Satan
The Bible says Satan is a fallen angel, so what does that mean--that he no longer lives in heaven--whereever that is. So if Satan doesn't live in heaven any longer, then where does he live--and does he age?
Is Satan just a conjured up mastermind idea who dwells in the minds of humanity--an excuse for humans to behave badly and blame it on Satan.
To consider humanity as being two wholes, 'good' being one whole, and 'evil' being one whole, implying humanity has two wholes being both good and evil. One cannot be half good or half evil, they can only be two wholes of both good and evil.
Satan
-
1456200423
- Posts: 338
- Joined: Tue Oct 06, 2009 1:07 am
- Location: Earth, Australia
Re: Satan
Makes more sense now.mensa-maniac wrote:Boogyman
The childrens storybook compendium says boogyman is a fallen angle, so what does that mean--that he no longer lives in disneyland--whereever that is. So if boogyman doesn't live in disneyland any longer, then where does he live--and does he age and go bold and gray!?
Is boogyman just a conjured up mastermind idea who dwells in the minds of humanity--an excuse for humans to behave imodestly and blame it on boogyman.
To consider humanity as being two wholes, 'imodest' being one whole, and 'imoplite' being one whole, implying humanity has two wholes being both brown and green. One cannot be half brown or half green, they can only be two wholes of both brown and green.
veritas odium parit
-
mensa-maniac
Re: Satan
Mensa says: I see where I erred in the first line, but I also said it correctly in the first line. I meant to say, 'implying humanity has two wholes being one good whole and one evil whole, not 'two wholes being both good and evil' but I'm not going to erase it, because I learn from it.mensa-maniac wrote:Satan
The Bible says Satan is a fallen angel, so what does that mean--that he no longer lives in heaven--whereever that is. So if Satan doesn't live in heaven any longer, then where does he live--and does he age?
Is Satan just a conjured up mastermind idea who dwells in the minds of humanity--an excuse for humans to behave badly and blame it on Satan.
To consider humanity as being two wholes, 'good' being one whole, and 'evil' being one whole, implying humanity has two wholes being both good and evil. One cannot be half good or half evil, they can only be two wholes of both good and evil.
-
mensa-maniac
Re: Satan
Hi BlairBlair wrote:Don't erase anything, we all "learn" from it...
ahem
Would you mind telling me how old you are?
Seriously, I'd like to know, I study people all the time. If I saw your face in person, I'd know immediately how old you are. I guess people's ages, usually, I'm 100% accurate!
Donna
Re: Satan
Donna, have a look at Isaiah 14:
"Morning star" is an illusive reference, since it refers at times to Venus, Lucifer and Jesus Christ.
Actually, the reference here is probably to Venus, but as an allegory for the state of the human soul engulfed in pride. Venus is the first planetary body to ascend the "heavens" in the eastern sunset, hence it is called the "morning star". The allegory suggests that the "Morning star" was trying to get ahead of the Sun and all the other celestial objects, attempting to raise itself up (with pride) to the "Most High." The Greeks refered to it as Hesperus.
Venus is the first planetary body to ascend the heights, but it is also, by virtue of planetary rotation, the first body to descend the depths. It is the first to rise and the first to fall. Hence, the allegory, that though the Morning Star tried to puff himself up, he was the first to be cast down. "Pride comes before a fall." (Proverbs 16:18)
The Greeks, called Hesperus; Phosperus during its descent, and used this as a way of supporting empiricism and the preservation of identity. "Hesperus is Phosphorous" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eosphorus# ... sphorus.22)
Hence modern terminology builds on this; Luciferase (oxidative enzymes used in bioluminescence), Phosphorous (chemical element that has the symbol P and atomic number 15)
The short of it is this: Satan is the Ego.
I would suggest that every emotion has an implicit empirical claim about reality. Most appear to be measurable according to some latitude. When people are proud we might say they are "puffed UP" when someone is sad we might say they are feeling "down". My suggestion is that this up and down valuation is a relative comparison from one feeling self to another. Being Up or Down, is a position relative to others, if I am up, others must be down, for me to be above them. It is a crude analogy, but a common one nonetheless.
Satan, for his part, is always interested in these relative valuations, whether he is up or down doesn't matter too much, though he'd prefer to be up. But after being cast down, he is just as happy to be getting the attention that way too.
12 How you have fallen from heaven,
morning star, son of the dawn!
You have been cast down to the earth,
you who once laid low the nations!
13 You said in your heart,
“I will ascend to the heavens;
I will raise my throne
above the stars of God;
I will sit enthroned on the mount of assembly,
on the utmost heights of Mount Zaphon.
14 I will ascend above the tops of the clouds;
I will make myself like the Most High.”
15 But you are brought down to the realm of the dead,
to the depths of the pit.
"Morning star" is an illusive reference, since it refers at times to Venus, Lucifer and Jesus Christ.
Actually, the reference here is probably to Venus, but as an allegory for the state of the human soul engulfed in pride. Venus is the first planetary body to ascend the "heavens" in the eastern sunset, hence it is called the "morning star". The allegory suggests that the "Morning star" was trying to get ahead of the Sun and all the other celestial objects, attempting to raise itself up (with pride) to the "Most High." The Greeks refered to it as Hesperus.
Venus is the first planetary body to ascend the heights, but it is also, by virtue of planetary rotation, the first body to descend the depths. It is the first to rise and the first to fall. Hence, the allegory, that though the Morning Star tried to puff himself up, he was the first to be cast down. "Pride comes before a fall." (Proverbs 16:18)
The Greeks, called Hesperus; Phosperus during its descent, and used this as a way of supporting empiricism and the preservation of identity. "Hesperus is Phosphorous" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eosphorus# ... sphorus.22)
Hence modern terminology builds on this; Luciferase (oxidative enzymes used in bioluminescence), Phosphorous (chemical element that has the symbol P and atomic number 15)
The short of it is this: Satan is the Ego.
I would suggest that every emotion has an implicit empirical claim about reality. Most appear to be measurable according to some latitude. When people are proud we might say they are "puffed UP" when someone is sad we might say they are feeling "down". My suggestion is that this up and down valuation is a relative comparison from one feeling self to another. Being Up or Down, is a position relative to others, if I am up, others must be down, for me to be above them. It is a crude analogy, but a common one nonetheless.
Satan, for his part, is always interested in these relative valuations, whether he is up or down doesn't matter too much, though he'd prefer to be up. But after being cast down, he is just as happy to be getting the attention that way too.
-
mensa-maniac
Re: Satan
Animus wrote:Donna, have a look at Isaiah 14:
12 How you have fallen from heaven,
morning star, son of the dawn!
You have been cast down to the earth,
you who once laid low the nations!
