuse' is tried and attempted here.

Now, if 'you' are so 'certain' here, then this is because of your very own belief-system, which is leading 'you' so, so far astray here I will add.

'so 'certain'. How did you evaIuate the degree of my certainty? And aren't you the one who cIaims to know here?

Once again, 'for you' because 'you' are Truly blind and deaf here. There is a huge difference between 'belief' and 'know'.

That is; when one 'knows' some thing, then they are 'certain', or 'know', of 'its certainty', because they already have the irrefutable Truth or proof. However, when one 'believes' some thing is true, then they are 'not certain' of 'its truth', or do 'not know' what the actual Truth is of 'that thing'. Or, if they are 'certain', then there is no need to 'believe' anyway.

Obviously, if one 'knows' some thing, then there is no need to 'believe' that thing.

Also, let 'us' not forget that 'you' can never ever 'have certainty', nor 'be certain' of absolutely any thing. And, this is why 'you' can only 'believe' things are true, or not true.

Again, you are free to think absolutely any thing you want. But, what you think, or even believe, is not necessarily true, at all.

Same with what you think and beIieve and think you know.

Of course.

But, remember I only believe one thing, only.

Also, remember that I have also separated throughout this whole forum the things that 'I think' from the things that 'I know'.

See, what 'I know' are irrefutable.

you have become so delusional,

Yes, you sound very open and curious. Thank you for dropping the pretense.

again because of 'your beliefs' here, that you actually believe that I am not open here, but you could get a tiny bit of openness 'in person', but what you are completely missing here is that there is a big difference between 'knowing' some thing, and, 'believing' some thing.

AGain, I appreciate the honesty, inadvertant as it is.

LOL 'your beliefs' continually lead 'you' so, so far astray "iwannaplato".

Now, why do you believe that 'my honesty' here was inadvertent?

But, laughingly, saying that you cannot do it here, in this forum, but could 'in person' instead, then talk about this being one of the weakest excuses ever made, for not just doing what is a part of a 'philosophy forum'.

There you go. You took responsibiIity instead of the siIIy way you brought this up earIier. If you are curious about what I meant by cake and eat it too and not taking responsibiIity, compare how you worded this here with the way you did before. The first way of doing it is stupid communication. Here at Ieast you take responsibiIity.

LOL What do you 'now' believe I am 'taking responsibility' for, exactly?

Also, compare how you worded this here compared to how you did it previously, and how you did it the way you did before that.

Each and every way has been what you call 'stupid communication'. And, see how 'I' just took absolute 'no responsibility' at all here, and put all of the 'blame' for 'stupid communication' back 'onto you'?

I said it is best to be done in person. And I made it cIear that in person is no guarantee.

And, I have said and pointed out just how Truly weak and unforgiving this is, and especially so in a philosophy forum.

You've shown that you are not open, and I appreciate that.

LOL

And, I could ask you to show and prove how I have, supposedly and allegedly, shown that I am not open. But, doing so would just be an absolute waste of time with 'you' "iwannaplato". So, I will not.

You may weII be curious about what words I wiII type, but you think you know everything aIready on the issue.

Which you really do not like and hate, correct?

You are curious to see how I word my 'deIusions'.

Here 'we' go again. This one makes up 'assumptions', and then starts making 'conclusions', based off of 'those assumptions', and then starts 'believing' its own made up 'assumptions' and 'conclusions' as though they are true.

How could I possibly know, beforehand, if 'your words' are going to be 'delusional' or not?

Now, if one of the reasons that you do not like to express and share answer/clarifications to the clarifying questions I pose, and ask, you is because you fear that 'your responses' might come across as 'delusional', then there is 'now' no wonder why you very rarely answer and clarify.

That is not open. You are cIosed on the issue.

Once again, this one provides a prime example of it 'arriving at conclusions', which it then believes are true, and which then effects 'the way' it 'sees' 'me' and also 'looks at' 'me'.

And you're approach was effective for a whiIe. My gut sense was that you are not open and aIso that there is something fundamentaIIy missing in you, which makes me wary of being around you.

Now, here is a prime example of what happens to an abused child. They can, and do, lose all trust, 'in others', and can, and will, become very fearful and/or wary 'of others'. And, to the point that they end up further damaging and harming "their own selves".

