"I don't think it is right to equate Islam with violence"

[Immanuel Can]

You do not agree that every human being NEEDS clean enough air, clean enough water, enough nutrients, and attention in order to keep living?

I am the ONE saying everything is relative to the observer, so why are you trying to argue the same way, against Me?

You contradict yourself, first you try to say that everyone agrees on a few absolutes, then you say that everything is relative to the observer, and observers are often different from each other, so what they think will not be the same.

Well, and on this point it's clear that at least TWO people don't agree with ken -- you and me -- so on his "everyone" criterion, the statement "ken is right" must not be "true." Not "everyone" agrees with it.

Sheesh. It's pretty obvious the guy doesn't have a leg to stand on. I wonder why he can't see it. Maybe he just doesn't want to.

[ken]

I just gave an example when EVERYONE AGREES. Explain to all of us here how that example is wrong.

I already did. I gave you the example of all decisions made since the dawn of time. "Everyone" has never agreed, at any point in human history. In other words, you're setting a standard you're never going to be able to meet -- that is, if you actually mean "everyone."

Of course I mean 'everyone' that is what I have said numerous times.

Do you know what the future holds?

If not everyone agrees, then so be it. I said, If and when everyone agrees. That, i think, is a far more "reliable method" than the one you gave, which by the way you can NOT back up, at all.

I gave the example of if and when everyone agrees on what we all NEED to live. Either challenge that example, refute it or accept it. Do NOT say what WILL happen in the future if you are not 100% sure.

But if you don't actually mean "everyone" but rather "majority," then you've still got the problem that the majority has historically often been wrong. At one time, the "majority" was quite convinced the Earth was the center planet in the universe. But that didn't make it true.

There are your examples.

Do you or do you NOT read what I write.

I explained the necessity of always remaining open even AFTER everyone is agreeing on some thing.

WHY can you NOT understand that I MEAN absolutely everyone when I say, 'everyone'.

[thedoc]

Do you or do you NOT read what I write.
I explained the necessity of always remaining open even AFTER everyone is agreeing on some thing.
WHY can you NOT understand that I MEAN absolutely everyone when I say, 'everyone'.

Just because you write something, does not make it correct, and most often it's wrong, so just reading does not automatically mean agreeing.

[ken]

I just gave an example when EVERYONE AGREES. Explain to all of us here how that example is wrong.

The example you gave is wrong because everyone does not agree, there are a few who will say that not all of those things are necessary because not everyone wants to continue to live, and there are some who do not require attention to exist, they are just as happy to be left alone.

I have NEVER said My example is right. Maybe the greatest advantage of always being OPEN is that I never imply I am right, therefore I can NEVER be wrong also. If an "example" I give is NOT right, then the beauty of expressing it from an open perspective is that when it IS corrected by others then I am open to seeing and accepting it.

Of course older healthy human beings can live with out attention, and I wrote it that way so I can show that others can correct what I say. But in the example I gave I said if and when a person disagrees with any of those things, then we can use them to actually see if they are needed for living. Now imagine if any person said that they could live without any attention at all. That means NO attention from any other living thing. Let us see how long they want to live then. Obviously they could live till the day they die, but would any person really want absolutely NO attention whatsoever from any thing at all? If so, then that is probably a sad reflection and the plight of our society.

You are not the end all and be all of the human condition, in fact you seem to be a bit of an aberration to the normal human condition.

Two things here:
1. Yes you are exactly right i am not the end all and be all of the human condition. That was and is the point I am trying to make. immanuel can was saying that they "KNOW what is right" because they "have the facts". I on the other hand have continually questioned how this could possibly be. Therefore, I am saying not one, not a few, and not even a majority of people KNOW the human condition. What I have being continually saying is if and when people are truly open then Truth can be very easily found. Truth like ONLY if and when everyone is agreeing, then 'that' IS what is true, right, and/or correct, AND, as long as everyone remains open, then further and/or newer Truth can also easily and quickly come to light also. So, 'i' the person, just like every other person, can not individually know the human condition. Only the collective 'I' can KNOW this.

2. I am the ONE who has already stated, but not sure if it was in this thread, that since I can recall I have seemingly always been seen as, and think, differently from all human beings, or, as you so rightly say about Me, "in fact you seem to be a bit of an aberration to the normal human condition".

The actual beauty of your statement here implies there is in fact a "normal human condition". NOW, if as you also say, " You are not the end all and be all of the human condition", then that would imply that NOT one person knows the human condition, am I right here?

If the "normal" human condition could not be known by one human being, then could that imply that to KNOW, for sure, the "normal" human condition the more human beings in agreement would give the best and most accurate perspective? Therefore, could the best advantage point to see from in order to gain and obtain a completely objective viewpoint of the so called "normal human condition" actually come from ALL of us from the perspective of the collective ONE, i.e., 'what' we ALL agree with?