13 You said in your heart,
“I will ascend to the heavens;
I will raise my throne
above the stars of God;
I will sit enthroned on the mount of assembly,
on the utmost heights of Mount Zaphon.
14 I will ascend above the tops of the clouds;
I will make myself like the Most High.”
15 But you are brought down to the realm of the dead,
to the depths of the pit.
"Morning star" is an illusive reference, since it refers at times to Venus, Lucifer and Jesus Christ.
Actually, the reference here is probably to Venus, but as an allegory for the state of the human soul engulfed in pride. Venus is the first planetary body to ascend the "heavens" in the eastern sunset, hence it is called the "morning star". The allegory suggests that the "Morning star" was trying to get ahead of the Sun and all the other celestial objects, attempting to raise itself up (with pride) to the "Most High." The Greeks refered to it as Hesperus.
Venus is the first planetary body to ascend the heights, but it is also, by virtue of planetary rotation, the first body to descend the depths. It is the first to rise and the first to fall. Hence, the allegory, that though the Morning Star tried to puff himself up, he was the first to be cast down. "Pride comes before a fall." (Proverbs 16:18)
The Greeks, called Hesperus; Phosperus during its descent, and used this as a way of supporting empiricism and the preservation of identity. "Hesperus is Phosphorous" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eosphorus# ... sphorus.22)
Hence modern terminology builds on this; Luciferase (oxidative enzymes used in bioluminescence), Phosphorous (chemical element that has the symbol P and atomic number 15)
The short of it is this: Satan is the Ego.
I would suggest that every emotion has an implicit empirical claim about reality. Most appear to be measurable according to some latitude. When people are proud we might say they are "puffed UP" when someone is sad we might say they are feeling "down". My suggestion is that this up and down valuation is a relative comparison from one feeling self to another. Being Up or Down, is a position relative to others, if I am up, others must be down, for me to be above them. It is a crude analogy, but a common one nonetheless.
Satan, for his part, is always interested in these relative valuations, whether he is up or down doesn't matter too much, though he'd prefer to be up. But after being cast down, he is just as happy to be getting the attention that way too.
Mensa says: I believe in the Bible out of necessity, faith, wisdom, love, and reason, therefore, I should willingly accept every word without question, however, I am only human, "God's ways are not our ways" which makes it acceptable to question the Bible, because humanity is of inquisitive and inquiring minds.
As the Bible says, Satan tried to exalt himself over God almighty.
I won't put myself in the position of falling. May my Lord and Heavenly Father always keep me focused and on the right track. In Jesus name Amen.
-
mensa-maniac
Re: Satan
Mensa says: I guess that means I don't get an answer to my question, that's ok, because looking at this from a psycological point of view, you may have thought that I was intimidating, patronizing, or condescending towards you, in which it was not my intention to have you abuse me by calling me a stupid fuck. I could certainly put you in your place if I were to give you a better response, but, I'll refrain from abusing myself through mental lowering.Blair wrote:Everyone does this, you stupid fuck.mensa-maniac wrote: I study people all the time.
So for snuk snake grow up!
Re: Satan
Anyway, I'm foregoing the long explanation that tries tactfully to illustrate my points and jumping right to stating things the way I see them.
"God" represents different things at different times, but has come largely to mean "Unity".
"Satan" represents the deluded sense of subsistent individuality
"Emotions" are the artefacts of our delusional self-concept
For example; pride is deluded because it implies a heightened self-hood within the one being proud; which is patently false if the individual fundamentally doesn't exist. At any rate, how could one be proud for what they did not accomplish? The implication is that no One accomplishes anything except God. So pride, is false.
Most human emotions wind up being false when considering our equality in God. When considering that none of us does anything of our own power. This is a difficult percept to accept, as it debases 99% of what happens in our mental lives and usurps our very sense of self-hood.
Hence, it remains veiled.
My original post went through the development of Christianity from the early days of Yahweh the god of war, to those prophets (Amos and Isaiah) who portrayed God more like above. It examined the function or Logical relationships between the given characters and deduced the truths of them, but that was all blown away by pressing a key combo.
"God" represents different things at different times, but has come largely to mean "Unity".
"Satan" represents the deluded sense of subsistent individuality
"Emotions" are the artefacts of our delusional self-concept
For example; pride is deluded because it implies a heightened self-hood within the one being proud; which is patently false if the individual fundamentally doesn't exist. At any rate, how could one be proud for what they did not accomplish? The implication is that no One accomplishes anything except God. So pride, is false.
Most human emotions wind up being false when considering our equality in God. When considering that none of us does anything of our own power. This is a difficult percept to accept, as it debases 99% of what happens in our mental lives and usurps our very sense of self-hood.
Hence, it remains veiled.
My original post went through the development of Christianity from the early days of Yahweh the god of war, to those prophets (Amos and Isaiah) who portrayed God more like above. It examined the function or Logical relationships between the given characters and deduced the truths of them, but that was all blown away by pressing a key combo.
Re: Satan
I'll add here some depth.
It is not emotions per se which are false. Unconditional Love is correct. But conditioned love is false. The emotions are important however because they veil the delusion. When a person feels proud, any attempt to lower them will be merely seen as an attack. A proud one cannot be reasoned with as such, they are consumed by pride. That is the definitive quality of emotions, they are consumptive, the emotional one cannot be reasoned with. Emotions consume the individual in them and blind them to anything else. But they only originate as such when an individual identifies strongly with the other end of those emotions, the ego.
This may be a bit personal, but it is a recent example on my mind, something I've been contemplating a lot.
I dropped my girlfriend at home tonight and asked her a simple question "Have you managed to call Frank yet?" and her response was a snappy "When?", "When would I have called him?" and I reacted saying "Fuck! I don't know! That's why I am asking you, why do you make it out like I'm some kind of idiot for asking?", "Because I told you last night that I hadn't been able to and that I would call him tonight." "Well, I'm sorry, I didn't remember you saying that, but anyway, humans are prone to forgetfulness, why do you treat me like I'm subhuman?" At this point she shut-up completely and exited the vehicle.
To my mind, I'm not trying to ask stupid questions, nor am I deliberately ignoring what she said the night before. It was just a very common human short-coming. None of us have perfect memories, though we might be deluded into thinking that we do. For one, it is possible for someone to maintain they are correct even in the face of being wrong, this happens all the time, to save ones own ego. But, even what my girlfriend said to me there, the snappy-ness with which she said it, seems to indicate I must be some kind of deliberate asshole or moron to warrant such a response. And her reasons for reacting as such, is because she felt the need to protect her own ego from my potential criticism, which to be perfectly honest, was simply a question I asked out of ignorance. She is primed to receive criticism and defend herself against it, so even a simple question like that can turn into a falling out.
