Bring4th

Full Version: "Spiritual Correctness"
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5
this thread has been on my mind for some time now, and it's been percolating for a while.

I used the term "spiritual correctness" in the same way that we have the term "political correctness".  In that, there may be a set of beliefs or patterns which are considered "spiritually correct", and going beyond those is somehow inappropriate or too upsetting.

I think one of the reasons why the New Age movement is often referenced in a bad way on these forums is that somehow we consider the belief patterns associated with the "new age" as somehow stereotyped, methodical, unthinking, and to be frank, spiritually correct.  They have been recycled and emasculated so that anyone can just copy and paste those beliefs, and somehow think they are doing spiritual things, and being on the spiritual path.  This is not to demean or criticize the people involved; this is more aimed at the belief structures and patterns which are so-called "new agey".

Spiritual Correctness also seems to automatically apply to Indian traditions and Buddhist Traditions.  It's like somehow, these eastern traditions are somehow more pure and direct than what we have access to in the West, and so there's no need to critique or analyze what comes out of these Eastern Schools of thinking.  They are just "spiritually correct", and you can't fault them.

One of the things I like about Ra is that I would consider their thoughts and answers as anything but Spiritually Correct.  They are positively iconoclastic, and aren't afraid to burst bubbles with their higher perspective.  They don't do this for kicks; they answered the questions because they were sincere, and Don wanted to know what those answers were.  Ra wasn't there trying to burst the bubbles of expectations; they offered up their thoughts in response to what was sought.

some examples of spiritually 'incorrect' viewpoints (in my opinion):

some entities are more advanced than others:

"The seniority of vibration is to be likened unto placing various grades of liquids in the same glass. Some will rise to the top; others will sink to the bottom. Layers and layers of entities will ensue. As harvest draws near, those filled with the most light and love will naturally, and without supervision, be in line, shall we say, for the experience of incarnation."

I think we all recognise this, at some level, and yet the spiritually correct viewpoint is to stress equality above all else.  There is equality in the sense that we are all of infinite worth and value as part of the Creator, but there is also no dispute that some people are more developed than others, more clear than others, and more skilled than others.

that we are totally responsible for *all* our physical distortions:

"Catalyst is offered to the entity. If it is not used by the mind complex it will then filter through to the body complex and manifest as some form of physical distortion. The more efficient the use of catalyst, the less physical distortion to be found.

There are, in the case of those you call Wanderers, not only a congenital difficulty in dealing with the third-density vibratory patterns but also a recollection, however dim, that these distortions are not necessary or usual in the home vibration.

We over-generalize as always, for there are many cases of pre-incarnative decisions which result in physical or mental limitations and distortions, but we feel that you are addressing the question of widespread distortions towards misery of one form or another. Indeed, on some third-density planetary spheres catalyst has been used more efficiently. In the case of your planetary sphere there is much inefficient use of catalyst and, therefore, much physical distortion."


the spiritually 'correct' viewpoint is that there are victims, and there is karma that we just have to 'suffer' through to learn the lesson.  Ra pinpoints that physical distortion only happens when the mental catalyst has not been recognised and utilized.  

There are also pre-incarnative limitations as Ra referenced in this above quote, but again, it may be all too easy to ascribe our issues to some unchangable choice that happened when we drew up our life plan.  It forestalls further investigation and inquiry, and unloads the responsibility for our condition to same vague "hand of fate" that plucks the tune of our life without our wherewithall.

- -

Spiritual Correctness, just like political correctness, ultimately stops us thinking and asking harder questions.  We confine ourselves to a smaller base of operations, and comfort ourselves that others are also buying into the same unthinking attitudes.  But if you start dealing with individual, everyday catalyst, you start to recognise the variety and the uniqueness of your own perspective and experience, and you have to truly start thinking for yourself.  Spiritual correctness just can't fly when you're walking on your own sovereign path, meeting other sovereign individuals who cross your path.  Uttering platitudes and wanting others to conform to a template of pre-ordained thoughts is just not honoring the true variety of the creator.

Going against spiritual correctness doesn't mean that you have to be rude, or in someone's face.  Or try to smash up their spiritually correct viewpoints.  But it does mean being unafraid of asking questions; not out of trying to make someone uncomfortable, but because you genuinely want to know the answers to something, even if that something is beyond the conventional boundaries of 'spiritual correctness".

