 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
So we SHOULD define it in a very real sense leaving out all human perception of
it.
Lets at least TRY to gain perception of it, reread the lesson of the first post,
processing out your anger before attempting any reply.
Now first understand the law of physics of hate and love, that the 2 cannot
exist in the same place like night and day. And a difficult fact for some is
this. If you aren't doing one you ARE doing the other, but I think that it only
applies to those capable of love, unlike dark souls who cannot and never will.
7x7 Matrix of Love
Love does 7 things(!) to provide 7 feelings(*) (Action!/Awareness*)
Love...
1} Gives
2} Responds
3} Respects
4} Knows
5} Has the humility to be intimate
6} Has courage to make a commitment
7} Love cares
And for specific reasons, to provide...
1} Safety and security
2} Pleasure
3} Honesty and the ability to be vulnerable
4} Trust
5} Reduced fear of loss
6} Intimacy and caring
7} Wonder of being known
Love is not perfect, love is not god, it just IS what it is, and if you can't do
it, you will not recognize this definition.
With a real definition tho, you can then tell if you are doing it or not.
What is truth? Can you recognize it when you hear it? Claudia could apparently,
and when asked how, she replied, if you will not hear the truth, no one can
tell it to you.
At this point you cannot imagine what have not yet brought to the table but
still may if only you can be the scientists and get your need to fight about it
in check.
Geeze no wonder they told me, "we don't wanna talk to everybody".
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Posting the process doesn't do it justice. The discussion of processing anger
takes some 30-40 minutes to really gain a perception of it. Therefore I want to
include at least one or more critical details of the process.
If your angry with someone you don't need to express the anger to them
personally. You can talk about it with them but only if you're NOT angry,
because no one hears angry words. And if they are a friend they will listen if
you're talking, and if they wont listen they are not a friend worth having.
If you have processed it and find yourself taking back the anger after you
thought it was gone, back to step one.
The ideal method is to express the anger to them in your imagination, (those
that have some imagination of course) then you are speaking directly to their
more real self. This is of course inexplicable in a physical sense. Not
everyone has a more real self as it were, so if don't make contact in the real
sense, why bother even talking to the illusion.
Is reality eternal or is it created? Only that which is real is eternal,
creation is a temporary reality.
Dang should have spent more time on that one. But when discussing REALITY words
eventually fail anyway so I'm letting it go.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Go back a little over 2,000 years and you will find people already
> shooting holes in this idea that "god" has anything to do with piety,
> love, or other such things. Even then "some" of them where able to
> figure out that either god's ideas where arbitrary, and therefor
> claiming that good came from them was absurd, or that good existed
> without them, and therefor all the gods where really doing was stealing
> it, then claiming that they made up the whole idea themselves. You are
> not proving to anyone by such assertions that love, never mind justice,
> or other similar concepts *only* exist do to any god, instead of all the
> other "reasonable" explanations that exist, most of which can be pointed
> out to exist in "any" social animal, simply because, well, its "social".
>
> So, sorry, but if you are actually claiming that you "must" have a god
> for love to exist somehow, and that good derives from that, then you
> **are** in fact claiming on some level, that belief in something "godly"
> makes you good, even if you are willing to waffle a lot more than most
> theists about if you have to believe in Mr. Robes too.
Maybe there's some social reason that any mention of
God makes otherwise rational people angry and confrontational?
If you don't believe in God, why do you blame him for so much?
I really wasn't trying to prove anything.
I just figured AQ needs a hug.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Tim Attwood" <tim### [at] anti-spam comcastnet> wrote:
> Maybe there's some social reason that any mention of
> God makes otherwise rational people angry and confrontational?
> If you don't believe in God, why do you blame him for so much?
> I really wasn't trying to prove anything.
> I just figured AQ needs a hug.
Woke to your post, and yes you bet. I don't try to wiggle out of hugs anymore, I
am grown now.
Might we now ponder the words of Offspring:
Show me how to lie
You're getting better all the time
And turning all against the one
Is an art that's hard to teach
Another clever word
Sets off an unsuspecting herd
And as you get back into line
A mob jumps to their feet
Now dance, f||cker, dance
Man, he never had a chance
And no one even knew
It was really only you
And now you steal away
Take him out today
Nice work you did
You're gonna go far, kid
With a thousand lies
And a good disguise
Hit 'em right between the eyes
Hit 'em right between the eyes
When you walk away
Nothing more to say
See the lightning in your eyes
See 'em running for their lives
Slowly out of line
And drifting closer in your sights
So play it out I'm wide awake
It's a scene about me
There's something in your way
And now someone is gonna pay
And if you can't get what you want
Well it's all because of me
Now dance, f||cker, dance
Man, I never had a chance
And no one even knew
It was really only you
And now you'll lead the way
Show the light of day
Nice work you did
You're gonna go far, kid
Trust, deceived!