Similarly, I had a conversation with my father a few weeks ago, and I was talking about what love is. He seemed to think love was along the lines of congeniality, but didn't know what congeniality means. I suggested that the Love of the bible, called "brotherly love" was essential adverse, antagonistic love, much like brothers are antagonistic to each other. And that it is not called "sisterly love". After discussing this for some time, out of nowhere he asked "So what? You think you are the second coming of Christ or something?" This response suggested to me that he was offended by what I had revealed to him and wanted to slot me in with the false prophets, my response was "What if I am? Is that something you could even accept?" because I understood the implication that were I to believe that it would be unacceptable irrespective of its potential truth. Later on in the conversation, still discussing the nature of Love, I referred to his own habits of despising, hating and ridiculing people whom he doesn't share a personal egotistical connection with and he cut me off "You attacking me now? Are you going to attack me?"
Because both of them identify with this ego, it is impossible to have a conversation of any such depth. They are far too interested in preserving a positive sense of self-hood, or on occasion they will switch over to an incredibly low pitiful conception of self which begs others to pay attention to them.
It is not emotions per se which are false. Unconditional Love is correct. But conditioned love is false. The emotions are important however because they veil the delusion. When a person feels proud, any attempt to lower them will be merely seen as an attack. A proud one cannot be reasoned with as such, they are consumed by pride. That is the definitive quality of emotions, they are consumptive, the emotional one cannot be reasoned with. Emotions consume the individual in them and blind them to anything else. But they only originate as such when an individual identifies strongly with the other end of those emotions, the ego.
This may be a bit personal, but it is a recent example on my mind, something I've been contemplating a lot.
I dropped my girlfriend at home tonight and asked her a simple question "Have you managed to call Frank yet?" and her response was a snappy "When?", "When would I have called him?" and I reacted saying "Fuck! I don't know! That's why I am asking you, why do you make it out like I'm some kind of idiot for asking?", "Because I told you last night that I hadn't been able to and that I would call him tonight." "Well, I'm sorry, I didn't remember you saying that, but anyway, humans are prone to forgetfulness, why do you treat me like I'm subhuman?" At this point she shut-up completely and exited the vehicle.
To my mind, I'm not trying to ask stupid questions, nor am I deliberately ignoring what she said the night before. It was just a very common human short-coming. None of us have perfect memories, though we might be deluded into thinking that we do. For one, it is possible for someone to maintain they are correct even in the face of being wrong, this happens all the time, to save ones own ego. But, even what my girlfriend said to me there, the snappy-ness with which she said it, seems to indicate I must be some kind of deliberate asshole or moron to warrant such a response. And her reasons for reacting as such, is because she felt the need to protect her own ego from my potential criticism, which to be perfectly honest, was simply a question I asked out of ignorance. She is primed to receive criticism and defend herself against it, so even a simple question like that can turn into a falling out.
Similarly, I had a conversation with my father a few weeks ago, and I was talking about what love is. He seemed to think love was along the lines of congeniality, but didn't know what congeniality means. I suggested that the Love of the bible, called "brotherly love" was essential adverse, antagonistic love, much like brothers are antagonistic to each other. And that it is not called "sisterly love". After discussing this for some time, out of nowhere he asked "So what? You think you are the second coming of Christ or something?" This response suggested to me that he was offended by what I had revealed to him and wanted to slot me in with the false prophets, my response was "What if I am? Is that something you could even accept?" because I understood the implication that were I to believe that it would be unacceptable irrespective of its potential truth. Later on in the conversation, still discussing the nature of Love, I referred to his own habits of despising, hating and ridiculing people whom he doesn't share a personal egotistical connection with and he cut me off "You attacking me now? Are you going to attack me?"
Because both of them identify with this ego, it is impossible to have a conversation of any such depth. They are far too interested in preserving a positive sense of self-hood, or on occasion they will switch over to an incredibly low pitiful conception of self which begs others to pay attention to them.
Re: Satan
So, this is the kind of thing that could originate from pride or similar emotions. I'm pretty good at guessing ages too, that is one thing, but to put myself out there as being better than average, and even 100% accurate, sounds quite delusional and boastful. You probably are accurate, that is not the point, the point is that you appear to be revelling in your own selfhood, your own individual accomplishments, and not offering them up to God, having recognized that you aren't independent. These kinds of gloats and puffing up of oneself are generally the result of the delusional/Satanic self-concept.mensa-maniac wrote:Hi BlairBlair wrote:Don't erase anything, we all "learn" from it...
ahem
Would you mind telling me how old you are?
Seriously, I'd like to know, I study people all the time. If I saw your face in person, I'd know immediately how old you are. I guess people's ages, usually, I'm 100% accurate!
Donna
Re: Satan
So, like, here is something of a scenario:
Person A: Hey, how you doing? I saw you waiting at the bus stop yesterday, I would have stopped to pick you up if I could have. I saw you with an Android phone? Why didn't you decide to get the iPhone?
Person B: Look, I'm just doing the best I can with the information I have available to me. I didn't get the iPhone because I couldn't get a good deal on it.
Person A: Fair enough. I heard there was a sale on iPhones at the Radio Shack near your place.
Person B: Yea, well, I didn't have time to look around, if you knew about the sale you should have told me.
Person A: I didn't know you were looking for a new phone.
Person B: Apparently, you don't know very much about me.
This conversation is meant to illustrate the egotistical strivings of Person B. The following is a hypothetical alternative:
Person A: Hey, how you doing? I saw you waiting at the bus stop yesterday, I would have stopped to pick you up if I could have. I saw you with an Android phone? Why didn't you decide to get the iPhone?
Person B: It would have been nice if you could have picked me up, we could have gone for coffee or something and talked about phone technology. I got the Android because it was on sale and the iPhone wasn't.
Person A: Fair enough. I heard there was a sale on iPhones at the Radio Shack near your place.
Person B: Really? That's too bad, I didn't have time to look around, I just went to the FutureShop I usually go to for electronics.
Person A: Yea, its too bad. If I had known you were in the market for a new phone I would have told you.
Person B: That's okay, such is life.
Person A: Hey, how you doing? I saw you waiting at the bus stop yesterday, I would have stopped to pick you up if I could have. I saw you with an Android phone? Why didn't you decide to get the iPhone?
Person B: Look, I'm just doing the best I can with the information I have available to me. I didn't get the iPhone because I couldn't get a good deal on it.
Person A: Fair enough. I heard there was a sale on iPhones at the Radio Shack near your place.
Person B: Yea, well, I didn't have time to look around, if you knew about the sale you should have told me.
Person A: I didn't know you were looking for a new phone.
Person B: Apparently, you don't know very much about me.