- -

so do what Ra does; do what Don did.  Ask questions, but make sure you actually want to hear the answers, and are willing to change your viewpoint and attitudes and behaviour when you hear an unwelcome viewpoint which happens to be challenging, but deep down you recognise has the golden glimmer of lasting truth.

Spiritual Correctness is all about close mindedness and thinking you already know the answer, and others somehow need to know it too.  Everyone knows when someone is trying to push an answer/viewpoint on them; it's pretty unwelcome, and you say - thanks, but no thanks.

let's cherish variety, and the 'potential for misunderstanding', and therefore 'of experience'.

Ra Wrote:you may begin to distinguish the hallmark of an Infinite Creator, variety. Were there no potentials for misunderstanding and, therefore, understanding, there would be no experience.

there's no need to railroad people into a viewpoint before they are ready for it, and actually ask for help in moving towards that viewpoint.

Splash

imo equating spiritual correctness with political correctness is a false equivalency...

someone stating there is only one truth in spirituality, 'expressing stereotyped, methodical, unthinking' spiritual statements -  is quite a different thing than millennia of struggle to counter discrimination due to gender/race/sexuality/disability (et al).

(imo "political correctness" is a pejorative term used to subvert and criticise the principle of equal opportunity and respect for all.)

(It's most usually men (and predominantly white men, white male conservative politicians, white male comedians) - that most object to the principle of equality of respect for all representations of sentient life - (which the implementing of, challenges, and seeks to modify, their long-standing automatic privilege), and who use the term "political correctness" to undermine what is a challenge to their innate (and frustratingly - unrecognised by them) privilege - that of being at the top of the hierarchy of privilege on this planet.)

There are other things I have in reply to your OP, as I agree with other ideas you're presenting... but for the moment have to dash to the post office...

..while at the shops I'll get some popcorn Smile Wink
(06-19-2015, 02:13 AM)Splash Wrote: [ -> ]imo equating spiritual correctness with political correctness is a false equivalency...

someone stating there is only one truth in spirituality, 'expressing stereotyped, methodical, unthinking' spiritual statements -  is quite a different thing than millennia of struggle to counter discrimination due to gender/race/sexuality/disability (et al).

(imo "political correctness" is a pejorative term used to subvert and criticise the principle of equal opportunity and respect for all.)

(It's most usually men (and predominantly white men, white male conservative politicians, white male comedians) - that most object to the principle of equality of respect for all representations of sentient life - (which the implementing of, challenges, and seeks to modify, their long-standing automatic privilege), and who use the term "political correctness" to undermine what is a challenge to their innate (and frustratingly - unrecognised by them) privilege - that of being at the top of the hierarchy of privilege on this planet.)

There are other things I have in reply to your OP, as I agree with other ideas you're presenting... but for the moment have to dash to the post office...

..while at the shops I'll get some popcorn Smile  Wink

[Image: jesus_facepalm.jpg]
(06-18-2015, 04:51 AM)Bring4th_Plenum Wrote: [ -> ]this thread has been on my mind for some time now, and it's been percolating for a while.

I used the term "spiritual correctness" in the same way that we have the term "political correctness".  In that, there may be a set of beliefs or patterns which are considered "spiritually correct", and going beyond those is somehow inappropriate or too upsetting.

I think what this boils down to is that a lot of people are fundamentally insecure in their beliefs.  There's a lot people who don't have enough philosophical handle on the "Big Questions" to feel secure in their own low-level beliefs about how the world works, especially among those who simply received their beliefs secondhand.  (A child raised in the church without ever feeling the holy spirit, for example.)  Lacking the ability to really think about philosophy in-depth, they get upset if presented with arguments that contradict their own assumed worldview.

For that matter, we see this same basic thing in pretty much EVERY philosophy around the world, to varying degrees.  There's always going to be some group declaring their own version of a philosophy to be the most true\pure\righteous and refusing to accept any compromise.  Some are merely content to turn their noses up and be snobby about it, while others can become actively violent.  

Plus, we can't disregard the Negative influence in this.  Since one of the hallmarks of negative polarization in our densities is a refusal\inability to really respect free will in other entities, philosophical systems -especially religious ones- give them a very easy line of attack when seeking to dominate the thoughts of others.  A lot of these sorts of folks, I'm sure, are simply negatively-polarized entities behaving exactly as is natural to them.  They only see their own POV as valid, so they try to compel others to share it.

