Love

[R. S. Martin]

Sojourner,

 

I have had the very same view of God as you have at the moment and I understand it very well. However, I am asking what logic justifies the idea that your specific God is the universal God? Obviously, there is something about religion that is universal because humans have experienced it across time and geography for thousands of years. (I do not claim that religion has existed for all of human history because I have not studied the ancient beginnings of religion. The earliest religions I have studied is ancient Israel and the Greco-Roman Mystery Religions. These were by no means the earliest known religions.) The idea that religion has evolved and that Christianity is the most highly developed religion is not a completely new idea. But what do you think justifies the idea?

 

I will go through your post and ask a few more specific questions.

 

I believe what you are describing is the good God in action thru folks that dont believe in him. I dont believe God is involved in a certain little elitist group of folks that only speak Jesusism but that the Spirit is poured out on all flesh and right now as I speak all men are experiancing God.

To experiance God to me is to experiance a common place of love, unity and well its unnamable I suppose. But its felt in a meaningful hug, a kind word when its desperately needed and such.

 

How do you explain that this is not just the natural condition of being human rather than God? For example, a person who never heard of God will not think that this is God. Such a person will think it is human. By what logic are you justified in thinking it is God?

 

I am sorry that demeans your experiances to you all, I truly am, I hesitate to share my heart at times because I do not want to ever be taken that way because in reality for me it elevates your experiances and not demeans them. To me it is seeing love, goodness and God in you all which is no different then I see in my fellow believers except they acknowledge it coming from a God/man union and you strictly man.

 

I don't know that it demeans or elevates my experience; it's just the way you see things.

 

1. I hang on to God because thru out my life so far He is real to me and constant. 2. When my husband had his heart attack I felt His presence and I was comforted. 3. When I look at my daughters face and in her eyes, I see Him looking back along with her. 4. I hear Him speaking to me in my everyday experiances and it gives me courage to face this life that sometimes can be overwhelming.

 

I numbered the sentences so I can respond to each individually.

 

1. How do you know that it is not your being human that is constant and real throughout your life? In fact, this is the only fact we know for sure to be constant. Why do you need to add God? Where does God come from?

 

2. How do you know that it was not just your brain releasing some kind of endorphins that made you feel more stable and comforted in order to cope in a time of emergency? Why call it God?

 

3. Why do you not just accept your daughter for the lovely human being that she is?

 

4. Why inject God into everything? Logically, injecting God into everything defuses your life energy away from your loved ones onto an invisible Being whose existence cannot be verified. The beauty, value, and quality of life is thus defused because half of your life energy must go to God; I speak out of experience. Is this ethical?

 

I believe there is a resurrection and I hope Im right and will see you all on the other side of this life but if not I dont feel my life is wasted believing but rather it is enhanced.

 

You are expending a LOT of life energy on hopes and beliefs that you do not know for sure. The kind of God you believe in will take you into heaven even if you don't believe on him. So why not focus on living now and enjoying and valuing the things and people right now that you know you get? The future will take care of itself.

 

The fact that you all feel fulfilled without a God in your life, are kind and loving to each other and have formed a wonderfully alive union together to me further proves to me what I believe rather than takes away from my beliefs and further proves to you that you are believing correctly.

 

If you all were unfulfilled, miserable and unloving then I would definately be questioning my beliefs Ruby because to me they would be false proved by your lives and I would have to concede God is not working thru ALL men as we speak.

 

Thank you for believing our experiences.

 

Soj, if I remember correctly, at one point you claimed not to be here to evangelize. However, the fact that you continue to insist at every possible opportunity that God exists and is helpful makes you highly suspect. The only thing you have "learned" is how to "speak our language." Spiritually/emotionally, you have not moved in the normal directions people usually do when they come here. You are not here to blend in; you are here for some other reason.

[sojourner]

The idea that religion has evolved and that Christianity is the most highly developed religion is not a completely new idea. But what do you think justifies the idea?

 

Christianity is what began my journey into religion. I talk from it as my frame of reference because it is my frame of reference. I have not studied its origins till now. Its true to me because it just is to me.

 

How do you explain that this is not just the natural condition of being human rather than God? For example, a person who never heard of God will not think that this is God. Such a person will think it is human. By what logic are you justified in thinking it is God?

Why do I have to justify my believing? I dont ask you to justify you dont. I merely pointed out how I view things that I see here where as you all view it differently.

 

I numbered the sentences so I can respond to each individually.

