The Ideal and the Real

[Bravus]

I kept out of the 'Virginity and Divorce' thread completely, because I could see right from the very beginning the direction it would end up taking, and I didn't want any part of that.

It did continue my thinking about an issue I've been thinking about for some time though, and I thought I'd share that here and see what the rest of you think.

It's about how we hold up God's ideals for life and this world without condemning those who find themselves in less than ideal situations, through no fault of their own.

I have no doubt that God's absolute ideal for married life is that two virgins come together on their wedding night for the first time, and are one another's friends, lovers and partners for all of their lives. That's the glowing, perfect ideal. I don't know - maybe some would even argue that that's unrealistic, but I think it's pretty clearly what Scripture describes, and just from common sense and experience and knowledge, I believe it's the best possible outcome.

But we live in a *far* from ideal world. Some have that innocence stolen from them: Nico has said she did, and so did Sue, my wife. That ideal is forever unattainable for these people, through no fault of their own, and the *last* thing that we should do as believers is make their burden heavier by in any way condemning them. Others made choices in their lives before they met Jesus - they're forgiven, but there are still consequences. Others lose a partner to death or divorce. Life is complicated, and while I think it's important to hold up the ideal, we also have to be real.

OK, that's a difficult and emotional issue, so perhaps it's not a great context for a more general discussion of the issue of the ideal and the real. The other example I'm thinking of is our family. We have a great family life - husband, wife, two beautiful, healthy pre-teen and teen daughters, very happy and harmonious. Of course, people don't know we got there through luck, the grace of God and through hell and high water - the abuse that was done to Sue, her lung cancer, losing a baby, lots of years as broke students, and lots more.

Letting ourselves be seen as an example, in some ways, of God's ideal for families shouldn't condemn those who, for whatever reason, have different kinds of families - no children, blended families, single parents, whatever. And yet sometimes I worry that it feels to them as though it does.

I respect the perspectives of our 'Christian militant' brothers (and they're mostly brothers) who say 'just stand up for right and if anyone has any problem with that they have a problem with God and he'll smite them'. Or, more precisely, I respect their right to hold that opinion, rather than the opinion itself.

But this discussion is more for those who actually see this as an issue: how do we hold up God's ideals in the real world, without hurting those we're here to heal?

[Nicodema]

Quote:

---

I respect the perspectives of our 'Christian militant' brothers (and they're mostly brothers) who say 'just stand up for right and if anyone has any problem with that they have a problem with God and he'll smite them'. Or, more precisely, I respect their right to hold that opinion, rather than the opinion itself.

---

Well you're a "bigger man" than me, Bravus, on that point. Because I simply cannot respect that, no matter how many different ways I try to rationalize it, no matter how many different ways I try to approach it.

I try to come at it from the perspective of sensitivity toward their feelings, but from what I've seen, those kinds of folk (a) have no sensitivity toward the feelings of others, and ( don't really seem to care if others are sensitive to theirs or not, seeing as they © deny any importance to personal human feelings in the first place as if that were some wicked realm of frivolous sentiment, a danger and a rival to "faith". So THAT angle is out.

I try to approach it from the angle of respecting their right to think as they wish, but from what I've seen, these folks cannot respect the rights of others to think as WE wish when it deviates from what they consider "right and true" and furthermore, they do not hesitate to trample freely and wantonly upon that right even pulling upon the long arm of the law to do so where it suits them and where they believe that by so doing, they are fulfilling some crusade or mission for God Himself. So THAT angle is out.

So yes, I have a definite problem with those who take the angle of, "'just stand up for [moral] right [what you called The Ideal] and if anyone has any problem with that they have a problem with God." It's not that I'm against people wanting to spread the news that God loves us and the directions He offers are for our good, for our happiness and well being, and if followed, will make us happier and healthier. Far from it. It's simply that I cannot abide all the calloused hard-heartedness that seems to have to accompany this attitude of "well if you have a problem with that you have a problem with God."