But the other thing is...  

Well, one of the key concepts in the Law of One (or any other cosmology in which God is deliberately experiencing himself from the inside) is that the universe is SUPPOSED to have wrong ideas about itself. That's the entire point of "distortions" but it's incredibly hard for a lot of folks to wrap their minds around.  We are deliberately and intentionally giving ourselves wrong notions pretty much for the sole sake of seeing what happens if we do so.  Doing everything "right" -in a theoretically objective sense- is actually doing everything wrong, because we're supposed to be getting things wrong.  But that's amazingly counter-intuitive and hard to grasp.

I think Ra's anecdote in 77 about the society which was set up without free will and pre-set to be STO sums this up, in terms of why Logoi didn't continue making such peoples:

Quote:Those Logoi whose creations have been set up without free will have not, in the feeling of those Logoi, given the Creator the quality and variety of experience of Itself as have those Logoi which have incorporated free will as paramount. Thusly you find those Logoi moving through the timeless states at what you would see as a later space/time to choose the free will character when elucidating the foundations of each Logos.

That "quality and variety of experience" is arguably the single most important goal of this entire setup, and it absolutely REQUIRES free will allowing us to be totally and completely wrong, just because that makes interesting stuff happen.  The prefab STO guys were boring, more or less, and didn't add much to the Creator's self-understanding. Drifting around for aeons doing nothing but enjoying Timeless Love is pretty much exactly what the Creator is trying to NOT do, because it's presumably all that the Creator was doing before starting up this whole project.

But someone who is fixated on finding "the right path" or the "optimal route" or such won't be able to see this.  As you say, it's an understanding that they just aren't ready for yet.
(06-18-2015, 04:51 AM)Bring4th_Plenum Wrote: [ -> ]Going against spiritual correctness doesn't mean that you have to be rude, or in someone's face.  Or try to smash up their spiritually correct viewpoints.  But it does mean being unafraid of asking questions; not out of trying to make someone uncomfortable, but because you genuinely want to know the answers to something, even if that something is beyond the conventional boundaries of 'spiritual correctness".

Yeah I tend to respond with "Is there any truth to that"? when I suspect a spiritually dogmatic assertion, but I suspect that's not the context you are referring to Plenum. I think this falls into the context of learning the light touch, one's walk in keeping with one's talk (not keeping up with my own talk is not unfamiliar to me), and recognising one's own distortions prior to querying upon another's.

 although it is uncertain who originally said it, this quote has offered me fruitful reflection in this regard. "Say not always what you know, but always know what you say" - ?


[font='Source Sans Pro', Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]quote research            [/font]

Splash

(06-19-2015, 02:32 AM)Lighthead Wrote: [ -> ]
(06-19-2015, 02:13 AM)Splash Wrote: [ -> ]imo equating spiritual correctness with political correctness is a false equivalency...

someone stating there is only one truth in spirituality, 'expressing stereotyped, methodical, unthinking' spiritual statements -  is quite a different thing than millennia of struggle to counter discrimination due to gender/race/sexuality/disability (et al).

(imo "political correctness" is a pejorative term used to subvert and criticise the principle of equal opportunity and respect for all.)

(It's most usually men (and predominantly white men, white male conservative politicians, white male comedians) - that most object to the principle of equality of respect for all representations of sentient life - (which the implementing of, challenges, and seeks to modify, their long-standing automatic privilege), and who use the term "political correctness" to undermine what is a challenge to their innate (and frustratingly - unrecognised by them) privilege - that of being at the top of the hierarchy of privilege on this planet.)

There are other things I have in reply to your OP, as I agree with other ideas you're presenting... but for the moment have to dash to the post office...

..while at the shops I'll get some popcorn Smile  Wink

[Image: jesus_facepalm.jpg]



"...and as you can see by this reply your Honour, the defendant is indeed unaware of the privilege he possesses as is shown clearly by his feeling content enough and immune enough from the disadvantages of discrimination in his life, that he can post a frivolous reply about such serious matters..."

"I rest my case"



{Sadly I'm posting this while a "Breaking News"alert is being broadcast here (Australia) that there has been a young male white supremacist arrested for gunning down 9 African-Americans inside their church.... (after they welcomed him into their prayer group)... Sad }

"I REST MY CASE."