 

1. How do you know that it is not your being human that is constant and real throughout your life? In fact, this is the only fact we know for sure to be constant. Why do you need to add God? Where does God come from?

 

If that works for you to not add God then great. For me it works to have God added.

 

2. How do you know that it was not just your brain releasing some kind of endorphins that made you feel more stable and comforted in order to cope in a time of emergency? Why call it God?

 

I dont know that my brain is not involved in my experainces for sure and in fact suspect it probably is. Is it the Cause though- that is more the question. You choose to not believe He is involved and I choose to believe He is. Im ok with that.

 

3. Why do you not just accept your daughter for the lovely human being that she is?

 

Who says I dont? I very much do and because I also see God in her why do you assume I dont?

 

4. Why inject God into everything? Logically, injecting God into everything defuses your life energy away from your loved ones onto an invisible Being whose existence cannot be verified. The beauty, value, and quality of life is thus defused because half of your life energy must go to God; I speak out of experience. Is this ethical?

 

I dont inject God into everything on purpose, He just is in most everything to me and I feel very much alive seeing and knowing that. Why would it be unethical?

 

So why not focus on living now and enjoying and valuing the things and people right now that you know you get? The future will take care of itself.

 

What makes you so sure I dont? I am not a fundie waiting on heaven or the rapture. I try and get the most out of life I can.

 

 

Soj, if I remember correctly, at one point you claimed not to be here to evangelize. However, the fact that you continue to insist at every possible opportunity that God exists and is helpful makes you highly suspect. The only thing you have "learned" is how to "speak our language." Spiritually/emotionally, you have not moved in the normal directions people usually do when they come here. You are not here to blend in; you are here for some other reason.

 

I disagree, I hardly bring God up at all. In convos with Antlerman we discuss what I term God and he terms naturalism. I am not evangelizing and I think you are just suspicious of me and to be honest with you Ruby unless I denounced God altogether you will always be. So be it.

 

sojourner

[R. S. Martin]

The idea that religion has evolved and that Christianity is the most highly developed religion is not a completely new idea. But what do you think justifies the idea?

 

Christianity is what began my journey into religion. I talk from it as my frame of reference because it is my frame of reference. I have not studied its origins till now. Its true to me because it just is to me.

 

How do you explain that this is not just the natural condition of being human rather than God? For example, a person who never heard of God will not think that this is God. Such a person will think it is human. By what logic are you justified in thinking it is God?

Why do I have to justify my believing? I dont ask you to justify you dont. I merely pointed out how I view things that I see here where as you all view it differently.

 

Wow! you sound defensive--I think I hit a nerve. Why should you be able to justify what you believe??? Because every rational person does that so far as I know. You're the first person I encounter on exC who has bristled at being asked to clarify his or her beliefs. Many people here share their beliefs voluntarily.

 

I think you are just suspicious of me and to be honest with you Ruby unless I denounced God altogether you will always be.

 

I am suspicious but not because you believe in God--that is a totally irrational charge. I am suspicious for the reasons I mentioned, and especially now that you make such an irrational charge. Look at RIP. He mentions G-d in nearly every post but no one could ever suspect him of evangelizing.

 

I dont know that my brain is not involved in my experainces for sure and in fact suspect it probably is. Is it the Cause though- that is more the question. You choose to not believe He is involved and I choose to believe He is. Im ok with that.

 

That is a good question you are asking yourself (though you would very soon learn to probe deeper). It's the kind of thing I expected by way of reply. However, it is not right of you to make such assumptions about me. I do not choose what I believe. Those of us who seek truth do not choose what we believe. We learn via cause and effect what actually is consistent over time and situation and what does not hold up to scrutiny.

 

You fail to hold up to scrutiny as a true exCer. 1) You get defensive when it is suggested that you are here to evangelize. 2) You make false charges and assumptions right away when you are asked about your beliefs. As stated above, this is not genuine exC behavior; it is very suspicious behaviour (behaviour that shows that you feel suspicious of others, e.g. your quickness to make assumptions). As also stated above, you do not have to denounce your faith to rise above suspicion, but you do have to change your suspicious behaviour. Normally, suspicious people are suspect.

[R. S. Martin]

PS If you want to know something specific about my beliefs feel free to ask.

[Guest end3]

I do not understand why ya'll believe I am a literalist at heart. But I don't think that matters anyhow. I guess what I have learned about ex-Cer's and love is:

 

1) You can love, but it is not required

2) You think love co-evolved simultaneously from whenever life started

3) Most think love resides in the brain, nervous system, liver, pancreas, or blood,......well somewhere, but when the brain is dead, pull the plug you idiot!