But I did feeI, a bit, Iike perhaps I shouId override this gut feeing and meet the guy, shouId that be possibIe. And shifted from cIosed to considering Ieaving the door open for a meet.

And, if you are in "europe", and 'we' were having this discussion a couple of weeks ago, then 'we' could have met up, 'back then', if 'you' will only meet up if 'i' coming to or am already in "europe".

But you stopping playing games and came out with all your judgments and made it clear what your position is and your lack of openness.

Did 'I'?

If yes, then what, exactly, are 'all of my judgments', and what, exactly, is 'my position', which is, supposedly, clear, to 'you', and what, exactly, has led 'you' to conclude, and believe, that 'I' have a 'lack of openness'.

'I' ask not expecting 'you' to answer, and clarify. I ask, however, to show that you will continue to make claims and assertions about 'me', but which 'you' will not back up and support with absolutely any thing.

Good that I never overrode that gut feeling in action in the worId.

LOL Why exactly?

What are 'you' 'now' 'believing' would have happened 'to you'?

And of course the only possibility you can think of for why I have said the things I've said is to make excuses.

But this is not what I was thinking of at all here, now.

Notice how once again your conclusion about what is the onIy possibiIity is one that suits your ego and avoids even a whiff of cognitive dissonance.

Now here is another prime example of how what one is believing is true will absolutely affect 'the way' that they 'look at' and 'see' things.

This one is here also providing a prime example of 'projection', itself.

This one has also actually 'concluded' some thing, based off absolutely nothing again other than its own assumptions and beliefs, and which it actually believes that it was 'me' who had 'that conclusion'.

This one could not be twisting nor distorting things around here anymore even if it tried to and wanted to.

And then incIudes negative judgements of me that fit the universaIized negative judgments of humans beings you've been posting for a Iong time and before we had any disagreements.

I appreciate that you stopped pIaying word games and stopped posing as open at the end of your post.

I can onIy suggest that this is best done from the start.

But, 'I' have things here that I wanted to show and reveal, first, in regards to what you human beings actually do.

Also, why do you believe, absolutely, that I am only 'posing' 'as open'?

[Age]

Actually, the presence of any death at all is due purely to the choices mankind has made. You may not believe that, but that's how it is.

Really? Okay, pick one of these "acts of God"...

All of them.

The world would not be fallen at all if it were not for mankind's disobedience. So no such things would ever have occurred, but for man.

So, WHY are you so disobedient, and delusional, here "immanuel can"?

WHY do you believe that you are not delusional and not disobedient here?

[Iwannaplato]

But as one relevant example proved the opposite True.

Ah, so you agree about integrating parts. Great. And you do this in the manner I described, by allowing them to express using sounds and generally no words. We have no disagreements there. Wonderful.

Please tell me about a time you did this.

What was the suppressed and judged part? What was your judgment of it?
What was it like when you allowed it to express?
What is it like now that it is integrated?

[Age]

But as one relevant example proved the opposite True.

Ah, so you agree about integrating parts.

I never ever thought I had disagreed.

But, what you are actually referring to here no one knows. Besides you, of course.

Great. And you do this in the manner I described, by allowing them to express using sounds and generally no words. We have no disagreements there. Wonderful.

I have even less idea of what you are referring to here, 'now', then I did a second or two ago when I wrote my last sentence here.

Please tell me about a time you did this.

you really cannot let go of and get rid of this extremely wrong habit of yours here, can you?

What was the suppressed and judged part? What was your judgment of it?
What was it like when you allowed it to express?
What is it like now that it is integrated?

Are you even aware of what the example is, exactly, that proved the opposite True?

And, are you even aware that 'the example' actually proved the opposite of what you said and claimed, is what is True?

[Iwannaplato]

I never ever thought I had disagreed.

Oh, but you did. Both about steps in the process and the whole thing. How odd you don't remember disagreeing.

But, what you are actually referring to here no one knows. Besides you, of course.

Are you kidding? Integration processes have been described by Jung, Perls. Moreno, and many other psychologists and other kinds of practitioners, and then in integrative spiritual approaches, shamanism and more. Once again, if you don't understand, no one understands. Habitual binary thinking and univeralization. I can see how you end up with these negative judgments of human beings.

you really cannot let go of and get rid of this extremely wrong habit of yours here, can you?

Projection.