Sad

^j^
Splash, is there a particular reason that you're trying so hard to turn this conversation into one about gender roles? The recent church shootings are terrible, but they have nothing whatsoever to do with the topic at hand. Nor did the original post have anything directly to do with gender. This is a topic that really doesn't have much to do with gender at all, really - I've seen the things Bring4th_Plenum talks about happen from plenty of men and women alike.

Plus your response to Lighthead was presumptuous in the extreme. Frankly, it almost seems like you're trying to start a fight, especially given that comment about popcorn up there.

If you want to discuss spirituality and gender roles, why not make your own thread on the topic? Then it can be as popcornful as you like. But these issues really have nothing to do with what Bring4th_Plenum -and the rest of us- are trying to talk about.
I'd inquire more into your ideas Splash, but I also think it would derail the thread in the extreme.

I think spiritual correctness is quite a valid concept. But I guess I'm not very clear about your examples, plen. Do you not believe we are all co-creators that are sent here to accept these vicious distortions we have a hand in creating?

So the idea of karma has us take full responsibility for all that bombards us in our lives. And yes, this belief may be easy. But to me it seems to be an idea that highlights a higher order in our lives. I think 'randomness' however is a spiritual disease of cause and effect. Quite spiritually incorrect.
(06-19-2015, 09:29 AM)tamaryn Wrote: [ -> ]So the idea of karma has us take full responsibility for all that bombards us in our lives. And yes, this belief may be easy. But to me it seems to be an idea that highlights a higher order in our lives. I think 'randomness' however is a spiritual disease of cause and effect. Quite spiritually incorrect.

Yeah, I agree. Nothing in all of creation is random, because there is a reason -often many- for any given occurrence. It only seems random because we lack the insight needed to understand the more-underlying causes for something to happen. We don't have the proper perspective on what's going on to discern its actual flow.
(06-19-2015, 09:29 AM)tamaryn Wrote: [ -> ]I think spiritual correctness is quite a valid concept. But I guess I'm not very clear about your examples, plen. Do you not believe we are all co-creators that are sent here to accept these vicious distortions we have a hand in creating?

I think I understand your question.  And I'll try to answer it the way I think it's being posed, but if I answer a question that you didn't actually ask, then feel free to restate the query lol.  

My motivations for posting threads (and even posts) I can see in hindsight is driven by an imbalance that I can't fully get a handle on.  By actually getting my thoughts out on paper in a coherent fashion, and then reading the responses and observing my own reaction to my OP, over time, I can start to get closer to grasping what the imbalance was.

Looking back over the hundreds of threads that I've started in my time here, I can see that this desire to resolve subtle (and not so subtle!) imbalances is what motivates me to try and express things in the clearest possible way, but knowing I am coming from a flawed position.  There are assumptions and  hidden concepts in almost every OP that I can recall; and even though these might not be exposed by the discussion that follows, I do eventually get a better idea of what those hidden assumptions were.

That's a long pre-amble to answer your question!

but yes, I'll get to that now.

as others have pointed out, the term 'spiritual correctness' is a somewhat ad-hoc term, and is just me trying to point to things that are beyond what the orthodox viewpoint has given their stamp of approval on.  Almost any hierarchical religious organization is invested in maintaing a 'standard version' of their beliefs, and discourages people from trying to poke too many holes in things.  Ask too many questions, and you will usually get a question mark next to your name, and you can forget any notion of advancing within that hierarchical structure.  

That's the viewpoint from the organization.

From the viewpoint of the lay person, they too have some investment in 'spiritual correctness'.  One of the reasons why these religious/spriitual groups offer succor to their members is that there is usually some sort of claim to having an ordered narrative of creation, and a way of explaining why 'bad things happen to good people', and why 'bad people get away with things'.   So there are various concepts of post-life rewards for good deeds (yes, service to others! lol), and baddies somehow can't keep their illgotten gains (well, they can keep their biases at the very least :d).

Now, that's wandered a bit far off from the example of New-Agers that I gave in the OP; but even that is part of a set of belief structures.  Although a bit more haphazard and unorganized.

and finally, to answer your actual question of "aren't we here to accept the vicious distortions we had a hand in creating ..." I do agree.  It doesn't matter what is served up to us on our plate (The Wheel of Fortune - the catalyst of the body), it's incumbent on us to find a way to interpret and integrate it via a magical means of analysis and processing the catalyst.