 

Please edit if you so desire.

[sojourner]

You fail to hold up to scrutiny as a true exCer. 1) You get defensive when it is suggested that you are here to evangelize. 2) You make false charges and assumptions right away when you are asked about your beliefs. As stated above, this is not genuine exC behavior; it is very suspicious behaviour (behaviour that shows that you feel suspicious of others, e.g. your quickness to make assumptions). As also stated above, you do not have to denounce your faith to rise above suspicion, but you do have to change your suspicious behaviour. Normally, suspicious people are suspect.

 

Ruby Im defensive because of the tone in your posts to me. I cant help it with you, its your tone in your words that come across to me. You always come across angry to me and as if you are accusing me of something rather than wanting to know or understand me in any way. I think its the suspiciousness you have of me that probably gives you that tone.

 

If I were here to evangelize Ive had ample opportunities and have been a very poor user of them. Ask the owner of the board, Im sure theres a way he could look into my pm's or whatever to see there is no evangelization going on. And in my posts, they speak for themselves. No one here has gotten emails from me cause I am not evangelizing.

 

I am simply being me, learning and growing and communicating with folks that dont believe like me. Because I am not some hard core fundie and because I dont communicate in the same ways a lot of other christians do doesnt make me out to evangelize. It just makes me me.

 

I think it also throws you off that someone is here that still claims to be a christian and doesnt want to argue their beliefs or your lack of belief in a God. Nor have you justify them or feel Im here to justify mine. That seems to be a rare thing here but it is what it is.

 

Im assuming you have not studied universalist beliefs at this juncture or you would know that I can rest in where I am and where you are. I dont need to evangelize you nor anyone else. I need to live my life the most honest way I can and if what I believe shine's thru me and someone is drawn to that then its not me out evangelizing. I dont have to go save the world when I believe its already saved. If it comes up in a convo I will say that is what I believe but you wont find me going door to door or forum to forum to proclaim the gospel of universalism.

 

I dont know what you mean in your number 2 as I am not an ex-christian and have not claimed to be other than an ex-christian in the sense of ex-eternal torment believer or fundie if you will. I have left a lot of christian doctrines behind and that would make me ex in those areas only. Someone chose the exchristians unite thing for me and it doesnt bother me but I didnt choose it to fit in or whatever, dont even know how it got there, and if it would make you feel better or anyone else put something else on me would be my request so there is no confusion.

 

HanSolo could do that for me and pick something else that would fit me better. In fact maybe he will see this and remedy that

 

Also Ruby I have told you

 

this is your home, Im a guest here, if I really bother you in that Im not saying Im here to deconvert, and Im not here to justify and defend my beliefs. Ive been honest, Im here to learn and to relate to others that are different in their beliefs than me. I feel its been a great experiance. Ive grown and learned. But if I become some liability I will certainly bow out gratefully and thankful for my time here.

 

sojourner

[Guest end3]

The truth is Soj, that Ruby does the same to me. Can you please explain Ruby, what we have done?

[R. S. Martin]

Im assuming you have not studied universalist beliefs at this juncture or you would know that I can rest in where I am and where you are.

 

I spent two years in class with a Unitarian Universalist. She was not defensive or evangelistic the way you are. Your way of evangelizing IS being here to be SEEN. I have no reason to think you are doing anything via email or pm that is wrong; the public forum would never be the place to deal with that.

 

I just asked about your beliefs and stated my reason for asking and you got defensive and accusatory for it. If you have nothing to hide you have nothing to be defensive about. This is after all the Lion's Den and it's in the rules that you are allowed to evangelize. You can pull that card if you like. Whew! should I have to tell you how to fight me???

 

There really is something very different about you. It seems you have not yet stood up for your beliefs at all costs like most of us here have done. Standing up for your beliefs at all costs can include the threat of death, or being kicked out of home and/or job, but ostracization by family and friends is more common. We have combed through what we believe with a fine-toothed comb and we have evaluated every single point whether or not it is worth dying for.

 

You resent being asked why you believe what you do??? There is something very seriously wrong with that picture, Soj. Very seriously wrong.

[sojourner]

So because evangelization is listed on what you can do here I have to ?

 

I actually post here and the other areas where christians are allowed to post to honor the forums purpose.