This conversation is meant to illustrate the egotistical strivings of Person B. The following is a hypothetical alternative:
Person A: Hey, how you doing? I saw you waiting at the bus stop yesterday, I would have stopped to pick you up if I could have. I saw you with an Android phone? Why didn't you decide to get the iPhone?
Person B: It would have been nice if you could have picked me up, we could have gone for coffee or something and talked about phone technology. I got the Android because it was on sale and the iPhone wasn't.
Person A: Fair enough. I heard there was a sale on iPhones at the Radio Shack near your place.
Person B: Really? That's too bad, I didn't have time to look around, I just went to the FutureShop I usually go to for electronics.
Person A: Yea, its too bad. If I had known you were in the market for a new phone I would have told you.
Person B: That's okay, such is life.
-
mensa-maniac
Re: Satan
Mensa says: This expression is well spoken, that's right on! The Bible speaks somewhere and I can find it, about a friend being closer than a brother. Most families fight and bicker amongst each other, accusing one another of ridiculous things, or some kind of foolishness. So one can find solace in a friend over a brother. That's what friends are for! Brothers are for listening to each others boasts and brags.Animus wrote:I'll add here some depth.
It is not emotions per se which are false. Unconditional Love is correct. But conditioned love is false. The emotions are important however because they veil the delusion. When a person feels proud, any attempt to lower them will be merely seen as an attack. A proud one cannot be reasoned with as such, they are consumed by pride. That is the definitive quality of emotions, they are consumptive, the emotional one cannot be reasoned with. Emotions consume the individual in them and blind them to anything else. But they only originate as such when an individual identifies strongly with the other end of those emotions, the ego.
This may be a bit personal, but it is a recent example on my mind, something I've been contemplating a lot.
I dropped my girlfriend at home tonight and asked her a simple question "Have you managed to call Frank yet?" and her response was a snappy "When?", "When would I have called him?" and I reacted saying "Fuck! I don't know! That's why I am asking you, why do you make it out like I'm some kind of idiot for asking?", "Because I told you last night that I hadn't been able to and that I would call him tonight." "Well, I'm sorry, I didn't remember you saying that, but anyway, humans are prone to forgetfulness, why do you treat me like I'm subhuman?" At this point she shut-up completely and exited the vehicle.
To my mind, I'm not trying to ask stupid questions, nor am I deliberately ignoring what she said the night before. It was just a very common human short-coming. None of us have perfect memories, though we might be deluded into thinking that we do. For one, it is possible for someone to maintain they are correct even in the face of being wrong, this happens all the time, to save ones own ego. But, even what my girlfriend said to me there, the snappy-ness with which she said it, seems to indicate I must be some kind of deliberate asshole or moron to warrant such a response. And her reasons for reacting as such, is because she felt the need to protect her own ego from my potential criticism, which to be perfectly honest, was simply a question I asked out of ignorance. She is primed to receive criticism and defend herself against it, so even a simple question like that can turn into a falling out.
Similarly, I had a conversation with my father a few weeks ago, and I was talking about what love is. He seemed to think love was along the lines of congeniality, but didn't know what congeniality means. I suggested that the Love of the bible, called "brotherly love" was essential adverse, antagonistic love, much like brothers are antagonistic to each other. And that it is not called "sisterly love". After discussing this for some time, out of nowhere he asked "So what? You think you are the second coming of Christ or something?" This response suggested to me that he was offended by what I had revealed to him and wanted to slot me in with the false prophets, my response was "What if I am? Is that something you could even accept?" because I understood the implication that were I to believe that it would be unacceptable irrespective of its potential truth. Later on in the conversation, still discussing the nature of Love, I referred to his own habits of despising, hating and ridiculing people whom he doesn't share a personal egotistical connection with and he cut me off "You attacking me now? Are you going to attack me?"
Because both of them identify with this ego, it is impossible to have a conversation of any such depth. They are far too interested in preserving a positive sense of self-hood, or on occasion they will switch over to an incredibly low pitiful conception of self which begs others to pay attention to them.
-
mensa-maniac
Re: Satan
Mensa says: This expression is well spoken, that's right on! The Bible speaks somewhere and I can find it, about a friend being closer than a brother. Most families fight and bicker amongst each other, accusing one another of ridiculous things, or some kind of foolishness. So one can find solace in a friend over a brother. That's what friends are for! Brothers are for listening to each others boasts and brags.Animus wrote:I'll add here some depth.
It is not emotions per se which are false. Unconditional Love is correct. But conditioned love is false. The emotions are important however because they veil the delusion. When a person feels proud, any attempt to lower them will be merely seen as an attack. A proud one cannot be reasoned with as such, they are consumed by pride. That is the definitive quality of emotions, they are consumptive, the emotional one cannot be reasoned with. Emotions consume the individual in them and blind them to anything else. But they only originate as such when an individual identifies strongly with the other end of those emotions, the ego.
This may be a bit personal, but it is a recent example on my mind, something I've been contemplating a lot.
I dropped my girlfriend at home tonight and asked her a simple question "Have you managed to call Frank yet?" and her response was a snappy "When?", "When would I have called him?" and I reacted saying "Fuck! I don't know! That's why I am asking you, why do you make it out like I'm some kind of idiot for asking?", "Because I told you last night that I hadn't been able to and that I would call him tonight." "Well, I'm sorry, I didn't remember you saying that, but anyway, humans are prone to forgetfulness, why do you treat me like I'm subhuman?" At this point she shut-up completely and exited the vehicle.
To my mind, I'm not trying to ask stupid questions, nor am I deliberately ignoring what she said the night before. It was just a very common human short-coming. None of us have perfect memories, though we might be deluded into thinking that we do. For one, it is possible for someone to maintain they are correct even in the face of being wrong, this happens all the time, to save ones own ego. But, even what my girlfriend said to me there, the snappy-ness with which she said it, seems to indicate I must be some kind of deliberate asshole or moron to warrant such a response. And her reasons for reacting as such, is because she felt the need to protect her own ego from my potential criticism, which to be perfectly honest, was simply a question I asked out of ignorance. She is primed to receive criticism and defend herself against it, so even a simple question like that can turn into a falling out.
Similarly, I had a conversation with my father a few weeks ago, and I was talking about what love is. He seemed to think love was along the lines of congeniality, but didn't know what congeniality means. I suggested that the Love of the bible, called "brotherly love" was essential adverse, antagonistic love, much like brothers are antagonistic to each other. And that it is not called "sisterly love". After discussing this for some time, out of nowhere he asked "So what? You think you are the second coming of Christ or something?" This response suggested to me that he was offended by what I had revealed to him and wanted to slot me in with the false prophets, my response was "What if I am? Is that something you could even accept?" because I understood the implication that were I to believe that it would be unacceptable irrespective of its potential truth. Later on in the conversation, still discussing the nature of Love, I referred to his own habits of despising, hating and ridiculing people whom he doesn't share a personal egotistical connection with and he cut me off "You attacking me now? Are you going to attack me?"