I think some of the motivation in posting this thread was me still working through some yellow ray patterns to me feeling a little infringed upon by the society in which I find myself.  This is less an actual occurence in the present, but more goes back to earlier years.  But it's basically the notion of a group of people who set the terms of the discussion, and then everyone else is chucked under the bus if they raise their hand and raise a counterpoint.

Splash

just briefly, I'm not trying to "turn this thread into a discussion re gender roles"...

I wanted to say (and did) that comparing spiritual correctness and political correctness is (to me) a "false equivalency"


what this means is that I'm saying they aren't comparable...

I have the right to reply with that as the original OP refers to them both.

I briefly mention the difference in the 2 (as I perceive it).. which necessitated mention of privilege (the most clear example of which being that of whites and males.)

That's how gender came into it.

That's all.

Jesus doing a face palm as a response prompted me to respond again otherwise I'd have said no more re gender/race privilege and gone on to discuss other aspects of the OP.

The co-incidence of the shooting details.. were what was happening on the TV just before I pressed "Post Reply".... and sadly, spoke directly to the point I was making.... though perhaps the shooter has a "spiritual correctness" flawed thinking issue?

- or maybe he's just a violent white supremacist ?...

another thread for gender is a good idea... not sure if I have time at the moment... nor the emotional strength...

re: "Plus your response to Lighthead was presumptuous in the extreme. Frankly, it almost seems like you're trying to start a fight, especially given that comment about popcorn up there."

how was I presuming wrongly? He posted a FACE PALM directly below a complete quote of my words.... what else was I to think???


and secondly... NOOOOO I hate fighting !!For over 6 months I have often wanted to leave this forum because of peoples behaviour of aggression and defensiveness... I want to be able to say what I think without being called names, bullied (a past incidence) or have people tell me I'm being too 'something or other'.

I spoke about popcorn because I was anticipating a whole lot of outright rejection of my words and trying to be lighthearted.... at the moment I'm still trying to feel comfortable on this forum from being lambasted recently for defending the LBGTQ community (!) 0_0



NB: "Pointing out that men are privileged in no way denies that bad things happen to men. Being privileged does not mean men are given everything in life for free; being privileged does not mean that men do not work hard, do not suffer. In many cases – from a boy being bullied in school, to soldiers selecting male civilians to be executed, to male workers dying of exposure to unsafe chemicals – the sexist society that maintains male privilege also immeasurably harms boys and men."
Okay since I just had a synchronicity with Scott Mandekler and 'political correctness' I thought I should post what he had to say on the matter.

Scott Mandekler Wrote:The bitter truth is some people do know more than others. Some people are more intelligent than others. Some People are more loving than others. Some people are more selfless than others. This political correctness bullshit is actually a way of dulling discernment. Discernment is not racial discrimination. Being a racist is not the same thing as having a discerning intellect. This is yet another fraud shoveled into the masses. If you are going to differentiate between greater and lesser degrees of virtue; Intelligence, goodliness, will, success, and evil, negativity, deception, etc; To have a sharply differentiating or discerning mind, to differentiate levels of development of humans is considered racial discrimination, bigotry, and go sit in the corner you are a bad person. It is just another way of dulling the children's eyes. We should not forget discernment. And so there is a ladder, or the appearance of a ladder. And what I am really saying is don't be afraid to call a spade a spade. Or don't be afraid to discern sharply. It does not mean you are not loving. This is the mark of a good teacher.
(06-19-2015, 11:38 AM)tamaryn Wrote: [ -> ]Okay since I just had a synchronicity with Scott Mandekler and 'political correctness' I thought I should post what he had to say on the matter.


Scott Mandekler Wrote:The bitter truth is some people do know more than others. Some people are more intelligent than others. Some People are more loving than others. Some people are more selfless than others. This political correctness bullshit is actually a way of dulling discernment. Discernment is not racial discrimination. Being a racist is not the same thing as having a discerning intellect. This is yet another fraud shoveled into the masses. If you are going to differentiate between greater and lesser degrees of virtue; Intelligence, goodliness, will, success, and evil, negativity, deception, etc; To have a sharply differentiating or discerning mind, to differentiate levels of development of humans is considered racial discrimination, bigotry, and go sit in the corner you are a bad person. It is just another way of dulling the children's eyes. We should not forget discernment. And so there is a ladder, or the appearance of a ladder. And what I am really saying is don't be afraid to call a spade a spade. Or don't be afraid to discern sharply. It does not mean you are not loving. This is the mark of a good teacher.