No I don't have a problem with God, except as human beings try to GIVE me one by invading my mind, heart and conscience to plant toxic, ugly, filthy, disgusting, negative poisons there to eat at me for hours and days and weeks and months afterwards and destroy my capacity to connect with God because I reach out for Him and just get their spiritual toxic waste dump instead, and then I feel dirty and rejected and withdraw again. No, my problem is with HUMAN BEINGS and what they think adhering to "the Ideal" gives them right or place to do to others in terms of presenting those Ideals, and especially when it comes to their failure to recognize that most human beings in this world don't experience life as an oversimplified series of black and white choices where if they just choose the white button instead of the black everything will be roses and everyone will live happily ever after. Some of us who live in the world that actually exists instead of morally idealized "la la land" don't even experience life as anything we have any control over, except fleetingly and for a brief, critical moment, at which time everything else that has so overwhelmed and confused us that we find ourselves facing that moment without a clue what to make of it, only the overwhelming sense of terror that if we f*ck up again ('scuse me) everything will become an even greater hell and torment than we already know.

Let's face it, most of life's dilemmas are fraught with peril on all sides, catch-22s, and life lessons that literally clash with the letter of the law ideals in many cases and may abrogate them entirely. I'd love to give SEVERAL examples of this but this is not a safe environment to discuss those things because of these kinds of people and the issues we are raising right here and now. So there is nowhere to go to get spiritual light on it either, except privately to God and then have to endure the community, focused on the letter of the law, trying to confuse me by saying there's no way God could be leading me the way He is leading me because it doesn't conform to THEIR understanding or what they think the Spirit is telling THEM.

I'm sick of all this. I want a chance to know God too. Why can't these people stop trying to destroy it for me? I'm not asking anyone to FIX it all for me, it would be enough for them to get the h*ll out of the way (scuse me again) and stop RUINING it for me. That would be enough, really!!!!

[cricket]

Bravus, your thoughts are beautifully put. I think the answer lies in this text:

Philippians 3:14 - I press on toward the goal for the prize of the upward call of God in Christ Jesus.

We must continually press on toward the goal--we are not there yet. In a sense, then, the ideal Christian life is one where we keep pressing forward; doing what is right; shunning what is wrong; loving everyone along the way; and asking others to join us in our journey.

[Bravus]

I hear you Nico, and all I have to offer is a virtual hug and the affirmation that I'm hearing.

The ideal I didn't talk about is maybe the most important one: the ideal of dealing with others always out of love. Self-sacrificing love, not self-righteous.

[Nicodema]

Quote:

---

Self-sacrificing love, not self-righteous

---

there's no such thing as self-righteous love. by definition, that's not love, no matter how you slice it. it just plain isn't. it isn't patient, isn't kind, and puts on airs quite freely (and blatantly and obnoxiously). that for starters ...

[Bravus]

Yep, that's why I didn't finish the parallelism: I went to write: "self-sacrificing love, not self-righteous love" and realised it was nonsense! I guess what I was trying to get around was that those same people claim that loving someone means pointing out their defects so they can fix them! That's what might be considered "self-righteous 'love'".

[Nicodema]

Most intelligent people are already well aware of their defects (hence the legitimacy of calling the intelligence of the self-righteous into question as they tend to only try to pass themselves off as aware by paying lipservice to (a) the universality of defects; ( the abstract, unapplied concept of them having some, somewhere, all neatly tucked out of sight and perfectly under control, of course!) and hence don't need to have them pointed out by some smarmy, self-satisfied twit who can't do a thing to aid them in the situation and instead tears them down and makes it even less likely the person(s) in question will ever make headway.

And frankly, with all else I have to deal with, I don't need the additional provocation, thank you.

Of course I know with you Bravus (as well as some others here) this is "preaching to the choir". But there are some here as well who just don't get it -- and likely never will. They will continue to abuse and destroy souls for whom Christ shed His blood just so they can make their point and show themselves right in their own sight. And they have the unmitigated gall to claim they've carte blanche from God to do this abomination.

And then when someone like me (or anyone else they victimize and prey upon) reacts to what they are doing (oh heaven forbid it should scream and bleed when I cut it and whip it!) or stands up and calls them on it, what do we get in return? We get a mirror game -- whereby the bullies start whining that THEY are the real victims and that WE are abusing THEM.

Bullocks.

[Jeannieb43]

Thank you for starting this thread, Bravus. I can only hope it continues on this intellectual and spiritual level -- at least for a little while, until the wrecking crew gets wind of it.

I feel the true secret of Christian love is realizing that (as my pastor often says): There's nothing I can do to make God love me any more. And there's nothing I can do to make God love me any LESS. Our salvation does not come by works. It is the gift of God, freely given. We don't earn it! So - for us to try to shape other people into our own image, is totally futile, and shows a lack of understanding of God's grace.

