God's "message" to humans?

[Ssel]

The "emotionalism" you see here is people who have been hurt, betrayed, disillusioned, etc by religion. What is wrong with that? There is growth that takes place here, but it's through emotional healing through community and encouragement of like minded people with similar experiences.

First, I very much agree with giving hope where it has been lost. I very much agree with encouraging life and strength. I agree also that like minded people have a good opportunity to pull together and become stronger both together and individually.

 

But now think what it is that not only caused them to lose hope but also what is causing them to gain it back. What basic principle is involved?

 

They lost hope because what they had was not answering their needs or perceived need. They gain hope when they can perceive progress in what they needed.

 

But where did those needs come from? Oh yes, they are born with some naturally occurring urges that are often called needs but even those came from one conceptual source. And the hope they both lost and gained came from that same source.

 

That source is simply challenge. A challenge which isn't being handled well leads to losing hope. Signs of getting more cooperation and support from others who recognize the challenge inspires hope. But what if there was no challenge at all? What happens when a group of people no longer have a common foe to keep their like-mindedness alike?

 

Now and then an SCC will wonder in here and present a challenge to prove their ideas. Immediately members gather in activity to throw questions and conundrums at them. A feeling of commorodery builds as the members laugh in agreement of how foolish the foe is. They grow stronger together and feel more confidence and hope.

 

But how often do those challengers really come by? I noticed long ago that it isn't really very often. If none of them ever came by, if no challenge was ever presented to these people, this sight, would slowly die out. The friendship factor doesn't last forever. People have to have something to do besides say "Goodmorning again. How are you today. Tell me about your day. My day was okay..." When do they get to feel that they are actually making progress toward something again? Granted, new people would come with their new hopes. But they would also be drifting away.

 

You create hope with progress toward a challenge. Where is the challenge presented here if not from the common enemy?

 

But now on to something very real about life in general. The Christian had a similar thing pulling them together. The middle East wisely keeps themselves in conflict so that they never have the problem.

 

You and others help pull these people together. That is good. But who is the challenge that inspires them to think? Wasn't it thinking that freed them? Shouldn't you be wanting that thinking to grow stronger rather than withering from lack of use in an enviroment of everyone agreeing?

 

When have I actually taken any hope away from anyone? I offer a challenge to think. I offer that through that particular challenge, far more hope can be gained than expected. Don't just keep it alive, give it a direction with even more hope.

 

Excessive emotionalism will cause it all to die even more quickly, much like the brighter flame and growth in thinking will be impossible.

 

It sounds like you compare your ideas as innovative and revolutionary as that of Einstein and Darwin. I have to confess, if you were on that level you wouldn't be here.

Yes, and if Jesus was REALLY imporant He would never have been talking to the poor and diseased either. I use comparisons of people who you could hardly disagree with. You don't have to be a great honored man to have a great idea, do you?

 

You are assuming far more about me than you know. You only want to know so as to judge my words before I speak them. As long as a man views everything through his ego, then he can never see anyway. If you can think of me as an arrogant man but still hear the truth of what I might say, then you have answered the challenge of humility.

 

The very first and the very final test of Mankind is that of humility.

 

But how could Man ever learn how to answer that test without a challenge to it?

 

Even in my arrogance, I still offer far more than I receive.

 

------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Buddha taught for 40 years. Toward the end, he gathered 100 of his disciples and asked them one very important question concerning his teachings. Only one could answer.

 

Gathering a following or becoming famous is relatively easy. It is mostly a question of proper showmanship. but gathering a following that is truly dependable and worthy is all together another matter.

 

If God is Reality, then what God wants is only those who will attend to Him constantly throughout eternity. In a sense, I am interested in that same thing. Not someone to attend to me, but to attend to reality despite emotional temptations. Who else can really be depended on?

[willybilly30]

fine dont talk to me.