What was the suppressed and judged part? What was your judgment of it?
What was it like when you allowed it to express?
What is it like now that it is integrated?

Are you even aware of what the example is, exactly, that proved the opposite True?

Are you even aware how poorly you communicate? It is often to the degree that one wonders if you actually want to communicate or perhaps you just want to 'confirm' your own judgments of people. But people haven't often in real life and online had problems with the way you communicate and to a severe degree. It's other people's fault, not yours.

And, are you even aware that 'the example' actually proved the opposite of what you said and claimed, is what is True?

Are you even aware that you are aware of the disagreements we had, but you asked the question for no good reason? Are you aware of why you do this? Could it related to the need to correct and make negative judgments of humans beings? Could this relate to what you have experienced in your past.? Is it possible that the spirituality like approach you have relates to your particular neurouniqueness and that other people could have equally valid ways of thinking of identity and healing? My sense is you cannot consider this. What you want is what everyone wants, they just don't know it.

And you seem think you are unique, unaware how many practitioners of very similar disidentification systems there are out there.

[Immanuel Can]

Really? Okay, pick one of these "acts of God"...

All of them.

The world would not be fallen at all if it were not for mankind's disobedience. So no such things would ever have occurred, but for man.

Oh, I see. Adam and Eve fucked up so that means we fucked up?

No, it means Adam fell, and you fell. You have enough of your own choices to answer for, obviously, as do we all. But our sin-inclined nature, that, we inherit. That's just a biological fact. Your genetics come from two people -- your parents. Likewise, theirs. You might want to be somebody else's descendent, but wanting won't make it happen. Ultimately, we all come from a fallen man and woman...nobody else.

[Harbal]

All of them.

The world would not be fallen at all if it were not for mankind's disobedience. So no such things would ever have occurred, but for man.

Oh, I see. Adam and Eve fucked up so that means we fucked up?

No, it means Adam fell, and you fell. You have enough of your own choices to answer for, obviously, as do we all. But our sin-inclined nature, that, we inherit. That's just a biological fact. Your genetics come from two people -- your parents. Likewise, theirs. You might want to be somebody else's descendent, but wanting won't make it happen. Ultimately, we all come from a fallen man and woman...nobody else.

And what do most of us do that is so awful it deserves to be talked of as "sinful" and "fallen"?

[Immanuel Can]

Oh, I see. Adam and Eve fucked up so that means we fucked up?

No, it means Adam fell, and you fell. You have enough of your own choices to answer for, obviously, as do we all. But our sin-inclined nature, that, we inherit. That's just a biological fact. Your genetics come from two people -- your parents. Likewise, theirs. You might want to be somebody else's descendent, but wanting won't make it happen. Ultimately, we all come from a fallen man and woman...nobody else.

And what do most of us do that is so awful it deserves to be talked of as "sinful" and "fallen"?

You tell me. I haven't been there when you've done what you've done. However, "all have sinned, and fall short of the glory of God," says the Bible; and experience indicates that's quite true. I have never met anyone, including myself, of whom it was NOT true.

[Iwannaplato]

You tell me. I haven't been there when you've done what you've done. However, "all have sinned, and fall short of the glory of God," says the Bible; and experience indicates that's quite true. I have never met anyone, including myself, of whom it was NOT true.

Wait, you're saying that people all fall short of the glory of an omnicient, omnipotent being and if they don't do the right things before they die, it is ok that they are tortured for all eternity?

The first half is obviously not even worth mentioning. The second part is apologetics for actions that are far worse than what Mao and Stalin managed.

[Immanuel Can]

You tell me. I haven't been there when you've done what you've done. However, "all have sinned, and fall short of the glory of God," says the Bible; and experience indicates that's quite true. I have never met anyone, including myself, of whom it was NOT true.

Wait, you're saying that people all fall short of the glory of an omnicient, omnipotent being and if they don't do the right things before they die, it is ok that they are tortured for all eternity?

I'm saying something much simpler and more direct, something that C.S. Lewis put well:

“There are only two kinds of people in the end: those who say to God, 'Thy will be done' – and those to whom God says in the end, 'Okay, thy will be done. ' All who are in hell choose it."

We will all get exactly what we choose: an eternity with God, or an eternity without. And what kind of person complains that he has been given too much of exactly what he asked to get?