... I guess I'm off track already. (Detoured because of fears of the wrecking crew.)

... Back to your topic. You've stated it so well. I don't believe ANYbody on this earth has the Ideal. We settle for the Real, and praise God for each day of life.

And soon we'll be in heaven with Him!

[Guest]

Quote:

---

at least for a little while, until the wrecking crew gets wind of it. (Detoured because of fears of the wrecking crew.)

...

---

Uhhh..you rang?????

[Guest]

By wrecking crew...do you mean these people?

2 Cor 10

"12": For we dare not make ourselves of the number, or compare ourselves with some that commend themselves: but they measuring themselves by themselves, and comparing themselves among themselves, are not wise.(Substitute-FOOLS)

Not much is simple yet...there are at least 99+ categories of people...

1. Those that are self righteous religious bigots with their nose in their air, who are so exclusive that their experience has protected them from the usual big burn items in life and they look down their nose at the less fortunate.

They throw out ideals and standards to go naa..naaa, neee naaa, naaa.

2. Those who have run off the shoulder of life's usual moral road or been T-boned right in the mid section and have given up for any thought of something close to a Utopia.

3. Those who have an extemely sensitive consciences and are frustrated to the max at their behavior performance.

4. Those who messed up big time and are supremely appreciative of God's grace and sacrifice yet know that the sacrifice was there not to lower the standard.

They promote the standard to reduce suffering of others who have not yet come to that pothole in the road.

I remember Billy Graham mentioning on a late TV talk show..Tonight show or Dick Cavett...that he and maybe his wife were both virgins at marriage...

there were a bunch of whistles in the audience...kinda threw me then..why the reaction...but I never felt that Billy was some condescending pharisee jerk gloating at his performance compared to others..

This judgement/sterotyping of people who mention standards as those being self righteous pharisee condescending jerks...reveals something about the labelers.

[Nicodema]

Quote:

---

This judgement/sterotyping of people who mention standards as those being self righteous pharisee condescending jerks...reveals something about the labelers.

---

Then it reveals something about you, because as far as I can tell on this thread, you're the only one making this specific connection -- that these people specifically are being judged/stereotyped as Pharisees: that is, those who "mention standards". While I cannot speak for anyone else, I can certainly assure you that if a mere "mention of standards" were all that were involved, it wouldn't be sufficient to create a problem for me personally. I believe it has been made clear that the mentioning of standards isn't the problem; the problem is the attitude held by some, the judgments they pass on others, and the way they pigheadedly think they have the right to do this because they make such a big show out of how closely they stick or have stuck to these standards. Beyond that, there are even some who think the rules of fair play don't apply when they are on their crusade (fueled by an ingrown hair in their rear ends) and they can use lies, spin, malicious insinuations, false accusations, deliberate mischaracterizations of their debate opponent's position, etc. to get their way and push their point, even DRIVE it into the freaking ground, at the expense of others' mental and emotional well being. They cannot even be bothered to stick with truth, let alone care about the impact they have on other people, for even when they are repeatedly solicited to pay attention to a person's individual boundaries, they brush this off as meaningless and unimportant and continue barrelling along. That's basically the equivalent to running someone off the road into a ditch just because you want their spot. It isn't right, and what's more, it's dangerous to the rest of the drivers as well.

OK, all that was just my tangent -- so pardon my tangent. Specifically, I believe the offensive attitude pinpointed was precisely when someone thinks anyone having a problem with them actually has a problem with God or "morality" itself, and thus, "if anyone has any problem with that they have a problem with God, who will smite them" (or perhaps who HAS smitten them already and that's why they are suffering, etc.)

Let me illustrate with my own experience. When I first joined this church I was incredibly "on fire" for God. Lots of people noticed it. Few, if any, ever sought to actually help me learn how to use it effectively. But those who are the ones you tend to complain about, JimBob -- the ones raised in the church lifelong who are subculturally SDA and aren't really interested in living for God -- they noticed everything wrong with it, and because it was them I offended, they did not hesitate to let me know in no uncertain terms what they thought of my attitude toward them.

They told me I was judgmental. They told me I was a fanatic. And at the time, I couldn't hear them because I was so convinced I was being persecuted for righteousness' sake. After all, I was standing up for the Great Standards of the Church like modesty and diet and Sabbath keeping and Not Imitating The World, all the rest. I was being a good Christian and standing up for the right ("though the heavens fall!") and I could NOT EVEN SEE that I had this heinous smug attitude that, INSTEAD of making me a powerful witness for Jesus, turned these souls OFF to God and gave them a picture of Him that was even more sour than whatever it was already keeping them away from Him.