[Ssel]

Sorry, I still maintain that if I were "god" or the "creator" or something like that, and there was something that I wanted my creation (humans) to know and/or understand, I would be very clear and specific as to what that was.

What you really mean is "if God were you, then..."

 

Yes, if God were merely you, then a great great many things would be extremely different.

 

God has the constant task of balancing every single electron orbiting every nucleus, the plight of every virus, every blade of grass, every leaf on every tree, every bird in flight, every cell of every animal, every bit of logic and mathematics to work perfectly as it does, and every slip of energy in every direction. Yes, if God were merely you, things would definitely be done very differently.

 

But God isn't you. God made the balance work into this reality because this reality IS God (this is logically provable, btw). Reality made things the way they are in the way that It did because it is what is possible.

 

Reality is simply what it is. You not liking it changes nothing.

 

"I AM that I AM" -- or more to the point -- "IT IS what IT IS"

 

Thanks for the discussion, Ssel and other participants.

And thank you for allowing some of these things to be cleared up.

 

 

 

fine dont talk to me.

I answered in the order the posts came.

 

When you say that you are not interested in the Bible, that speaks for you. Realizing that "throwing out the baby with the bathwash" isn't smart, is what distinguishes many people.

[willybilly30]

fine keep using the bible to prove your point. i tried to warn you but whatever. put up your dukes you got a long fight ahead of you. i hope you can argue better than others who did could. the people around these parts dont take to kindly to bible stuff.

 

thats what i meant when i said: you can lead a horse to water but you cant make it drink if it dont like water.

 

now you can try shoving its head in but youll end up kicked.

 

these horses dont drink water they drink beer

 

 

seems like whether im being nice or mean i get treated the same way by christians and they wonder why im not interested in their religion.

[crazy-tiger]

God made the balance work into this reality because this reality IS God (this is logically provable, btw).

Not to put too fine a point on it, but you tried to prove that and failed...

All you managed to do is prove that some people believe God=Reality, but couldn't manage to prove that God=Reality.

 

You were shown that belief that something is, doesn't prove that something is.

[Guest JPD]

This is an example of some of the many misunderstandings represented here.

 

Jesus - "the truth will set you free"

Jesus - "pray ALWAYS"

 

What if Jesus was actually speaking of real logical thought, not superstitious belief systems? My claim is that he was. He really meant that "science", for example, will set you free. Science is NOT the enemy of Jesus.

 

What if what was meant by "to pray" was what we would call "to seek"? Of course you were to pray always to God, right? But what if God was merely their word for what we call reality today?

 

Jesus - "seek the Truth of Reality ALWAYS"

 

"To find Reality, you must humbly and truly seek it out" -- is that so hard to understand??

 

Your interpretation of John 8:31-32 is either deliberately obfuscatory or far more ignorant and facile a reading than one would expect from someone as arrogantly pedantic as yourself. Since you are so fond of the bible, I'll remind you of what it says.

 

31To the Jews who had believed him, Jesus said, "If you hold to my teaching, you are really my disciples. 32Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free."

 

He didn't say to go out and seek the truth. Where in the hell do you get that? He said that if they held to his teachings, then they would know the truth. To Jesus, the truth was arrived at through dogmatic obeisance to the edicts of his god. He didn't encourage an intrepid spirit of free thought. He encouraged acquiescence with the threat of everlasting punishment. If you have some special understanding of the scriptures, it doesn't seem any more special than the same tired apologetic nonsense that I've heard so many times I could rap it backwards in a coma.

 

Sometimes nothing says it like profanity. You're full of shit, Ssel. For some reason, you think that the fact that you're full of SO MUCH of it somehow makes the shit have value. I'm not trying to grow a billion tonnes of jesus tomatoes, so no. Worthless shit.

[Ssel]

You were shown that belief that something is, doesn't prove that something is.

The "debate" that you are referring to isn't even close to the logical proof I am talking about. It could barely even be classified as a debate, much less anything relevant.

 

 

He didn't say to go out and seek the truth. Where in the hell do you get that?