Love it! 

Splash

perhaps what's going on here is that I have a different idea of "political correctness"...?

I don't get into non discerning one size fits all 'group-think'... on any area of life...

so for example.. if a man likes a woman in lots of makeup and 'feminine' and at home... her in that role and him a 9-5 worker and he is married to a woman who genuinely loves expressing herself that way... and she's had access to education and freedom of life choices, and feels empowered and has experienced alternatives in life... but that's how she wants to 'be'.... I have no problem with that...

NONE Smile

however "political correctness" says she shouldn't be that way?? is that the usual perception of 'PC" ?

well then I think "political correctness" isn't okay either... Smile

because the only thing 'correct' that we should all be trying to ensure on this planet is that everyone get to live how they want without hurting or holding back others...

my feminism (for eg) wants the opportunity for whatever all people (women, men, intersex) (truly and uniquely individually) want... not some definition of sameness of belief or thought...

anyhoo... snooze time in Aus night all Heart
(06-19-2015, 11:38 AM)tamaryn Wrote: [ -> ]Okay since I just had a synchronicity with Scott Mandekler and 'political correctness' I thought I should post what he had to say on the matter.



Scott Mandekler Wrote:The bitter truth is some people do know more than others. Some people are more intelligent than others. Some People are more loving than others. Some people are more selfless than others. This political correctness bullshit is actually a way of dulling discernment. Discernment is not racial discrimination. Being a racist is not the same thing as having a discerning intellect. This is yet another fraud shoveled into the masses. If you are going to differentiate between greater and lesser degrees of virtue; Intelligence, goodliness, will, success, and evil, negativity, deception, etc; To have a sharply differentiating or discerning mind, to differentiate levels of development of humans is considered racial discrimination, bigotry, and go sit in the corner you are a bad person. It is just another way of dulling the children's eyes. We should not forget discernment. And so there is a ladder, or the appearance of a ladder. And what I am really saying is don't be afraid to call a spade a spade. Or don't be afraid to discern sharply. It does not mean you are not loving. This is the mark of a good teacher.

I'm pretty sure I've heard him say that in one of his talks ... as I've listened to probably over 50 hours of his youtube talks.

(y)
(06-19-2015, 11:23 AM)Splash Wrote: [ -> ]just briefly, I'm not trying to "turn this thread into a discussion re gender roles"...

I wanted to say (and did) that comparing spiritual correctness and political correctness is (to me) a "false equivalency"


what this means is that I'm saying they aren't comparable...

I have the right to reply with that as the original OP refers to them both.

I briefly mention the difference in the 2 (as I perceive it).. which necessitated mention of privilege (the most clear example of which being that of whites and males.)

That's how gender came into it.

That's all.

Jesus doing a face palm as a response prompted me to respond again otherwise I'd have said no more re gender/race privilege and gone on to discuss other aspects of the OP.

The co-incidence of the shooting details.. were what was happening on the TV just before I pressed "Post Reply".... and sadly, spoke directly to the point I was making.... though perhaps the shooter has a "spiritual correctness" flawed thinking issue?

- or maybe he's just a violent white supremacist ?...

another thread for gender is a good idea... not sure if I have time at the moment... nor the emotional strength...

re: "Plus your response to Lighthead was presumptuous in the extreme. Frankly, it almost seems like you're trying to start a fight, especially given that comment about popcorn up there."

how was I presuming wrongly? He posted a FACE PALM directly below a complete quote of my words.... what else was I to think???


and secondly... NOOOOO I hate fighting !!For over 6 months I have often wanted to leave this forum because of peoples behaviour of aggression and defensiveness... I want to be able to say what I think without being called names, bullied (a past incidence) or have people tell me I'm being too 'something or other'.

I spoke about popcorn because I was anticipating a whole lot of outright rejection of my words and trying to be lighthearted.... at the moment I'm still trying to feel comfortable on this forum from being lambasted recently for defending the LBGTQ community (!) 0_0



NB: "Pointing out that men are privileged in no way denies that bad things happen to men. Being privileged does not mean men are given everything in life for free; being privileged does not mean that men do not work hard, do not suffer. In many cases – from a boy being bullied in school, to soldiers selecting male civilians to be executed, to male workers dying of exposure to unsafe chemicals – the sexist society that maintains male privilege also immeasurably harms boys and men."

