What Defines And Drives A Relationship

[Guest end3]

 

 

True, midniterider, but that's why people get flak instead of polite answers. 

I love a good argument, err, I mean debate, but when it's nothing but vague nonsense? Irritating.

 

I'm still trying to figure out from the OP what's supposed to be debunked!

The point is D, knowing another person, knowing the small things, the intimate, seeing the imperfections and allowing for someone to see yours, is life.....communing.

 

Debunk this is the challenge.

 

Debunk that life is with people? Why? People have relationships, it's a fact. But note it's not a religious fact.

 

EDIT: Just saw your post. There is nothing relating this to God except your assertion--a belief that you have, taken on faith. Nobody in the Den is going to give that the time of day.

 

I'm advocating the proposed mechanism. It works. Assigning cause is another issue, that is correct.

[Orbit]

 

 

 

True, midniterider, but that's why people get flak instead of polite answers. 

I love a good argument, err, I mean debate, but when it's nothing but vague nonsense? Irritating.

 

I'm still trying to figure out from the OP what's supposed to be debunked!

The point is D, knowing another person, knowing the small things, the intimate, seeing the imperfections and allowing for someone to see yours, is life.....communing.

 

Debunk this is the challenge.

 

Debunk that life is with people? Why? People have relationships, it's a fact. But note it's not a religious fact.

 

EDIT: Just saw your post. There is nothing relating this to God except your assertion--a belief that you have, taken on faith. Nobody in the Den is going to give that the time of day.

 

I'm advocating the proposed mechanism. It works. Assigning cause is another issue, that is correct.

 

Correct me if I'm wrong, but you're saying the mechanism is God, so it's the same thing: assertion based on faith.

[Guest end3]

I'm saying when we do this "knowing each other", then imo, the manifestation, i.e. the result, is the joy I assign to God.

[Orbit]

I'm saying when we do this "knowing each other", then imo, the manifestation, i.e. the result, is the joy I assign to God.

Well that's your process; can't argue with that.

 

Others might argue, and say you shouldn't assign the joy to God because it has nothing to do with God. It's *your* joy, it came from you.

[midniterider]

It depends on whom you commune with what joy you might or might not derive.

[duderonomy]

E3,  You shouldn't assign the joy to God because it has nothing to do with God. It's "your" joy. It came from you. 

 

(Sorry Orbit, I just had to!)

 

 

 

Really, the more you try to explain, End, the more confusing it seems to get. I think I have to give up on this one. 

[Guest end3]

It depends on whom you commune with what joy you might or might not derive.

Right, but we have all heard the advice about treating others with respect because we might learn something from everyone. The point being that in order to be "complete" or "finished" or "saved", there is certainly benefit for those times we feel joy and those times where we feel pain. Who else would know what it is to be "complete" in our lives than God.

[Guest end3]

E3,  You shouldn't assign the joy to God because it has nothing to do with God. It's "your" joy. It came from you. 

 

(Sorry Orbit, I just had to!)

 

 

 

Really, the more you try to explain, End, the more confusing it seems to get. I think I have to give up on this one.

I appreciate the effort to communicate D. Thanks.

[bornagainathiest]

 

 

True, midniterider, but that's why people get flak instead of polite answers. 

I love a good argument, err, I mean debate, but when it's nothing but vague nonsense? Irritating.

 

I'm still trying to figure out from the OP what's supposed to be debunked!

The point is D, knowing another person, knowing the small things, the intimate, seeing the imperfections and allowing for someone to see yours, is life.....communing.

 

Debunk this is the challenge.

 

Debunk that life is with people? Why? People have relationships, it's a fact. But note it's not a religious fact.

 

EDIT: Just saw your post. There is nothing relating this to God except your assertion--a belief that you have, taken on faith. Nobody in the Den is going to give that the time of day.

 

 

Right on the money, Orbit!

 

End's faith-based, purely subjective assertions simply aren't worth my time... which is why I'm replying to you and not him.  

 

Since he won't accept and won't conform to the accepted rules of logical argument - there's next to no common ground between us. 

Since he refuses to accept evidence gathered by scientists, conforming to rules he won't accept - there's no point in my citing these things.

Since there's next to nothing that I count as real and valid and objective that he'll accept - there's no real basis for communication between us. 

He and I can't even agree on what constitutes the subjective and the objective.

So there's a galaxy-wide disconnect between us on all fronts.

.

.

.

Which is why I have to say that I admire your patience and perseverance, Orbit.

 

Well done, friend!  

 

BAA.

[Guest end3]

Right on the money, Orbit!

 

End's faith-based, purely subjective assertions simply aren't worth my time... which is why I'm replying to you and not him.  

 

Since he won't accept and won't conform to the accepted rules of logical argument - there's next to no common ground between us. 

Since he refuses to accept evidence gathered by scientists, conforming to rules he won't accept - there's no point in my citing these things.

Since there's next to nothing that I count as real and valid and objective that he'll accept - there's no real basis for communication between us. 

He and I can't even agree on what constitutes the subjective and the objective.

So there's a galaxy-wide disconnect between us on all fronts.

.

.

.

Which is why I have to say that I admire your patience and perseverance, Orbit.

 

Well done, friend!  

 

BAA.

Validation is part of a relationship.

To put it in terms you might agree with BAA, there are different kinds of bonds and some things don't bond at all. It doesn't mean I can't derive something necessary for me to be a better person through our relationship.

[Guest end3]

A good example of communion is the testimonies section of this site. Very intimate details shared in a relationship that leave people believing they are One with others.

[bornagainathiest]

 

Right on the money, Orbit!

 

End's faith-based, purely subjective assertions simply aren't worth my time... which is why I'm replying to you and not him.  

 

Since he won't accept and won't conform to the accepted rules of logical argument - there's next to no common ground between us. 

Since he refuses to accept evidence gathered by scientists, conforming to rules he won't accept - there's no point in my citing these things.

Since there's next to nothing that I count as real and valid and objective that he'll accept - there's no real basis for communication between us. 

He and I can't even agree on what constitutes the subjective and the objective.

So there's a galaxy-wide disconnect between us on all fronts.

.

.

.

Which is why I have to say that I admire your patience and perseverance, Orbit.

 

Well done, friend!  

 

BAA.

Validation is part of a relationship.

To put it in terms you might agree with BAA, there are different kinds of bonds and some things don't bond at all. It doesn't mean I can't derive something necessary for me to be a better person through our relationship.

 

 

I can give you no proper answer, End.

.

.

.

The way you use words, concepts and terminology is so radically removed from the accepted standards most of us choose to conform to, that I cannot be sure that what you mean by a certain word is what most of agree it means.

 

Until and unless you join us by accepting and conforming to common standards of logic, meaning and word usage there can be (imho) no constructive communication between us.  For you, that would mean giving up your subjective, individual and highly idiosyncratic take on things.  That means being objective -  a concept which I'm not sure you even understand.

 

Please prove me wrong, End.

 

Right now, based on the evidence of this thread and your past posting history, I just don't think you have it in you.

Nor do I think that you want to have it at all.  Instead, I think the only way you can take reality is on your own, highly subjective terms.

 

Anyway, please prove me wrong on this.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

[Orbit]

A good example of communion is the testimonies section of this site. Very intimate details shared in a relationship that leave people believing they are One with others.

Well I think saying "being One" is a bit strong here. They feel they have something in common yes, and that is achieved through self-disclosure and supportive responses. But this is simply what humans do. Sharing intimate information does build a relationship, yes--that's the nature of relationships. But while your subjective experience of God might parallel this, that's not going to fly in the Den.