He said to "pray always". That means to ALWAYS be seeking the truth.

 

He said that if they held to his teachings, then they would know the truth.

As I said before. He said to follow Him only in regards to those essencial practices needed to keep their minds clear enough to actually see the truth when it was in front of them. That meant to be humble and love what is.

 

If you have some special understanding of the scriptures, it doesn't seem any more special than the same tired apologetic nonsense that I've heard so many times I could rap it backwards in a coma.

How would you know? I seriously doubt that you have even considered any truth in any of what I say, so even if it was there, you wouldn't know it.

[Guest JPD]

He said to "pray always". That means to ALWAYS be seeking the truth.

 

Wow. Let's see now. To pray means to beg, and in the context of the bible it means to beg god, to supplicate. Taking a command to always be begging god as meaning to always be seeking truth, do I need some special glasses for that? Biblically, the truth is whatever god says it is, not any objective reality.

 

As I said before. He said to follow Him only in regards to those essencial practices needed to keep their minds clear enough to actually see the truth when it was in front of them. That meant to be humble and love what is.

 

You saying it doesn't make it true. People who don't look at Jesus through dumb-colored glasses see more than just beatific allusions to brotherly love. Help me out, does your ability to see the big picture that we all can't see carry with it the side effect of being blind to the details?

 

How would you know?

 

Through the magic of reading, super-genius.

 

I seriously doubt that you have even considered any truth in any of what I say, so even if it was there, you wouldn't know it.

 

Yeah, you seem like the kind of guy who would assume that anyone who doesn't swallow his bullshit hasn't sniffed enough of it.

[Vigile]

I for one am not impressed by Ssel. To me he's just another Ernest Holmes, L Ron Hubbard type new-age guru who thinks he alone possesses the answers to the most important question in mankind's history. I've heard it all before. No more wacky spatial wispy shit for me.

 

Very well put.

 

But now think what it is that not only caused them to lose hope but also what is causing them to gain it back. What basic principle is involved?

 

Truth. And from what I've seen so far, you don't have it either.

[Asuryan]

 

You are assuming far more about me than you know. You only want to know so as to judge my words before I speak them. As long as a man views everything through his ego, then he can never see anyway. If you can think of me as an arrogant man but still hear the truth of what I might say, then you have answered the challenge of humility.

 

The very first and the very final test of Mankind is that of humility.

 

But how could Man ever learn how to answer that test without a challenge to it?

 

Even in my arrogance, I still offer far more than I receive.

 

 

I think we have a problem here.

You equate the importance of your philosophical discoveries with Einstein's and Darwin's. This is a good show of arrogance in our eyes, as you can read from our reactions in this thread. Furthermore, those four words, "Even in my arrogance", seem to imply that you, yourself, recognize and admit your arrogance.

 

But at the same time you ask us to be humble. If I've understood right, you're saying that the revolutionary things you are trying to explain to us somehow "allow" you to be arrogant, and since we don't have your wonderful revelations about god and reality, we don't have the right to be arrogant, we have to be humble. There's more: when you say that communication is a process that has to happen from both sides, you again seem to imply that you can't tell us the Truth if we don't say "Fine, I'm acknowledging that you have the Truth. Please explain it to me." (or were you meaning something different?)

 

Asking people to be humble, while at the same time claiming for yourself the right to be arrogant, is... well, arrogant, of course, but also rather offensive, if you care for my opinion.

You seem to think that God is Reality - meaning, everything that exists.

The bible shows us a sentient god. You say God is Reality. Does this mean that reality is sentient? Seems a logical derivation of your sentences to me. Can I expect emotions, thought and intelligence from *everything* around me, from my keyboard to my shoes to my toilet seat?

