Icelander said:

I don't see you guys as compatable. Move on, however difficult that may seem.

---

Indeed (BTW I love you Ice )

Quote:

we are fucking perfect for each other at the most basic level.

---

You mean you have a 'thingie' and she has an 'anti-thingie'?

Sinbad said:

Man, you are very fond of verbiage, something that I've grown tired of lately to tell the truth. Fully discussing the 'ideas' is a waste of time IMO, yes.

---

That's why I decide how I invest my time, and not you.

Quote:

If you had the facts and knowledge about fundamental xtianity and its impact on the human psyche, there would be no argument

---

Quote:

whatever the unique circumstances may be (which he explained enough of in his first post for me to formulate an opinion on).

---

Quote:

The opinion that I gave definitely did pertain to his experience else he would not have agreed with me on what I said.

---

Quote:

Despite your lengthy probing into the topic, he still has come to the same conclusion. Funny that, huh?

---

I am not concerned with his conclusion. People make their own decisions, and my posts do not lie dependent upon or are otherwise affected by his expressed conclusion. My motivation was not to bring him to any certain conclusion, nor was it to wave his conclusion around in the air in such a manner as you have decided to engage in.

Quote:

As I have said before, in the context of a relationship, there is an intial honeymoon phase where you feel as if you are at 'one' with the other person. This is a delusion, and causes you not to take into account the other person conditioning, however much you feel you have 'transcended' it through your feelings on oneness.

---

Mutual sharing of love is delusion? Love takes into account the totality of the other person, as well as one's own self, and is an expression that culminates from the interaction of all aspects of their being, barring any obstructions that will either be transcended or bring seperation. My analogy towards electrical currents is apt - love is energy that is shared between two individuals through interaction.

Quote:

This is what I refer to as the 'rose tinted glasses' effect. Once the glasses have fallen, which inevitably happen with time.

---

You mean, once one places expectations and demands as to the nature of reality, one will inflict upon oneself seperation? Of course, but I don't see what this has to do with love.

Quote:

The obstructions that fundie xtianity present will always be there, however much one imagines to to have been 'transcended', through the blindness of falling in love.

---

No, you're absolutely right - people do not change. People have no ability to consciously work with others to initiate change within themselves and their relationships. Love is a fleeting phenomenon that inevitably disappears and leaves seperate individuals, whose only hope is to move along and find another person and then another and then another. Transcendence is ilusion, to think that one's awareness could dissolve mental obstructions that obscure one's perceptions and one's experience of love is delusion.

Quote:

In the past I have made this mistake with women, and had it confirmed by many many others that they have also done the same, thus I come from personal experience in this respect.

---

Quote:

Although the 'love' remains (bear in mind that i have not given a definition of this kind of love yet), the act of falling into the delusion of oneness means that issues that are always existent are not dealt with sufficiently, and in the case of fundamentalist xtianity, the brainwashing involved makes it almost impossible to work through, especially if she has been brought up to believe in that (which is the assumption I have made)

---

It is a pretty brazen assumption, that this woman has no hope for ever having a loving, lasting relationship with this man, because he used a generalized, empty label to refer to her.

I'm not sure what "delusion of oneness" you are referring to, but it obviously isn't what I am personally referring to, as it is explicitly implied within the perspective I am proposing that any obstructions that arise are dealt with sufficently. Hello Sinbad, are you even reading these words? Is there anyone in there?

These obstructions have to be sufficently dealt with, in the context of the relationship, because, there won't be a relationship if they aren't. Do you recognize that this concern that he has proposed in this thread is this specific point at which it is to be dealt with, or they are to be seperate? Do you realize that you've, essentially, told this dude "Look, my reality says that you, some guy I don't know, in a situation that I don't know or understand, has no chance of being in a continual, loving relationship with this woman"? And from which foundation are you placing this judgment?

Quote:

I'm glad that you can see that there are two dimensions and I hope that you will maintain this view and respect that in regard to your own situation, in order to have a fruitful and healthy relationship.

---

I don't think I maintain the view that you do, and for that I am thankful.

Sinbad said:

If you don't like that, you are free to offer your own, and disagree with mine to you hearts content.

---

I thought this was already established in practice?

Quote:

If you feel inadequate enough to have to probe further and further into the  personal life of the thread maker, so as to make a valid opinion, then that is your choice.

---

It is a question of feeling inadequate?

Quote:

In conclusion,  as I have said before, all relationships that last, IMO, are dependent upon a consensus in world views between the two (or more) individuals. Perhaps you do not have enough life experience to see this, or perhaps not.

---

No, you're right. Accountants only marry accountants, and Spanish people only marry Spanish people. Lutherans only marry Lutherans.

Quote:

If however you can understand what fundamentalist Christianity is, then perhaps you will have a better avenue for which to judge the situation.

---

The situation being discussed has absolutely nothing to do with fundamentalist Christianity.

Quote:

I can only hope you do a little research.

---

I have been doing research - its called asking questions pertaining to the actual situation.

fireworks_god said:

Yeah, but you don't even see them in the first place.

---

Quote:

Top Ten Signs You're a Fundamentalist Christian


10 - You vigorously deny the existence of thousands of gods claimed by other religions, but feel outraged when someone denies the existence of yours.

9 - You feel insulted and "dehumanized" when scientists say that people evolved from other life forms, but you have no problem with the Biblical claim that we were created from dirt.

8 - You laugh at polytheists, but you have no problem believing in a Triune God.

7 - Your face turns purple when you hear of the "atrocities" attributed to Allah, but you don't even flinch when hearing about how God/Jehovah slaughtered all the babies of Egypt in "Exodus" and ordered the elimination of entire ethnic groups in "Joshua" including women, children, and trees!

6 - You laugh at Hindu beliefs that deify humans, and Greek claims about gods sleeping with women, but you have no problem believing that the Holy Spirit impregnated Mary, who then gave birth to a man-god who got killed, came back to life and then ascended into the sky.

5 - You are willing to spend your life looking for little loopholes in the scientifically established age of Earth (few billion years), but you find nothing wrong with believing dates recorded by Bronze Age tribesmen sitting in their tents and guessing that Earth is a few generations old.

4 - You believe that the entire population of this planet with the exception of those who share your beliefs -- though excluding those in all rival sects - will spend Eternity in an infinite Hell of Suffering. And yet consider your religion the most "tolerant" and "loving."


3 - While modern science, history, geology, biology, and physics have failed to convince you otherwise, some idiot rolling around on the floor speaking in "tongues" may be all the evidence you need to "prove" Christianity.

2 - You define 0.01% as a "high success rate" when it comes to answered prayers. You consider that to be evidence that prayer works. And you think that the remaining 99.99% FAILURE was simply the will of God.

1 - You actually know a lot less than many atheists and agnostics do about the Bible, Christianity, and church history - but still call yourself a Christian.

---

JoseLibrado said:

There is only one thing that I see may completly stop a future - is her openess. I met this girl in University and she was really religious. Long story short, I ended up talking to her about religion and life, and she changed her mind about it, particularly sex and marriage. The difference between this situation and yours is that she was beggining to open her mind to differing ideas about spirituality and relationships, already. It may be very hard to talk to her about religion, if she is closed minded about it - in short she will see your questioning of founding beliefs as attacks on her faith or not. I suggest you try, with an accepting and respectful tone, it seems and feels to me, that its worth it!
C you all, Love J

---