 

If what you want and the only thing that will satisfy you is to be able to label me an evangelist, ok, thats fine if that is what works for ya Ruby, but evidently your qualifications for the term are not the same as mine.

 

I do have universalist friends that are really into sharing universalism all over the place on the internet on forums, but Im not. Its not my way. I dont go door to door, forum to forum or anything else like that. Mainly if it comes up its just in conversation and natural not planned or anything.

 

I live it, period , that is my witness not as an evangelist but just as who I am and what I believe. If my life speaks something is seriously wrong to you then that is what you get out of my life and beliefs. To others it speaks something different.

 

the way of it I guess

 

I dont resent being asked what I believe either

sojourner

[♦ nivek ♦]

"I can love", says the ex-Christian...."I have Love", says the Christian..............if Christianity defines Love as God, I can rationalize that side.

 

My question is: How/where do you classify love from the ex-Christian standpoint?

 

Before ya'll remove my head, I am really looking for an answer that clearly separates this from Christianity and explains the reasons for where it belongs and why it has evolved. Let me please express the definition I am referring to, as there are many........Love - a deep, tender, ineffable feeling and solicitude towards a person, such as that arising from kinship, recongnition of attractive qualities, or a sense of underlying oneness.

 

Seriously, here is the friggin' answer to OP..

 

Tina Turner is goddess..

 

Rest of these ugly desert muthas are posers..

 

kFL

[Guest end3]

MM,

 

1. By required, probably a better term would be choice.

 

2. "It was an evolving survival mechanism", but if love were not there in the beginning, how the original stuff survive....and is love different today than it was then.

 

3. Several things I said MM were in jest, but many of ya'll picked them up and ran with them as if I were serious. In an sincere effort to answer your question...I can see how the people who knew the person before would say, "that is not him". I believe it would still be the person before the brain injury...which would lead us to the body and soul as it was presented at birth.....what is the intent....which also, to me, explains why children get the pass to Heaven. I don't know how I would react having these situations presented in my life. Having never thought much about this hypothetical, and never having had that understanding given to me as of yet by reading Scripture, that is an off the cuff answer. I am, one, open to thoughts on this, and two, my heart may be changed if God decides to give me an "ah ha" moment on this issue. Thanks MM

[Mythra]

"I can love", says the ex-Christian...."I have Love", says the Christian..............if Christianity defines Love as God, I can rationalize that side. My question is: How/where do you classify love from the ex-Christian standpoint?

 

I've intentionally avoided this thread. Because the insinuated assertion in the OP is inane.

 

And I don't care enough about this topic to go through 12 freakin pages of discussion about it.

 

But I was a christian of the born-again persuasion for decades.

 

And I've been a freethinker now for several years.

 

And my ability or inability to love has not changed one iota throughout the transformation.

 

Case closed.

 

ps. FWIW - Although I haven't read this entire thread, I haven't perceived any indication elsewhere of sojourner trying to evangelize anyone, other than doing what we all do - expressing her point of view of things.

[Guest end3]

Let me try again on #3 MM, as I need to fill in the sequence of thoughts I didn't relate in my post.

 

I would opt for the "true self" to be the person before the brain injury. I think the body evolves after birth and is subject to things that are of its environment, much like statement 2....... is love present when the stuff was formed. That in turn led me to thinking of children. What is the intent of the original body as it is presented at birth? To me, it relates to the "age of accountability" thing. Where is the line or what is the time period necessary to change the soul of the body.

 

I guess it gets moderately complicated, because that asks, when does life occur and become a function of its environment.

[SWIM]

I live it, period , that is my witness not as an evangelist but just as who I am and what I believe. If my life speaks something is seriously wrong to you then that is what you get out of my life and beliefs. To others it speaks something different.

 

the way of it I guess

 

I dont resent being asked what I believe either

sojourner

 

Soj, what I personally have witnessed by you, is a slow "evolution" in your beliefs. I notice many times you claim certain posts "bring you to tears" and I have seen your stances and opinions change, ever so slightly, but change none-the-less.

 

I was highly suspicious of you, when you arrived, if you will remember, I was one of the first to give you the "third degree". With all due respect, and I have grown to think you are sincerely looking for answers, which is why I "backed off" of you, witnessing by example is pretty much not what I see you doing. I see you struggling with your faith, you are not "solidly" *locked into it*.