My experience and studies show me that for such things like emotions, thought and intelligence ... for being sentient, a brain is needed. Thus, the parts of reality which have no brain shouldn't be sentient. But since the bible god is shown as sentient, able to talk, reason, have guilty trips, plan the extermination of humankind, and the whole of reality apparently is not (to convince me that a rock is sentient you'd have to explain to me rationally why do you think so and if you have ever stopped to try and verify this idea of yours), this means that God and Reality are not the same thing.

 

And I refuse to be told from you that since I'm doubting your words, I'm not "humble". You can't demand from us humility while at the same time giving us arrogance. Plus I don't think that shutting off my brain to the simplest truths (i.e. brain is needed for being sentient) to believe everything you say just because you say it's revolutionary and important is a sign of being "Humble". This is a sign of being stupid.

[Ssel]

Wow. Let's see now. To pray means to beg,

And just where did you get that one, Super-genius?

 

the common understanding of to pray is to "commune". But what good is it to tell an all knowing God what He already knows?

 

If your not telling, then the other part of communing is listening. And if your listening with all of your senses and mind, then how is that different than seeking?

 

Praying has nothing to do with begging except in the same way that seeking would.

[Ssel]

You equate the importance of your philosophical discoveries with Einstein's and Darwin's.

No. As I said, I merely use examples of those who you know and could see their situation. Anyone saying anything that isn't popular has the same problem.

 

If I had said George Bangle had a knew idea and people gave him shit. Exactly what would that mean to you? It has nothing to do with level of greatness except in your eyes.

 

To you, it seems, only important people can make important discoveries so everyone else is just dirt under their feet.

 

But also realize that all of this talk about metaphor is not any grand discovery of mine. Many people have known this stuff for 1000's of years. The followers grow much faster in number than those of understanding. You have been surrounded by followers preaching at you.

 

I'm not at all surprised that very many people would be disillusioned and angered. If your reputation was left to those who didn't really understand it yet proclaimed it as something holy, don't you think the same would happen to you?

[thomas]

Ssel

 

I have not been active here for a while, and I have not read all of your posts. But I have a question about your concept of God.

 

If I understand you correctly you say that God is everything that exists (= the total sum of my surroundings) and that God is reality.

 

Now it is very unclear to me, if your God "only" is an abstract system consisting of a lot of different entities, or if your God so to speak has an existence in his own right. Did your God have an existence of his own before he created heaven and earth?

[Ssel]

And I refuse to be told from you..

Yes, you refuse to be told by anyone you don't like. Meaning that your passion for finding any truth is limited to just those few who you like or perhaps those who have been propped up before you as the geniuses of the day. Meaning that you're only going to see what you favor and what society wants you to believe.

 

Thinking on your own requires that you look past the clouds of caring who is saying something. Too much concern about who is saying something is your blindness. That is a fact of basic psychology and no invention of mine.

 

As I said before, being liked by you is a trivial task. Just compliment you often, agree with you often, insult those you have proclaimed as your enemy.

 

But exactly what do I get from you liking me? Are you going to send me a greeting card or something? Maybe you will listen to what I have to say if I go to the trouble of insuring that you like me.

 

But exactly what would I gain even if you believed every word I said? You don't know my name, you can't even send that card. Does your respect put a roof over my head? Are you going to favor me with your hidden wisdom if I first gain your respect?

 

Exactly what do I get in return for attempting to explain and explain something that has nothing to do with me directly? Are you going to join my church? Perhaps worship at my avatar?

 

The only thing I preach is for you to think on your own past your emotions. How does that serve me? If I had a church it would be a church of very serious logicians. Why would I start it with you?

 

I offer explanation. I endure "your an arrogant, asshole, idiot egotist."

 

Do I gain any actual explanations from you? All I see is "I don’t like that shit, so it's all just fictional crap."

 

Wow, like I have never heard that before. Such enlightenment. I feel like a whole new man now, thanks for all the effort you went through to explain that one to me.

[Ssel]

Now it is very unclear to me, if your God "only" is an abstract system consisting of a lot of different entities, or if your God so to speak has an existence in his own right. Did your God have an existence of his own before he created heaven and earth?