Because both of them identify with this ego, it is impossible to have a conversation of any such depth. They are far too interested in preserving a positive sense of self-hood, or on occasion they will switch over to an incredibly low pitiful conception of self which begs others to pay attention to them.
Mensa says: When your girlfriend becomes defensive and acts snarly towards you again, tell her you detect a snarly attitude and ask her why is she being snarly, then shut-up and let her talk. She will take this as an indication that you heard her, that you recognized her personal side, and she will feel compelled to talk about herself, in which it is your moral duty to listen to her if you love her.
You have to let women talk, but it's important you talk back when the opportunity presents itself. It's important that you talk intelligently to an intelligent woman. You must always keep a woman in her place, keeping her in her place is speaking honestly with them, let them know how intelligent you are, not how stupid you can be. According to the Bible, man is head of the household, so therefore if this is truth, then it would also be truth, that he would have to be smarter than woman if God gave him the position of being head of the household. Otherwise, it wouldn't make sense that God would make someone inferior to rule the household.
Don't be afraid to show her the real man in you, the one who doesn't fear opposing her, but not combatively. A couple is give and take, so don't compromise yourself, or take a back seat to anyone unless she has a better idea than you do.
Re: Satan
Women are normally extremely egotistical even more so than men. My girlfriend is not like that, she doesn't doll herself up (except, for me). She doesn't revel too long in praise except when she is having a particularly bad run. She is not quite as afflicted as the average woman. She mostly concentrates on what needs to be done. But she feels an intense anxiety about getting things done, a source of constant conflict. She might maintain that my procrastination is the cause of her anxiety, but its not so much procrastination as it is sleep-wake routine. I don't normally get up until the afternoon, because I work evening shifts. It puts a time constraint on things. I also don't physically function well in the morning. I'm prone to stumbling and falling and generally feeling like death from years of nicotine addiction. I have poor circulation and currently suffer from a gallbladder full of stones which causes me to gag, vomit, choke and cough while suppressing bile and acid being ejected out of my gallbladder and stomach. I have some medication that makes it easier. Nevertheless, the fact is, its not so much procrastination, and she knows that, but she has a tendency to make that assertion when she is upset. I only maintain that at the center of all that anxiety is the sense of self-hood which desires some kind of intangible security. I can overcome myself and strain myself to an early death to avoid her occasionally thinking I'm procrastinating. But I'd rather she was able to accept life without having these anxieties. I don't take the approach that dances around the issue, but try to speak directly to it and wind up inflaming her. The more I try to make my case, the worse she gets. So it has become a matter of dancing around it for God-knows how long or spontaneously leaving her. Maybe I have too much sympathy for her, or guilt for introducing her to such depth of criticism. Now she is distraught in everything she does, she has lost faith in her prior delusions and is now struggling to maintain any kind of contentedness with life. However, this is only a stark generalization of an ongoing cycle. She had highs and lows before but now she has lower lows and lower highs. Something happened to her which causes her to lose it whenever I say anything. Even if I'm making dinner, it will be, "Don't take the vegetables out of the freezer yet, they can wait a few minutes while everything else cooks." with a kind of snarly attitude. She can't just let me do it or suggest kindly that I leave the vegetables in the freezer. It comes across as if I've committed a gross injustice upon her soul because I took the veggies out too early and they might thaw out a bit before being put back in. Yet, I've had countless discussions with her about trusting me and believing in me, so as not to make such assumptions and to treat me with respect. Don't assume I'm deliberately fucking up, I'm human, I make mistakes and I am ignorant of a lot of things. When she snaps at me as if I was a deliberate fool it implies some element of freedom which I do not believe exists. It is a delusion as far as I'm concerned. One that constantly irritates me. But here is the catch, if I say any of this to her, and she understands it, she immediately goes into self-pity "I'm the problem" she says. "I'll just go kill myself then." She can't break out of it, at least not with me pointing it out. She can only kill herself. I'm afraid at this point leaving her might bring about similar states of mind. She is so hopelessly dependent on me now because I have debased her entire world-view (which she explicitly denies happening) and at the same time finds no security in me, because I offer none, explaining to her that it is not in my power to offer her security. Overtly, what I've always wanted, was for her to realize that what is, is, and all this other stuff is nonsense. There is no need for security, because there is nothing to secure. She read Alan Watts "Wisdom of insecurity" and understands a lot of good philosophy, but she constantly fails and then reflects on the failure with self-hate and embarrassment. This is the nature of the beast, her self-hate and embarrassment are just two more facets of the same disease. They seal the deal, and take away the persons life, or cast them into a hellish despair with no foreseeable end or beginning(Eternal despair/Hell). That is a quality of despair, it grips the person so that the past and future are obscured. "There is no hope, nor has there ever been." "My whole life sucks". "Nothing has ever gone well for me." "What is the point in living?" Pride, envy, and so forth are like gateways leading into this ultimate despair that ruins many lives. The beast is not something which is overcome by typical human friendships. They are usually rife with satanic influence.
With any tendency of the mind, the more it happens, the more it happens. If there is nothing inhibiting the build-up and expression of prideful behaviour and sentiment, and especially if they prove to be adaptive in some way, they will increase in perpetuity, most likely until the whole house of cards finally crumbles and the individual is cast down into despair. Thus "venting" is a bad habit which will likely lead to the need for further venting. The key is to just stop. Disconnect. Let it go. Move on. Un-attach. Right down to the very core. The whole personality. I was deluded in thinking it was easily passed onto other people. Even the notion is difficult to explain. I'm not perfect, I simply know the path and try to walk it. And all I've tried to do is show her the path, so that neither of us are a victim of ignorance. But knowing the path turns out to be a major burden itself. At least, until it pays out, if it does.
Early on my girlfriend said to me "I'm not going to praise you at all because of what you've said to me." and I replied "Fair enough, that should be okay." but after a while, I started to realize that not getting any feedback on performance made it difficult to gauge how I was doing on tasks that she was clearly superior at. So I started asking for her to give me some kind of feedback in terms of performance level. I don't need a "Wow! That was great!" with a big smile, but I could use "Yea, that's basically how I do it." to indicate to me that I've learned what I can from her and am operating at the same level of efficiency. She nevertheless sees that as a plea for praise. So now she either says nothing or puts on a fake smile.