But by golly, they could see it. Lo and behold ... the "blind" could see what I, the supposedly "sighted", could not: [:"purple"] a spiritual pride that stank to high heaven like the stench of the tomb. [/] And you want to know the most pathetic thing of all? I actually thought I was better off than them because at least my sin was something to be proud of, as it proved how righteous I was. Like, only a true saint would wrestle with spiritual pride instead of lust or greed or appetite or worldliness or fashion-slavery!!! I mean, BLECCCCHHHHH!! Gross!! But that was really how I saw it back then. I couldn't even accept that spiritual pride was a sin because I thought it was a good thing to have!

Now, I'm not saying all the smuggies these days have the exact same thoughts or experiences as me, but there are strong parallels. The attitude problem is definitely there, and it's pretty much the same one I had. Whether it is tied to spiritual pride or something else specific to THEIR situation.

What finally got through to me? Being handed over to Satan. Literally.

But in that respect, I'm one of the fortunate ones.

[Bravus]

JimBob - I hope you'll re-read the post that started this thread. The question I raised was 'How do we "mention standards" (to use your term) in a way that is sensitive to the reality of people's lives and where they are right now - usually broken and hurting?'

It definitely is not about never mentioning God's ideals for us (to use my term) at all. I'm being absolutely up front about the fact that there are such ideals, they're clearly laid out in the Bible, and they describe the best possible life for us, and the life God desparately desires that we live.

Let me use another analogy - God's ideal for me is that, even at my advanced age, I be able to run. And I can, a bit. But my left leg has been broken twice, and pinned, plated and bone grafted. When I run, I have to be aware of these consequences of old actions (riding a motorcycle and roller blading rspectively). In the New Earth, I'll get a new leg, and I'll run like the wind. for here and now, I try to stay fit, bicycle, and do karate (being careful how I twist on that leg) to stay as healthy as I can.

If the 'standard' is a 20 second 100 yards, I'll never meet the standard in this life, and someone who derided or attacked me for not being able to reach the standard would be behaving insensitively. If, on the other hand, someone got beside me and came up with a brace or a massage regimen or something that allowed me to run faster, that would both be more sensitive and have a higher probability of enabling me to approach the standard.

That's one reason I like the idea of 'ideals' better than 'standards'. To me, standards suggest one size fits all - everyone ends up meeting the same standard, and becoming the same - or else is a failure. And once you've reached the standard, where else can you go?

Ideals are self-regulating: all your life you keep on growing more and more into God's ideal for you, but all your life there's further and more to grow.

[Guest]

Quote:

---

JimBob - I hope you'll re-read the post that started this thread. The question I raised was 'How do we "mention standards" (to use your term) in a way that is sensitive to the reality of people's lives and where they are right now - usually broken and hurting?'

---

To some people you can't...period.

What do you think got Jesus on the cross?

Was He any less than the perfect example of human communication, insight , wisdom, compassion, sensitivity, and tact?

Could anyone improve on his delivery of any standards?

And that was in person where one could see/hear his physical mannerisms, body language and tonal inflection...and we are using text with its built in/implied communication handicaps.

[Bravus]

Agreed, but I think that raises a quite separate issue. We are accountable for how we champion the ideals, others are accountable for how they react. That's not a copout that allows us to be insensitive - we really *are* accountable for our own actions.

Maybe I need to clarify something: 'sensitive' doesn't mean always all soft and fluffy and kittenish. Jesus was sensitive to the needs of those around him. Sometimes that meant his gentle words to the woman at the well, the woman caught in adultery, the blind beggar, the woman who touched his hem, the children who climbed all over him... and sometimes that meant his blasts to the Pharisees. (There are more gentle moments than blasts by a large margin, by the way.)

But he had a level of connection to God and discernment and, yes, sensitivity, that I just don't have yet - as you said, no-one could meet or exceed his standards. Given that, I tend to be *extremely* careful in administering blasts! Your own personal style (or rather, textual - as you noted, this is an unusual forum - but I wasn't talking only about this forum, I was talking about life in general) is different from mine, and that's OK. It's a matter between you and God whether you have the sensitivity to judge how your words will effect others. (And it's possible that the Internet is just too indiscriminate a medium - we don't really *know* who reads what we write.)