Simply place the word "Reality" everywhere you have seen the word God.

 

You get to that same point where your asking, "But what was there before there was anything?"

 

Think about the logic of that question. "What existed before anything existed?"

 

You have only 2 choices.

 

1) There was no "before existence" meaning that time has been infinite.

2) There is an existence which is irrespective of time as we know it.

 

I submit that both of those are true.

 

But regardless of what is true, "All that is not you" must include it.

 

But now for another issue. Heaven was never referring to outer space. The Bible speaks of spiritual concerns, not physical concerns. Heaven is a spiritual object of thought. And in the Bible, so is "Earth". It has never been about the creation of this rock and the space out there.

 

Spiritual people are much like people who speak only in terms of energy and proclaim that matter isn't real. Technically they would be both right and wrong. Since matter is made of energy, then they are right, but declaring that it doesn't exist just because it is made of the same as something else would be wrong.

 

"Earth" in the Bible refers to the hard realities of things. The things that you can see and stand on. The obvious logic, the obvious ground and such. "Heaven" refers to the ideal goal that is pursued. It doesn't matter what anyone calls it, everyone pursues something better than they have. The direction of that pursuit is the direction of their concept of Heaven. But like the North star, it isn't that you expect to get there, it is the orientation that it gives you that counts.

[Ssel]

Also realize that the "clouds" refer to confusion. This is all apart of the "creation" story in the Bible.

 

The "firmament" is referring to those issues which are firm and locked into place.

[thomas]

"Heaven" refers to the ideal goal that is pursued. It doesn't matter what anyone calls it, everyone pursues something better than they have. The direction of that pursuit is the direction of their concept of Heaven. But like the North star, it isn't that you expect to get there, it is the orientation that it gives you that counts.

 

What is the benefit for humans? We all strive for something, but why strive for something we never will achieve? I agree that the process has value in itself, but if you know in advance that you will never reach the goal, what is the the point?

 

Simply place the word "Reality" everywhere you have seen the word God.

 

I don't think I get it.

 

Is the reverse also true, can I substitute the word "reality" with the word "God"? I mean, if I drive my car from point A to point B, then I am actually changing (a little aspect of) reality - the position of my car. Can I then substitute "reality" with "God", and say that the postition of my car is part of God, and that I am changing God by driving my car?

 

Or are you talking about some essence of reality?

[Ssel]

What is the benefit for humans? We all strive for something, but why strive for something we never will achieve? I agree that the process has value in itself, but if you know in advance that you will never reach the goal, what is the the point?

2 things to consider.

 

1) By keeping in mind where it is that you would prefer to be, your mind gains perspective of progress. This allows for you to actually feel what you call "joy" and lets you more clearly see when you are heading in the wrong direction. IT is exactly like a ship at sea. The ship captain doesn't try to reach the North star, he merely uses its clear sight so as to give him orientation as to where he is and the heading he wishes to pursue when all else seems merely a vast ocean of irrelevant issues.

 

2) "Seek and ye shall find". It happens that a very real and Earthly Heaven can, in fact, be created. But only if people are trying. "Pray that it be on Earth as it is in Heaven" = seek to make the dream a reality and it will be (with enough faith and diligence in the pursuit).

 

Simply place the word "Reality" everywhere you have seen the word God.

I don't think I get it...

 

Or are you talking about some essence of reality?

Yes, the essence, the rules of the game. But also remember that the exact position of things is also a part of what affects you and thus has a degree of control over you, so in that regard, that aspect of "God" does change and allows for you to alter your future. The real God is not merely the rules, but also where you happen to be standing with respect to other things.

 

You can't change the rules, but you CAN change your position on the board.

 

As far as the exchange of words; Merely read some of the Bible again but place one of 2 phrases in place of the words "God", "Lord", or any of the names given for God.