I've realized that she focuses a lot on whatever egotistical motives may exist in me. Often that is not the case, and it only runs around in destructive circles as I try to tell her she is wrong. If I give her time to speak, she sits and thinks for 15 minutes before saying anything. If I start to speak in that time, its often perceived as cutting her off. Then when she speaks, the first thing she says generally contains an implicit claim about my motives which I cannot contest without cutting her off. Her time to speak is often a series of such statements which doesn't leave much room for my actual motives. Even though she has consumed a lot of philosophy and spent a lot of time in self-reflection, she hasn't seemed to get the critical thing. She is no better than me, and shouldn't be assuming that I am some kind of deliberate moron. We have moronic moments and some of us are full-time morons, but nobody deliberately goes out of their way to cause unnecessary suffering to the woman they supposedly love. Maybe in some really sick minds, but nothing I do could indicate such a warped character. On the last weekend she had only one day off, and it was the day we normally do our chores. Recognizing that she was short on relaxation time I agreed to do all the chores myself. Every night before I go to bed I make sure she has coffee pre-brewed for the morning. Everything I do suggests I'm a fallible human being who loves her, but she can never see that. All my faults wind her up and agitate her and get her snarly with me. Satan.
But of course, she is innocent. I am far smarter, and I know enough to figure all this out. That itself secures the beastly influence in its place. That is the basis of Biblical free-will. The only person who can subdue the beast, is the one whose mind is afflicted. The more I try to push my point of view on her, the more she hates herself. Of course, when I use allegory like "Satan" it tends to have a much harder impact, but that's the point itself. The truth hurts. We are all Satan in some respect until we've become completely liberated from sin, which is unlikely for anyone. At this point, she tends to think I'm playing the superiority card, because I'm wiser to this game than she is. She may glimpse what its all really about, but she gets stuck on feeling inferior to me. She doesn't want to accept a world-view where I am so much wiser. But she enjoys imparting her wisdom on me.
Anyway, I love Satan and my girlfriend. For all the pain it causes me, there is a reason for it. Keeping in mind that ultimately they are God whom I love more than anything.
With any tendency of the mind, the more it happens, the more it happens. If there is nothing inhibiting the build-up and expression of prideful behaviour and sentiment, and especially if they prove to be adaptive in some way, they will increase in perpetuity, most likely until the whole house of cards finally crumbles and the individual is cast down into despair. Thus "venting" is a bad habit which will likely lead to the need for further venting. The key is to just stop. Disconnect. Let it go. Move on. Un-attach. Right down to the very core. The whole personality. I was deluded in thinking it was easily passed onto other people. Even the notion is difficult to explain. I'm not perfect, I simply know the path and try to walk it. And all I've tried to do is show her the path, so that neither of us are a victim of ignorance. But knowing the path turns out to be a major burden itself. At least, until it pays out, if it does.
Early on my girlfriend said to me "I'm not going to praise you at all because of what you've said to me." and I replied "Fair enough, that should be okay." but after a while, I started to realize that not getting any feedback on performance made it difficult to gauge how I was doing on tasks that she was clearly superior at. So I started asking for her to give me some kind of feedback in terms of performance level. I don't need a "Wow! That was great!" with a big smile, but I could use "Yea, that's basically how I do it." to indicate to me that I've learned what I can from her and am operating at the same level of efficiency. She nevertheless sees that as a plea for praise. So now she either says nothing or puts on a fake smile.
I've realized that she focuses a lot on whatever egotistical motives may exist in me. Often that is not the case, and it only runs around in destructive circles as I try to tell her she is wrong. If I give her time to speak, she sits and thinks for 15 minutes before saying anything. If I start to speak in that time, its often perceived as cutting her off. Then when she speaks, the first thing she says generally contains an implicit claim about my motives which I cannot contest without cutting her off. Her time to speak is often a series of such statements which doesn't leave much room for my actual motives. Even though she has consumed a lot of philosophy and spent a lot of time in self-reflection, she hasn't seemed to get the critical thing. She is no better than me, and shouldn't be assuming that I am some kind of deliberate moron. We have moronic moments and some of us are full-time morons, but nobody deliberately goes out of their way to cause unnecessary suffering to the woman they supposedly love. Maybe in some really sick minds, but nothing I do could indicate such a warped character. On the last weekend she had only one day off, and it was the day we normally do our chores. Recognizing that she was short on relaxation time I agreed to do all the chores myself. Every night before I go to bed I make sure she has coffee pre-brewed for the morning. Everything I do suggests I'm a fallible human being who loves her, but she can never see that. All my faults wind her up and agitate her and get her snarly with me. Satan.
But of course, she is innocent. I am far smarter, and I know enough to figure all this out. That itself secures the beastly influence in its place. That is the basis of Biblical free-will. The only person who can subdue the beast, is the one whose mind is afflicted. The more I try to push my point of view on her, the more she hates herself. Of course, when I use allegory like "Satan" it tends to have a much harder impact, but that's the point itself. The truth hurts. We are all Satan in some respect until we've become completely liberated from sin, which is unlikely for anyone. At this point, she tends to think I'm playing the superiority card, because I'm wiser to this game than she is. She may glimpse what its all really about, but she gets stuck on feeling inferior to me. She doesn't want to accept a world-view where I am so much wiser. But she enjoys imparting her wisdom on me.
Anyway, I love Satan and my girlfriend. For all the pain it causes me, there is a reason for it. Keeping in mind that ultimately they are God whom I love more than anything.
Re: Satan
Here is another similar, yet artistic, representation:
(M. Jagger/K. Richards)
Please allow me to introduce myself
I'm a man of wealth and taste
I've been around for a long, long year
Stole many a man's soul and faith
And I was 'round when Jesus Christ
Had his moment of doubt and pain
Made damn sure that Pilate
Washed his hands and sealed his fate
Pleased to meet you
Hope you guess my name
But what's puzzling you
Is the nature of my game
I stuck around St. Petersburg
When I saw it was a time for a change
Killed the Czar and his ministers
Anastasia screamed in vain
I rode a tank
Held a general's rank
When the Blitzkrieg raged
And the bodies stank
Pleased to meet you
Hope you guess my name, oh yeah
Ah, what's puzzling you
Is the nature of my game, oh yeah
I watched with glee
While your kings and queens
Fought for ten decades
For the gods they made
I shouted out,
"Who killed the Kennedys?"