Splash, I think that those of us here on Bring 4th are really getting tired of the fact that you're always trying to debate people, line for line, on points that are not really even controversial. I thought that Plenum posted a very interesting OP that, if you read between the lines, didn't really have anything to do with political correctness. It just seems strange that, no matter what anybody posts, you always have to go into "debate mode."

It also bothers me that you're trying to open up a line of debate with Plenum of all people. Are you trying to imply that Plen is in any way insensitive about anything? It's just so absolutely asinine at this point. It just seems like you have some type of cookie-cutter, activist agenda with everything that everybody posts. You need to learn to adapt to the mode of the conversation.
knowing "more" or being intelligent doesn't make someone better. it's all subjective. also there's time. look at a soul's journey from maggot to magnificent. some poor slub now might be thriving 2 years later. i'm so sick of people creating these stupid subjective temporally blind hierarchies and trying to sell that as objective truth, or worse, non PC straight talk. i vehemently disagree with Scott. call a spade a spade, admit it's subjective. everything is.
My spirit tells me I'm correct.
basically imagine there's a pyramid. do u ascribe each level of the pyramid a certain value based on ur likes and dislikes? or do u simply let it exist without projecting ur monkey poo on to it?
(06-19-2015, 05:45 PM)Bluebell Wrote: [ -> ]knowing "more" or being intelligent doesn't make someone better. it's all subjective. also there's time. look at a soul's journey from maggot to magnificent. some poor slub now might be thriving 2 years later. i'm so sick of people creating these stupid subjective temporally blind hierarchies and trying to sell that as objective truth, or worse, non PC straight talk. i vehemently disagree with Scott. call a spade a spade, admit it's subjective. everything is.


Never in his entire explanation did he ever state that one was better. Could that potentially be an imbalance on your part to where you are equating being more of a particular trait means being better?  He's just calling it like it is. We are still One and still a part  of the unity that binds us. It's just that some are further along in their personal evolution. Doesn't mean they are better by any stretch. Just different. It would be like calling a 3rd grader better than a 2nd grader. The 3rd grader is generally going to be more versed in life experience and overall education. Same goes for all other selfs. 
moderator!!!!! i'm being personally attacked!

as for Scott, i'm allowed to disagree and i said nothing to indicate an imbalance. who ru to project that on me?
(06-19-2015, 06:05 PM)Bluebell Wrote: [ -> ]moderator!!!!! i'm being personally attacked!

as for Scott, i'm allowed to disagree and i said nothing to indicate an imbalance. who ru to project that on me?

Geez chill out. I was merely suggesting it as a possibility. It was me trying to be more suggestive and caring towards helping an other self see a potential imbalance. I wasn't trying to tell you what you're thinking merely trying to help. So much for attempting to be more sensitive to an other selfs needs 
LOL i didn't ask for a psych evaluation.
(06-19-2015, 06:12 PM)Bluebell Wrote: [ -> ]LOL i didn't ask for a psych evaluation.

But see that's what the forums could be used for and why many people have left. The forums can be a tool for all of us to be the mirrors needed to allow for a greater evolution of self through such analysis. Yet when honesty and potential service occur,  we get lambasted.  
u have to ask first. and ur not a licenced shrink. and please fix ur text, it's an eyesore.
(06-19-2015, 06:19 PM)Bluebell Wrote: [ -> ]u have to ask first. and ur not a licenced shrink. and please fix ur text, it's an eyesore.

Oh you can see that too?  I thought it was my phone screwing up lol.  I'm out sure how it happened but it wasn't intentional and I can't find a way to do it 
i'm just giving u a hard time because i like ur freckles
(06-19-2015, 06:21 PM)Jeremy Wrote: [ -> ]
(06-19-2015, 06:19 PM)Bluebell Wrote: [ -> ]u have to ask first. and ur not a licenced shrink. and please fix ur text, it's an eyesore.

Oh you can see that too?  I thought it was my phone screwing up lol.  I'm out sure how it happened but it wasn't intentional and I can't find a way to do it 

There's an A with a red cirlce in the right bottom corner with a white bar in it. It unformats the text.
(06-19-2015, 06:26 PM)Bluebell Wrote: [ -> ]i'm just giving u a hard time because i like ur freckles

You're giving him a hard time because he wants to be a mirror and as such opens himself to be mirrored back. 

And the mirror game begins!  BigSmile
he's on a phone. phones suck.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5