 

Read it again and substitute either "Reality" for those or "All of that shit out there that I don't really understand"

 

Your perspective of the Bible will change drastically and become far more accurate to what was intended.

[Ssel]

.. and if that isn't good enough fto get me into a place of peace for eternity (should there be one)...then screw it.

How can you manage your money if you don't consider tomorrow's bills?

 

You end up spending every dime you make and all is gone by the time you are old and in greater need than ever before.

 

The only difference in what you are saying and what the Bible is recommending is that you look toward the future, not merely at what you want today. Work toward a Heaven and you create your own better future. Ignore the future, and you eventually have no means to survive nor feel joy with things that you can no longer purchase.

 

You end up being dependant on others and not being able to give anything in return. The Bible has no objection to those who watch out for their future, but consider how many people don't and what comes from so many not even wanting to try. How many people can be solely dependant on others at one time?

 

-----

 

I should add that the Bible also has no objection to enjoying what you have today. Jesus was big on enjoying today and not worrying. But that doesn't mean ignoring.

[Vigile]

.. and if that isn't good enough fto get me into a place of peace for eternity (should there be one)...then screw it.

How can you manage your money if you don't consider tomorrow's bills?

 

 

Totally unprovable assumption.

[Asuryan]

And I refuse to be told from you..

Yes, you refuse to be told by anyone you don't like. Meaning that your passion for finding any truth is limited to just those few who you like or perhaps those who have been propped up before you as the geniuses of the day. Meaning that you're only going to see what you favor...

 

Oh I see.

So you decided to concentrate a whole reply post on those 8 words, and sistematically ignore everything I've said *after* those 8 words... the core of what I was trying to tell you?

Congratulations, it's the first time I see such a ruthless and instrumental use of rhetorics since Cicero's works.

The point was: you can't demand humility from people because it is not something you can demand. You especially cannot demand humility while claiming for yourself the right to be arrogant: that's utterly hypocritical. You ask us to listen at what you're saying as if you were some kind of authority, just because even common men can have great ideas: well of course they can. But this does not mean that you can come here and just spit in our faces, claiming that we're closing your mind to you and so we're worth less than a shit.

 

Don't you have a hint of an idea of what the words "kindness" and "respect" mean? Have you read the sarcastic sentence with which you closed your reply to me? What did I do to deserve such a treatment? I told you that you are acting arrogantly, but you shouldn't take offense at that since you were the first one to recognize your own arrogance. Who do you think you are? Or better: do you think that your revolutionary idea (hypotizing and not assuming that it really IS a revolutionary idea) gives you the right to act so pompously and arrogantly?

 

Those 8 words don't mean that I don't want to listen to what you have to say. Just that you can't demand us to assume that your words are true unless you demonstrate their truth first. This, you haven't demonstrated yet. So, tone down your answers a bit, throw your sarcastic, poisonous sentences in the trashcan, prove us that god and reality are the same thing with something more than just screaming "If you don't believe me then you are only going to see what you favour!" (it's too easy to say that in order to believe you we have to believe you first, buddy), and stop demanding humility from us. You'll have it if we wish to give it to you and if you deserve it, and there's nothing you can do about it - not even accusing us of being closed minded.

 

This said, you still have to answer Nivek. I think he'd like from you something less wordy, less lenghty, less intricated, less philosophically based, and easier to understand.

[Ssel]

The point was: you can't demand humility from people because it is not something you can demand.

And exactly who said that I was "demanding" anything from anyone?

 

You did.

 

I said that what I or anyone says can not be clearly seen through emotionalism (the lack of humility). If you want to blame someone for that, then take it up with Reality.

 

But what you're "demanding" for me to do really is to be so nice and sweet to you that you might consider what I have to say as if I was going to get something out of it. It is totally my responsibility to ensure I present myself to your liking so that you learn something.