When after all
It was you and me
Let me please introduce myself
I'm a man of wealth and taste
And I laid traps for troubadours
Who get killed before they reached Bombay
Pleased to meet you
Hope you guessed my name, oh yeah
But what's puzzling you
Is the nature of my game, oh yeah, get down, baby
Pleased to meet you
Hope you guessed my name, oh yeah
But what's confusing you
Is just the nature of my game
Just as every cop is a criminal
And all the sinners saints
As heads is tails
Just call me Lucifer
'Cause I'm in need of some restraint
So if you meet me
Have some courtesy
Have some sympathy, have some taste
Use all your well-learned politesse
Or I'll lay your soul to waste, mmm yeah
Pleased to meet you
Hope you guessed my name, mmm yeah
But what's puzzling you
Is the nature of my game, mmm mean it, get down
Tell me baby, what's my name
Tell me honey, can ya guess my name
Tell me baby, what's my name
I tell you one time, you're to blame
What's my name
Tell me, baby, what's my name
Tell me, sweetie, what's my name
(M. Jagger/K. Richards)
Please allow me to introduce myself
I'm a man of wealth and taste
I've been around for a long, long year
Stole many a man's soul and faith
And I was 'round when Jesus Christ
Had his moment of doubt and pain
Made damn sure that Pilate
Washed his hands and sealed his fate
Pleased to meet you
Hope you guess my name
But what's puzzling you
Is the nature of my game
I stuck around St. Petersburg
When I saw it was a time for a change
Killed the Czar and his ministers
Anastasia screamed in vain
I rode a tank
Held a general's rank
When the Blitzkrieg raged
And the bodies stank
Pleased to meet you
Hope you guess my name, oh yeah
Ah, what's puzzling you
Is the nature of my game, oh yeah
I watched with glee
While your kings and queens
Fought for ten decades
For the gods they made
I shouted out,
"Who killed the Kennedys?"
When after all
It was you and me
Let me please introduce myself
I'm a man of wealth and taste
And I laid traps for troubadours
Who get killed before they reached Bombay
Pleased to meet you
Hope you guessed my name, oh yeah
But what's puzzling you
Is the nature of my game, oh yeah, get down, baby
Pleased to meet you
Hope you guessed my name, oh yeah
But what's confusing you
Is just the nature of my game
Just as every cop is a criminal
And all the sinners saints
As heads is tails
Just call me Lucifer
'Cause I'm in need of some restraint
So if you meet me
Have some courtesy
Have some sympathy, have some taste
Use all your well-learned politesse
Or I'll lay your soul to waste, mmm yeah
Pleased to meet you
Hope you guessed my name, mmm yeah
But what's puzzling you
Is the nature of my game, mmm mean it, get down
Tell me baby, what's my name
Tell me honey, can ya guess my name
Tell me baby, what's my name
I tell you one time, you're to blame
What's my name
Tell me, baby, what's my name
Tell me, sweetie, what's my name
Re: Satan
And of course, the most telling Biblical reference:
Matthew 16
21From that time forth began Jesus to shew unto his disciples, how that he must go unto Jerusalem, and suffer many things of the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and be raised again the third day.
22Then Peter took him, and began to rebuke him, saying, Be it far from thee, Lord: this shall not be unto thee.
23But he turned, and said unto Peter, Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offence unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men.
24Then said Jesus unto his disciples, If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me.
25For whosoever will save his life shall lose it: and whosoever will lose his life for my sake shall find it.
If Bob is at work and notices that his employer is committing a grave offense against his community. Bob might consider all the personal suffering he would have to go through to serve justice, and decide that the burden is far too heavy. If Bob was seriously considering it, he might have a friend try to convince him otherwise out of sympathy. It is rarely going to work in your favor Bob. Even if you do prove it you are out of a job. If you can't prove it, or worse if you are wrong, you are still out of a job. And you have nothing to gain from it. This must have been Peter's sentiment. I have fought my employer on payroll issues and even suggested to them that resolution might come from an external agency like the ministry of transportation. This kind of talk certainly got their guard up. I had a co-worker urging me to let it go, take the hit and move on. But I maintained that an injustice is an injustice and having identified it I'm obliged to see through its resolution. Eventually the mistake was identified and I was thanked for raising the issue, it happened to be a payroll glitch affecting the entire company. So everyone was happy that it was discovered. But initially, they became very defensive and refused to discuss it with me after I suggested outside mediation. That was also the first time they took a critical look at what I was saying to them. And when they identified the glitch.
In effect, Jesus knows what the resolution plan is, he knows what needs to be done to bring about the justice he has in sight. Peter's concern is egotistical, based on his desire to preserve Jesus' life, much like my co-worker was interested in preserving my career. We have worked together for 5 years and established quite the community between us. He didn't want to see me leave as a result of some payroll glitch. My sights were set entirely on resolving the glitch and I didn't care what happened to me. So, Jesus was set entirely on being crucified. I'm not saying I'm like Jesus, but perhaps in this one example I exhibited Christ-like behaviour.
Matthew 16
21From that time forth began Jesus to shew unto his disciples, how that he must go unto Jerusalem, and suffer many things of the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and be raised again the third day.
22Then Peter took him, and began to rebuke him, saying, Be it far from thee, Lord: this shall not be unto thee.
23But he turned, and said unto Peter, Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offence unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men.
24Then said Jesus unto his disciples, If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me.
25For whosoever will save his life shall lose it: and whosoever will lose his life for my sake shall find it.
If Bob is at work and notices that his employer is committing a grave offense against his community. Bob might consider all the personal suffering he would have to go through to serve justice, and decide that the burden is far too heavy. If Bob was seriously considering it, he might have a friend try to convince him otherwise out of sympathy. It is rarely going to work in your favor Bob. Even if you do prove it you are out of a job. If you can't prove it, or worse if you are wrong, you are still out of a job. And you have nothing to gain from it. This must have been Peter's sentiment. I have fought my employer on payroll issues and even suggested to them that resolution might come from an external agency like the ministry of transportation. This kind of talk certainly got their guard up. I had a co-worker urging me to let it go, take the hit and move on. But I maintained that an injustice is an injustice and having identified it I'm obliged to see through its resolution. Eventually the mistake was identified and I was thanked for raising the issue, it happened to be a payroll glitch affecting the entire company. So everyone was happy that it was discovered. But initially, they became very defensive and refused to discuss it with me after I suggested outside mediation. That was also the first time they took a critical look at what I was saying to them. And when they identified the glitch.
In effect, Jesus knows what the resolution plan is, he knows what needs to be done to bring about the justice he has in sight. Peter's concern is egotistical, based on his desire to preserve Jesus' life, much like my co-worker was interested in preserving my career. We have worked together for 5 years and established quite the community between us. He didn't want to see me leave as a result of some payroll glitch. My sights were set entirely on resolving the glitch and I didn't care what happened to me. So, Jesus was set entirely on being crucified. I'm not saying I'm like Jesus, but perhaps in this one example I exhibited Christ-like behaviour.