 

Now, the big difference between you and end3 is he *IS* locked into it. Never changes, always *experimenting* with different way to "re-convert" us. He has seen buddy ferris, and chibby, shot down to smoking ruin in the forums, and has learned from this to be more subtle. End3 trys to engage a few of us poker players in the chat room sometimes too, not seeking answers like it appears on the surface, but rather "appearing" to seek answers, hoping the conversation can be lead in his favor. I see this on end's part as a method of attempted manipulation, which is why, except for a friendly jab or two, I don't much engage him in chat.

 

You on the other hand, seem vulnerable, and an open book. Don't mistake, mine or anyone else here's friendship toward you as any form of *agreement*. I most certainly do NOT believe in jesus, nor will I ever again. That does not mean, and you have seen this, that I hate all people that do. There are xtians in my world I consider friends. Some I love, like my mom for example. But, much like my mother, you do not try at all to convince me you have the truth™.

 

The bottom line Soj, you are in an Ex-Chrisitian forum, and to make matters harder for you, this is the Lion's Den. If *you* are going to *speak up* about xtianity in *any* manner, no matter how benign, you *will* get met with strong resistance. Ruby has a right in this forum to question anything you say, since you *claim* chrisitainity.

 

I hate to put it this way, but the old saying is true "If you cannot stand the heat, get out of the kitchen".

[Guest end3]

Mythra,

Please read post 6, it better explains my question...it didn't come across very well in my opening thoughts

[SWIM]

3. Several things I said MM were in jest, but many of ya'll picked them up and ran with them as if I were serious.

 

 

It is VERY hard to tell when you are serious or just plain being dumb. It is easy to think someone that holds tight to a cult like xtianity to be serious when they are joking.

[Guest end3]

If love is the original intent, and we are subject to an environment of love, are we changed from the original? This can exist by remaining in Him.

 

Jhn 6:56 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in him.

 

Jhn 6:57 Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me.

[SWIM]

If love is the original intent, and we are subject to an environment of love, are we changed from the original? This can exist by remaining in Him.

 

Jhn 6:56 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in him.

 

Jhn 6:57 Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me.

 

 

Uggghhh....

 

Just had breakfast, not hungry... Besides, cannibalism is not my thing...

[Guest end3]

What about an opal. The water (Spirit), is trapped in the matrix (body). That is what give an opal the colors/beauty you see. When you don't store an opal in water, the water in the matrix makes it way to the surface and evaporates, and you lose the beauty.

 

Unlike a Sunday morning preacher, I am not going to charge for this sermon.

[SWIM]

What about an opal. The water (Spirit), is trapped in the matrix (body). That is what give an opal the colors/beauty you see. When you don't store an opal in water, the water in the matrix makes it way to the surface and evaporates, and you lose the beauty.

 

 

Oh I like the matrix, that was a pretty good movie.

[Mythra]

I am looking for the evolution and need for love from a science standpoint perhaps....as in where does it belong from that prospective. I repeat, this is not an attack, but a searching inquiry

 

Ahh. Okay. And did you think that within the various social sciences no one had thought to investigate this phenomenon?

 

At the risk of repeating what some have already said in this thread - this isn't a mystery. We don't need an understanding of the God of the bible to understand the human being's capacity to love and how it developed. I think this brief article by Robin Allott, from the Journal of Social and Evolutionary Systems, is a pretty good treatment of the subject: http://www.percepp.com/lovempat.htm

 

An exerpt:

 

The conclusion then is that human love evolved on the basis of the mother/infant relation, dependent on empathy as a mode of perception of the infant's state and needs, with the primitive attachment manifested in many species of animals deepening into interpersonal love as, with the growth of self-awareness dependent in its turn on language, perception extended more and more profoundly into the self of the other. The survival value, the "fitness' function of the mother/infant relation for altricial creatures is already generally accepted - and the question then is what evolutionary mechanism made the deepening of this relation additionally valuable. Of course, if love consists in interaction between empathy, mother/infant attachment, language, self-awareness, consciousness, all advancing together under the impulse of the survival benefits each offers, then there would not be any need for a separate benefit flowing from love as such. The genetic complex leading to the advance of each of the separate components, which then interacted to constitute love, would not need a separate genetic basis for love. But there is no reason why the advantages flowing from this capacity for love manifested first in the mother/infant relation should not have generated additional survival benefits increasing even further the fitness of those in whom the complex operated most effectively.