Honestly, this is not about judging anyone else: it's my thread <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" /> and my approach is inward-directed critique. I'm not trying to say 'How should everyone else hold up God's ideals for the world?'[1], I'm sincerely asking 'How should I?'

[1] Still less to say to anyone else 'You're doing it wrong!'

[Nicodema]

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

JimBob - ... The question I raised was 'How do we "mention standards" (to use your term) in a way that is sensitive to the reality of people's lives and where they are right now - usually broken and hurting?'

---

To some people you can't...period.

What do you think got Jesus on the cross?

Was He any less than the perfect example of human communication, insight , wisdom, compassion, sensitivity, and tact?

---

JimBob, you are WAY off base here. You're not even being BIBLICAL anymore. What got Jesus on the cross was not the hands of broken and hurting people who "took it out on Him" that He was not more sensitive to their needs. The "broken and hurting" in His day were the ones, rather, who flocked to Him desperately because of the image of God they saw in Him, an image they desperately needed to see, yearned to see, were thirsting and perishing to see. They were the ones the Pharisees were pushing away from God by their oppressive attitudes and rigid, unyielding dogmas and so-called "standards" (one size fits all & no room to deviate without total condemnation).

What got Him on the cross, my friend, were the hands of those who wanted to browbeat those people into the ground just so they could show themselves "right" in their own sight about the bully God they worshipped. Today they would be equated by those who would denounce Darwin to hell and back for his theory of evolution yet show their hearts are tainted by "social Darwinism" -- the belief that only the strong and the sturdy matter, that the poor and suffering are a waste of time, worse than useless, and fit only to be fodder beneath their feet on their trampling rush to glory.

My friend if what you wrote above is truly how you see things, then you are beyond any help I can offer. Not beyond His help -- I don't believe any of us ever are -- but you're way beyond what I can address, because you have completely left the Bible portrait of Jesus behind in favor of something that coddles you in your pet prejudices -- the ones formed which allow you to go on precisely as you are, thinking you are right in all things and never having to confront yourself.

Quote:

---

Could anyone improve on his delivery of any standards?

---

No, but there is tremendous room for improvement upon delivery of ours. And starting from the ludicrous premise you portrayed above is no way to discover any of it.

[Guest]

Quote:

---

I can certainly assure you that if a mere "mention of standards" were all that were involved, it wouldn't be sufficient to create a problem for me personally. I believe it has been made clear that the mentioning of standards isn't the problem; the problem is the attitude held by some, the judgments they pass on others,

---

I don't buy it for one second.

Here is the reason why...

It is the emotional reaction that is displayed in your posts ..even the one I am replying to...

When this thread is the result of a thread with a survey posted....I know right away that people project a motive and agenda right into the stats...no matter how seemingly objective others would read it...

that is just the signs of the times...polarization express..

Thanks for posting the background again...I payed attention when I first read it. Others who have not been informed should appreciate it.

I understand your SDA rookie experience..been there done that..

I understand those who took offense at your rookie attitude..been there done that..

My "F" word thread addresses the theme of the action..

When one is delivered over to Satan...and then rescued by the mercy and grace of God...the experience is a good "jump start" on dealing with stinging memories of being a smug Pharisee and those who are confronted, unlovingly, with those who embraced that attitude.

I do not yield on the sterotyping tendency.

[Guest]

There ya go..Nico...

I posted about Jesus and you replied with the browbeating Pharisees and the religious right...

Who is fixated on who??

[Nicodema]

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

I can certainly assure you that if a mere "mention of standards" were all that were involved, it wouldn't be sufficient to create a problem for me personally. I believe it has been made clear that the mentioning of standards isn't the problem; the problem is the attitude held by some, the judgments they pass on others,

---

I don't buy it for one second.

Here is the reason why...

It is the emotional reaction that is displayed in your posts ..even the one I am replying to...

---

But you cannot define my "emotional reaction". You are not inside my head or my heart; you can only define what you think you are seeing, which is as much governed by your expectations and interpretations, if not moreso, than it is by my actual feelings or reactions. Subcultural differences and personality differences (i.e. in mannerisms of expression) alone account for a great deal.

You might want to revisit the posts in question (yours) to which you felt I was reacting and/or over-reacting and ask yourself honestly whether or not derogatory, dismissive, invalidating, or inflammatory language was used in those posts. I think you will find in all cases it was, and thus the mere mention of standards was not the problem.