Re: Satan
See, now, this is the thing. I came home last night after work at 12:00AM. I brought some Alleve at my girlfriends request. I ran out of work earlier in the night to get it and some mouthwash for her. When I got home, she was sleeping, but I went to give her the Alleve and say goodnight to her. Normally I come to bed a few hours later, so I'm not crashing as soon as I get home. The other thing is I take Nexium for the acid and bile problem I have and I forgot to take it yesterday. Another thing I had to do was medicate my cat with Tetracycline for Chlamydia. It needs to be done 3 times a day and she was due. I've pretty much been doing all that chore myself too. So, I didn't stick around, I went to medicate myself and Lila (the cat). Then I replied to this thread and read a few chapters of A History of God by Karen Armstrong. When I went to bed, I set the alarm for 8:15AM. She works at 10AM, and I have to get up to drive her to work since she was in an accident totaling her vehicle. The accident happened on monday and she is pretty stiff, hence the Alleve. When I went to bed she tossed and turned, looked at me a few times with contempt, said some things that seemed pointless until finally complaining "I wish you would think to give me a massage when I need it." and I thought aloud "Or you could just ask me kindly to give you a massage and I would do it, instead of expecting me to have it mind already." and this went to her saying "Well, if you loved me you would think about these things. I just had an accident and I'm stiff, you should be thinking about me." to which I argued "I do think about you, but I can't reasonably be expected to do so all the time, or to always focus on what you need." to which she retorts "But I give you everything you need." and I "You don't really give the most essential things that I would benefit from. You do minute tasks for me here and there, just as I do for you. But in terms of venerating Truth and making that a part of your focus, you don't really." To which she claimed "I spent 40 hours reading stuff that you wrote trying to understand it." and I said "But you don't really understand it or why it is so prominent in my mind. In other words you aren't equipped to be truly empathic to me and the existentialist dilemmas I face, but expect me to drop them whenever you have a stubbed toe or a tense shoulder." to which she said "I was just in an accident." and I "That was three days ago, and I've given you a few massages and attended to you in many other ways." and she "Oh, you brought me Alleve, big deal."
I'm paraphrasing what happened a lot, but it eventually resulted in some fairly insane behavior. Knife wielding, screaming, suicidal and homicidal behavior. If she yelled at me and I responded with how I felt and/or thought, she got angrier and angrier, if I attempted to submit to her, she became suicidal. I even explicitly asked her "What is it you would like me to do?" and she said "Care about me, but you can't even do that. You aren't there for me when I need you." and I would say "I'm here for you now, if you want a massage just ask me and I'll be happy to." and her "But you should already want to do it without me asking you." and round and round.
I maintained that I'm only human, though I care about her, and as a consequence do many things for her, I can not reasonably be expected to always do the things she would like or those which she considers to be most important. Without her explicitly asking me I only do the things that occur to me. Massages do not occur to me because the first time I ever received one myself was about a year ago when she gave it to me, and outside of how the massage itself felt, I didn't feel anymore relaxed. All my life, massages haven't played a part, I used to laugh at the frequency people required massaging when I dealt with muscle tension simply by enduring it. So it simply doesn't ever occur to me to ask for or give a massage.
I'm paraphrasing what happened a lot, but it eventually resulted in some fairly insane behavior. Knife wielding, screaming, suicidal and homicidal behavior. If she yelled at me and I responded with how I felt and/or thought, she got angrier and angrier, if I attempted to submit to her, she became suicidal. I even explicitly asked her "What is it you would like me to do?" and she said "Care about me, but you can't even do that. You aren't there for me when I need you." and I would say "I'm here for you now, if you want a massage just ask me and I'll be happy to." and her "But you should already want to do it without me asking you." and round and round.
I maintained that I'm only human, though I care about her, and as a consequence do many things for her, I can not reasonably be expected to always do the things she would like or those which she considers to be most important. Without her explicitly asking me I only do the things that occur to me. Massages do not occur to me because the first time I ever received one myself was about a year ago when she gave it to me, and outside of how the massage itself felt, I didn't feel anymore relaxed. All my life, massages haven't played a part, I used to laugh at the frequency people required massaging when I dealt with muscle tension simply by enduring it. So it simply doesn't ever occur to me to ask for or give a massage.
Re: Satan
Animus, your honesty and sincerity and candor pulled me along until I found that I had actually read the whole thread.
A lifetime vow of relationship does alter perspective. The relationship becomes the constant that supercedes relative and thus changeable conditions. When it’s an absolute, relationship changes conditions of personality such as self-concept, pride, hope, and the concept of love.
Relationships are not limited to people, of course. Thus the power of bhakti devotion.
If relationship is not a lifetime vow (and most relationships are not), then it’s not an absolute, and the conditions of personality remain the constant that change relationship.
A lifetime vow of relationship does alter perspective. The relationship becomes the constant that supercedes relative and thus changeable conditions. When it’s an absolute, relationship changes conditions of personality such as self-concept, pride, hope, and the concept of love.
Relationships are not limited to people, of course. Thus the power of bhakti devotion.
If relationship is not a lifetime vow (and most relationships are not), then it’s not an absolute, and the conditions of personality remain the constant that change relationship.
-
cousinbasil
- Posts: 1395
- Joined: Sat Apr 10, 2010 8:26 am
- Location: Garment District
Re: Satan
Sounds like you compose in the reply window. Try one of these foe BBCode composition, if you don't already:Animus wrote:Ha, well, I tried a lengthy explanation and lost it. Sorry, it took 20 minutes and I don't have time now to do it again.
Boo!
AHK BBCodeWriter v.7.0.2
Pawsoft Fass
Kevin's Forum Post Editor Lite
Or if you use Firefox:
BBComposer for Firefox
-
cousinbasil
- Posts: 1395
- Joined: Sat Apr 10, 2010 8:26 am
- Location: Garment District
Re: Satan
Satan is n the worldly matters section. Ahem. Well, I guess it doesn't belong in the genius section.
Lucifer was the Fallen One, never an angel but above the angels, and Satan was his right-hand assistant, much as Gabriel (a Bright and Morning Star, also above all the angels) is second to the Local Creator. Neither Lucifer nor Satan are/were the "Devil" (the Dark Prince initially appointed by and then dethroned by Christ) and there is no such thing as Hell.
Get with it.
Lucifer was the Fallen One, never an angel but above the angels, and Satan was his right-hand assistant, much as Gabriel (a Bright and Morning Star, also above all the angels) is second to the Local Creator. Neither Lucifer nor Satan are/were the "Devil" (the Dark Prince initially appointed by and then dethroned by Christ) and there is no such thing as Hell.
Get with it.
-
1456200423
- Posts: 338
- Joined: Tue Oct 06, 2009 1:07 am
- Location: Earth, Australia
Re: Satan
Pics or it didn't happen... =)animus wrote:Anyway, I love Satan and my girlfriend.
veritas odium parit