With a thousand lies
And a good disguise
Hit 'em right between the eyes
Hit 'em right between the eyes
When you walk away
Nothing more to say
See the lightning in your eyes
See 'em running for their lives
Now dance, f||cker, dance
He never had a chance
And no one even knew
It was really only you
So dance, f||cker, dance
I never had a chance
It was really only you
With a thousand lies
And a good disguise
Hit 'em right between the eyes
Hit 'em right between the eyes
When you walk away
Nothing more to say
See the lightning in your eyes
See 'em running for their lives
Clever alibis
Lord of the flies
Hit 'em right between the eyes
Hit 'em right between the eyes
When you walk away
Nothing more to say
See the lightning in your eyes
See 'em running for their lives
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
And that of Emerson:
hobgoblin of little minds
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Jim Henderson" <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote in message
news:4a2c3988$1@news.povray.org...
> On Sun, 07 Jun 2009 22:28:33 +0100, St. wrote:
>
>>> crazy, but if you only KNEW!!!!!!
>>
>> Then please tell.
>
> Gads, no, don't encourage him.
Why not? I thought I was going to learn something revelationary.
~Steve~
>
> Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Tue, 09 Jun 2009 18:27:02 +0100, St. wrote:
> Why not? I thought I was going to learn something revelationary.
The day AQ has something revolutionary to share (something supportable)
is the day I eat my desk.
Ultimately it comes back to his standard rant about medicine = bad and
drugs = good. He's already been there once in this thread, and when he
first started this thread, I bet myself that he was going to eventually
end up there. Sure enough, I won that bet. ;-)
And then to preach "love love love" and then engage in personal attacks,
well, that strikes me as just a bit hypocritical.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Jim Henderson" <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote in message
news:4a2e9f56$1@news.povray.org...
> On Tue, 09 Jun 2009 18:27:02 +0100, St. wrote:
>
>> Why not? I thought I was going to learn something revelationary.
>
> The day AQ has something revolutionary to share (something supportable)
> is the day I eat my desk.
No, I said 'revelationary', not 'revolutionary'. It's kind of the same
thing though apart from the term 'revelationary' in my opinion is probably
of higher regard in the contexts inferred, so I understand where you're
coming from.
> And then to preach "love love love"
Yeah well, the 'love love love' thing made me think that love was
discovered but there are insecurities too - that's all.
~Steve~
>
> Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Tue, 09 Jun 2009 19:28:42 +0100, St. wrote:
> "Jim Henderson" <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote in message
> news:4a2e9f56$1@news.povray.org...
>> On Tue, 09 Jun 2009 18:27:02 +0100, St. wrote:
>>
>>> Why not? I thought I was going to learn something revelationary.
>>
>> The day AQ has something revolutionary to share (something supportable)
>> is the day I eat my desk.
>
> No, I said 'revelationary', not 'revolutionary'. It's kind of the
> same
> thing though apart from the term 'revelationary' in my opinion is
> probably of higher regard in the contexts inferred, so I understand
> where you're coming from.
Ah, and here I thought it was a misspelling. Whoops. :-)
>> And then to preach "love love love"
>
> Yeah well, the 'love love love' thing made me think that love was
> discovered but there are insecurities too - that's all.
Makes sense to me. :-)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> On Tue, 09 Jun 2009 18:27:02 +0100, St. wrote:
>
> > Why not? I thought I was going to learn something revelationary.
>
> The day AQ has something revolutionary to share (something supportable)
> is the day I eat my desk.
>
> Ultimately it comes back to his standard rant about medicine = bad and
> drugs = good. He's already been there once in this thread, and when he
> first started this thread, I bet myself that he was going to eventually
> end up there. Sure enough, I won that bet. ;-)
>
> And then to preach "love love love" and then engage in personal attacks,
> well, that strikes me as just a bit hypocritical.
>
> Jim
You see only what you want to see. Get out the salt you'll need it, that's a dry
desk. The revolutionary part will always elude you, there's nothing even god can
do about that. One of the darkest I've met here, you and you're dark buddy Warp.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