That is, if you are truly an honest man concerned with the truth of the matter. If you are simply looking to fling poo at me so you can smell like a rose in your own nostrils, this exchange is pointless -- as are all others.

[Guest]

Now, did you read a naa, naaa, nee , naaa , naaa attitude into that???

Hey, I may be beyond help...but after the experience where I got rescued from Satan..

I am going to show my appreciation to God by always looking on how to rescue others....

on my borrowed time.

Hmmm. this exchange probably is going to get a few views....

[Guest]

Quote:

---

Beyond that, there are even some who think the rules of fair play don't apply when they are on their crusade (fueled by an ingrown hair in their rear ends) and they can use lies, spin, malicious insinuations, false accusations, deliberate mischaracterizations of their debate opponent's position, etc. to get their way and push their point, even DRIVE it into the freaking ground, at the expense of others' mental and emotional well being. They cannot even be bothered to stick with truth, let alone care about the impact they have on other people, for even when they are repeatedly solicited to pay attention to a person's individual boundaries, they brush this off as meaningless and unimportant and continue barrelling along. That's basically the equivalent to running someone off the road into a ditch just because you want their spot. It isn't right, and what's more, it's dangerous to the rest of the drivers as well.

OK, all that was just my tangent -- so pardon my tangent.

---

Naaa. I can't define it..but there are a couple of clues..

[Nicodema]

Quote:

---

There ya go..Nico...

I posted about Jesus and you replied with the browbeating Pharisees and the religious right...

Who is fixated on who??

---

I was responding to the words in your post. Is there some reason I should not respond to what you actually say? I wasn't aware I was required to read your mind instead.

[Guest]

Isn't this fun...??

Some just get their entertainment from seeing people eat rats on Fear factor " or watching "Desperate Housewives"..

[Guest]

Quote:

---

I was responding to the words in your post. Is there some reason I should not respond to what you actually

say?

I wasn't aware I was required to read your mind instead.

---

Well, get with it then...

[Nicodema]

Quote:

---

Now, did you read a naa, naaa, nee , naaa , naaa attitude into that???

---

People are always trying to fob off their accountability onto someone else's "reaction". It's like those who are always saying the word "LET" ... as if we have any choice about the fact that if someone kicks us in the face, it is going to hurt and it is going to injure, there is no "LET" about it, and the REAL responsibility lies with jerk going around thinking its his place to kick others in the face, not with the one kicked to pretend it didn't hurt or injure them.

That does NOT mean they should then hold a grudge and engage in a ten-year-long frivilous lawsuit, mind you -- nor should the above be read as invoking any such thing or condoning or excusing any such thing -- only that the responsibility lies with the doer, not the done-unto. And while it is one thing to say "I forgive them," that doesn't automatically erase either the pain and suffering or the forever-after scar or disfigurement.

As without, so within -- the same things hold true for kicks in the face spiritually and emotionally and socially. It's just that human beings unrealistically expect each other to hide these far more adeptly -- and some of us just plain can't. They are as plain as the broken nose result on a kicked face, and constantly therefore subject to being made a sore spot yet again as yet another idiotic buttweasel thinks it's terrific fun to reinjure an old wound in the same spot.

THAT is what I read into that. I read it into everything. I can't help it; it's where I come from and what's more, I'm hypersensitive to the fact that a good 99.99% of the human population has been programmed to buy into this viral bullsh*x and pass it on to others memetically and abusively in one form or another. (Have you ever studied abuse dynamics, or how hate and harm replicate themselves? Or even viral or memetic replication? It's very interesting ...)

I am constantly, painfully conscious and aware that everything I say or do reflects on me, tells on me, has more to reveal about me than anyone or anything else, including when I am talking about something else. That awareness never sleeps for me. At times it makes communication completely impossible for me because I cannot flip a magick switch and turn myself into something perfect and flawless so that I will never again utter another word I might have to eat or feel hypocritical over. If you want to fault me with anything, fault me with being jealous of the blissful self-indulgent ignorance of bullies and jerks who aren't troubled by such things, who don't possess a conscience that has two settings only: OFF and RELENTLESS.

[Nicodema]

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

I was responding to the words in your post. Is there some reason I should not respond to what you actually

say?

I wasn't aware I was required to read your mind instead.

---

Well, get with it then...

---

LOL.

at least you make me laugh sometimes ... i'll give you that!