Gary's Corner

[Walker]

I would classify us as both being alive with all the alive ones, while all the others are dead.

The same words are a fitting end to this link.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J_KHHKs2SKw

[Walker]

I would classify us as both being alive with all the alive ones, while all the others are dead.

The same words are a fitting end to this link.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J_KHHKs2SKw

Although in you I hear anger, not sadness.

[Walker]

Question: Do you know what prevents conflict in a very long marriage?
Human Answer: Both realize, before the conflict begins, that time is so short.
(This begins to sink in, in the later stages)

Knowing, more than the words, affects everything.
Knowing that someday, one of you will suffer beyond words.
There's no time for suffering now.

[Gary Childress]

Question: Do you know what prevents conflict in a very long marriage?
Human Answer: Both realize, before the conflict begins, that time is so short.
(This begins to sink in, in the later stages)

What prevents conflict in a very long marriage also has a lot to do with who one is married to. If one is married to someone who is stubbornly opposed to them, then perhaps they should seek a divorce if they decide they can't change, rather than spend their whole lives in conflict with each other.

[Walker]

Question: Do you know what prevents conflict in a very long marriage?
Human Answer: Both realize, before the conflict begins, that time is so short.
(This begins to sink in, in the later stages)

What prevents conflict in a very long marriage also has a lot to do with who one is married to. If one is married to someone who is stubbornly opposed to them, then perhaps they should seek a divorce if they decide they can't change, rather than spend their whole lives in conflict with each other.

After the marriage reaches very long, the conflict is nipped in the bud, before it manifests, and the conflict becomes secondary to peace.

Before the marriage is very long, emotional energy fuels conflict and there's a problem, because self-cherishing is the cause of all problems, and conflict can be a thwarter to peace, as the Regime found out.

When one truly cherishes the other, no problems.

Can an abused spouse truly cherish the abuser?
To do that, he or she would have to be a totally selfless bodhisattva.

If one in the marriage was a bodhisattva,
How would that affect the other's behavior?

Yes, or no?

Oh wait, it's not a leading, loaded, yes-or-no question, is it?
That wouldn't be appropriate.
Where's the gotcha in that?

[Walker]

A very long marriage comes near the end of life, not in preparation for life via divorce.

[Gary Childress]

A very long marriage comes near the end of life, not in preparation for life via divorce.

So are you saying that anyone and everyone can have a long marriage with anyone and everyone else if they just become "selfless"?

[Walker]

Let me put NOW to you this way.

If you care to dialogue with me,
you must devote some serious attention
to this question from the basis of intellect,
which is all you have on the topic.

This does not require asking questions.
You self-indulge with the questions.

This requires .... drumroll .... thinking.

*

The question is:

If one in the marriage was a bodhisattva,
How would that affect the other's behavior?

[Walker]

To answer the question, you need to drop those Static-Analysis tendencies.

(continued)

And just for a little fun with the truth ...

The point of a bodhisattva (abused) is the willingness to benefit the other (the abuser).
Whether or not the tiger (abuser) eats him (the abused) is irrelevant to the bodisattva.
If Buddha is a bodhisattva and a teacher, what is the lesson taught if the tiger eats Buddha?
Is it that divorce benefits the other more than the concerns of the abused? I think not.

Is it … Trump has a Tiger by the Tale?

Naw.

It's the tale of Jesus and how he changed humanity, one at a time, without time as a boundary.

[Gary Childress]

Trump has a Tiger by the Tale?

Trump is going to get us all killed.

[Lacewing]

Are you as concerned with what harm you may cause?

Of course.

What harm have you caused that gave you more concern than your concerns over Christians believing in Christianity?

The latter gives you enough concern to write.

So, you're jumping from asking about what harm I MAY cause... to asking what harm I HAVE caused... all the while, failing to respond to the concern that was raised regarding the massive and ongoing harm and devastation caused by Christianity/religion.

Shouldn't Christians and theists, who boast about focusing on the morality of a god, WANT to recognize and acknowledge the OPPOSITE which masquerades and operates and hides within Christianity and religion?

Are people confusing their divine nature with a theist identity that must sell itself to keep that banner flying to preserve that identity -- for what purpose?

Seriously, if any group was operating for good purposes, wouldn't they want to notice if something to the contrary was rooted within their structure? Is the knee-jerk defensive position of covering up and avoidance because they actually suspect (but cannot face) that the entire foundation may be, or is indeed, riddled with falseness?