 

Yes, I am well aware that if I appear very sweet to you and others, carefully side stepping every word that might upset you, ensuring that you see nothing potentially threatening in anything I say, restricting myself from saying anything that might offend anyone anywhere in any manner, totally humble myself to any possiblility of emotional reactions, THEN you will consider what I say with more tolerance and thus might find that what I said actually has something worth hearing.

 

So noted.

[Asuryan]

Yes, I am well aware that if I appear very sweet to you and others, carefully side stepping every word that might upset you, ensuring that you see nothing potentially threatening in anything I say, restricting myself from saying anything that might offend anyone anywhere in any manner, totally humble myself to any possiblility of emotional reactions, THEN...

 

This exaggeration is yet another demonstration of your lack of civil behaviour.

Is it too much to ask from you?

I don't want sweetness (at the moment, though, you are showing us all that all you are able to give is is not sweetness and not even a neutral behaviour, you are sour as sour can be, with your sarcastic attacks directed at everybody that dare not postulating your words as Truth). I don't want sidesteps. And I don't want you to humble yourself. Just act with a shred of civil behaviour. Which is what I asked from you in the previous post when I talked about sarcasm in the trashcan.

 

This is your reply to my request, so does it mean that you are utterly incapable of talking like a civil human being and not like a hissing, poison spitting sophist?

[Ssel]

If you plan for the future financially, it would go against this teaching.

If you WORRY about your future it goes against this teaching. And IF YOU FIRST SEEK THE KINDOM OF GOD, then those things will be given unto you.

 

I fail to see the great message ..

Yes, but failing to see often means that you didn't look carefully.

 

ALL life is dependent on other life in order to live...even if inadvertantly.

This is a part of that "great message" that you didn't see in the book, but discovered anyway. It is NOT against the book at all and is VERY Jesus of you.

[Ssel]

Yes, I am well aware that if I appear very sweet to you and others, carefully side stepping every word that might upset you, ensuring that you see nothing potentially threatening in anything I say, restricting myself from saying anything that might offend anyone anywhere in any manner, totally humble myself to any possiblility of emotional reactions, THEN...

 

This exaggeration is yet another demonstration of your lack of civil behaviour.

And this is what you consider civil behavior?...

..Your interpretation of John 8:31-32 is either deliberately obfuscatory or far more ignorant and facile a reading than one would expect from someone as arrogantly pedantic as yourself...

 

Sometimes nothing says it like profanity. You're full of shit, Ssel. For some reason, you think that the fact that you're full of SO MUCH of it somehow makes the shit have value. I'm not trying to grow a billion tonnes of jesus tomatoes, so no. Worthless shit.

You see things from your own perspective, you assume "demanding" when you are in fact the one insisting on a certain behavior despite my situation and your presumptions.

 

From what I see, the things I say are often not really read at all except from the most superficial aspect imaginable. That means that the reader is not even trying in the slightest. I am supposed to beg him to please read what I am saying more carefully despite all of the insulting?

 

Do you really think that such a person would ever really pay any real attention? All of the begging in the world is not going to change that mind. He doesn't want to hear what I say, I don't demand the he does. I don't have a problem.

 

I am civil to those who are civil to me, and if I don't know yet, I assume they are going to be civil until I find otherwise. But when reading text, it is very easy to assume emotion where it wasn't. When someone assumes such, I give a little so as to not presume too much. But I refuse to bow to over emotionalism simply because nothing will be gained in the long run except some over emotional associates.

 

Very often, people have assumed that I am angry or whatever when I wasn't even close. They read into the words what their hearts sees instead of what their mind sees. But their heart is not very accurate and they don't bother to simply ask "Ssel, are you angry?"

 

Nooo..they assume and take offense and react. This tells me that they are not "thinkers" really. Some one has to very gingerly teach them things. And frankly, that's fine, there is plenty of room in the world for everyone. But why should I pursue attempting to explain things to someone who is so easy to presume and not bother to try to verify their presumptions but attack instead?

 

I'm all in favor of civility. But that requires that the listener be trying also and even more so than the speaker.