 

In particular, as the social structure and interaction of human groups became more complex, the extended mother/infant relation would acquire a new importance as the stage at which the infant and then the child acquired the capabilities and the awareness necessary to be successful in the group. Most obviously the mother/infant relation would be the context in which the child acquired the communication abilities of the group, and the attitudes and patterns of behavior consistent with the needs of the group, if the group was to survive as such and be successful in competition with other groups or in dealing with the problems presented by the non-group environment more generally. Love then would become essential not only in increasing the fitness of the mother and of the child but also in increasing the fitness of the group as a whole, insofar as the success of the group, and thus of its individual members, depended on effective coherence of the group and on the pattern of its rituals, traditions, behaviors, skills, beliefs, and moralities. Contrast this with sexual behavior as a hypothetical basis for group activity: sexual behavior in humans and in many animals is self-regarding (for the individual), competitive, aggressive, possibly violent, random in the male, and divisive rather than co-operative. Though sexual selection in its crudest form may contribute in evolutionary terms to morphological change, bodily physical change, stronger, more powerful, more aggressive, more highly-charged individuals, it contributes nothing to the specifically human requirements in group cohesion, the acquisition and transmission of social and other skills. Rape, if that is the most effective way of promoting individual fitness for the male, does not require language, social graces, foresight, awareness of self, or cognitive capacities.

[Ouroboros]

Let me try again on #3 MM, as I need to fill in the sequence of thoughts I didn't relate in my post.

 

I would opt for the "true self" to be the person before the brain injury. I think the body evolves after birth and is subject to things that are of its environment, much like statement 2....... is love present when the stuff was formed. That in turn led me to thinking of children. What is the intent of the original body as it is presented at birth? To me, it relates to the "age of accountability" thing. Where is the line or what is the time period necessary to change the soul of the body.

 

I guess it gets moderately complicated, because that asks, when does life occur and become a function of its environment.

Here's another side to the complexity of what Love is and how to understand it.

 

If you do not show love to an infant and a toddler, the baby is more likely to grow up and be detached from other people, not being able to feel empathy or love. This means love is to large parts learned. The disorder resulting from neglect is called Attachment Disorder and is real and documented. Look it up. It's real. It's factual. It's observed. Love doesn't automatically come from the soul when you're born. We're born with the ability to love, but love has to be taught and understood. Some have a better predisposition to learn it, some don't, so for some they can't learn it well because of other physical disorders, but generally we can learn it, but we have to see it to do it. Monkey-see-monkey-do.

 

How do you explain that in your non-realistic worldview?

[Ouroboros]

If love is the original intent, and we are subject to an environment of love, are we changed from the original? This can exist by remaining in Him.

 

Jhn 6:56 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in him.

 

Jhn 6:57 Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me.

End3,

 

This particular post shows again that you really think that Love only comes from the Christian God and only people who get the love from the Christian God can really feel love.

 

And it's wrong, and we've proven it, and you haven't, so give it up.

[Ouroboros]

What about an opal. The water (Spirit), is trapped in the matrix (body). That is what give an opal the colors/beauty you see. When you don't store an opal in water, the water in the matrix makes it way to the surface and evaporates, and you lose the beauty.

Eeh... water is a physical substance, the body is a physical substance. No spirit there. No supernatural soul. Your illustration is limping, since you're using objects from the same realm of existence and then break it up as two different tiers of existence.

[Legion]

End I don’t have a great deal more to contribute to this thread. But I did want to get a little more practical. I am a collector of various trinities and triads. And I once came across a triad in a little book called The Principles of Seduction. I know that you are married End, so I hope you will be able apply what I am going to tell you here to your marriage. You can re-seduce your wife.

 

This book was the result of a survey in which couples were asked why they fell in love with their partner. They found that people fell in love with another person because of how that person made them feel about themselves. Further they found that these affirmations of identity could be parsed into three categories, which are as follows...

 

The Sexual Self

The Ideal Self

The Social Self

 

Affirming the sexual identity of another is to acknowledge and approve of their masculinity or femininity. This can be done in any number of ways, but when it happens the person feels that they are the very embodiment masculinity or femininity, as the case may be.

 

Affirming the ideal identity of another is to acknowledge and show approval of their goals and aspirations. Generally people can be either conventional or unconventional in their aspirations. And most people want to feel that they are successful in establishing and pursuing their goals whether they are conventional or unconventional.

 

Affirming the social identity of another is to acknowledge and approve of the way they handle themselves in social situations. People can generally be either introverted or extroverted. And most people want to feel that they are adept at handling themselves during social events.

 

So go ye therefore End and look for opportunities to seduce your wife. Re-affirm these three aspects of her identity. She will love you for it!