I know you are trying to ridicule Me and put Me down but the beauty of everything you write is that you are only verifying and proving what I am saying is right. Even your first six words here, "The example you gave is wrong", proves that you believe there is a 'right', which implies that within us ALL there is some way of knowing what is right. Can you provide the 'method' for finding that 'right'? If not, then why would you even think that 'what' it is that everyone agrees with would NOT be that 'right'? I have NEVER stated anywhere what that 'what' is that everyone agrees with. I have only stated that 'what it is' that everyone agrees with is 'what is right'. The actual method to finding that is done by being truly Open and Honest. A cliche I know but it is one that holds far more truth than most people actually realize yet.

[Immanuel Can]

WHY can you NOT understand that I MEAN absolutely everyone when I say, 'everyone'.

No, no...I believe you. It's apparent you actually believe you've said something profound there. But I'm not part of your "everyone." Neither are a lot of people, I suspect.

Good luck to you. You'll need it.

[ken]

You do not agree that every human being NEEDS clean enough air, clean enough water, enough nutrients, and attention in order to keep living?

I am the ONE saying everything is relative to the observer, so why are you trying to argue the same way, against Me?

You contradict yourself, first you try to say that everyone agrees on a few absolutes, then you say that everything is relative to the observer, and observers are often different from each other, so what they think will not be the same.

Actually I have NOT contradicted here at all. Either I have not taken into account the WAY you will read what I write therefore I have conveyed My message wrongly for you, or, the beliefs and/or assumptions that make prior to reading what I write will always prevent you from grasping what I am saying from My perspective.

Firstly, 'absolutes' may just be to strong a word to use here. I would need to know your definition of that word before we could use it successfully.
Secondly, I say, if and when everyone agrees, THEN that is what is true, right, and/or correct. If you like ONLY AFTER everyone agrees, then "absolutes" are known. But as I just pointed out the word 'absolutes' needs to be discussed prior. But what I say is ONLY AFTER everyone agrees, THEN things are KNOWN. I do NOT say, everyone agrees on a few absolutes. That is to ambiguous a statement.
Thirdly, Yes I do say that everything is relative to the observer. But WHY are you only observing this from one perspective ONLY? The very point I am making is if, and only, if everyone is agreeing on something, then that means everyone is looking from the exact same perspective. They are doing this as the ONE, collective of all human beings. From this Observer Truth is not just found It is also completely seen, for what it really is, and fully understood also. So, everything is relative to the observer. Either you look at and see things from the perspective of just the one individual of 'you' only. Or, you CAN look and see from the One collective of 'I' ONLY. I KNOW from which observer is able to see and know more.

Saying, "observers are often different from each other, so what they think will not be the same." is about as obvious as 'you' and 'I' are not seeing "eye to eye" at the moment. There are OBVIOUSLY just as many observers looking, seeing, and thinking differently as there are human beings, so there could be just as many disagreements as there are 'i's in the world. But ONLY from the collective of everyone that 'I' is able to very easily and instantaneously finds and sees what is right in Life. The truly open Mind's eye already SEES and KNOWS ALL.

[ken]

You do not agree that every human being NEEDS clean enough air, clean enough water, enough nutrients, and attention in order to keep living?

I am the ONE saying everything is relative to the observer, so why are you trying to argue the same way, against Me?

You contradict yourself, first you try to say that everyone agrees on a few absolutes, then you say that everything is relative to the observer, and observers are often different from each other, so what they think will not be the same.

Well, and on this point it's clear that at least TWO people don't agree with ken -- you and me -- so on his "everyone" criterion, the statement "ken is right" must not be "true." Not "everyone" agrees with it.

ken is NEVER right. Never said ken was ever right also.

You have completely lost the point I am making, AGAIN. But then again you never once starting finding nor seeing the point I have been making.

I have stated, If and when everyone agrees, then....

I have NEVER stated that what I say everyone will agree with. Can you see the difference?

NOW, tell Me you understand this; If everyone came together to find 'what it is' that they all actually agree with, then 'that', what everyone has just come to discover what they all agree with, IS obviously what is true, right, and correct, because there is no one disagreeing. Surely that is not to hard to understand is it?

Sheesh. It's pretty obvious the guy doesn't have a leg to stand on. I wonder why he can't see it. Maybe he just doesn't want to.

Have you ever considered it has been you all along who has NOT yet once been able to back up what you have said?

You are so hell bent on wanting Me to be wrong and you right. But that is never going to happen because I can NEVER be wrong because I do NOT say that I am EVER right. I am always open. I say ONLY what everyone agrees with is what is right.

You are standing on the fact that you have stated that you KNOW what is right because you KNOW the facts. That I have suggested is pretty "shaky ground to be standing on". And your refusal to answer any questions I have posed supports the fact that what you are standing on actually does not even exist.

[ken]

Do you or do you NOT read what I write.
I explained the necessity of always remaining open even AFTER everyone is agreeing on some thing.
WHY can you NOT understand that I MEAN absolutely everyone when I say, 'everyone'.

Just because you write something, does not make it correct, and most often it's wrong, so just reading does not automatically mean agreeing.

Are you sure you and immanuel are NOT one and the same person. YOU also are NOT reading what I am actually writing. I NEVER stated that what I write is correct. I say, "Do you or do you NOT read what I write" because I was referring to the very fact that I had already explained previously that by 'everyone' I MEAN everyone and NOT a 'majority'. But still I am bombarded with statements like, "if by everyone you actually do mean everyone and not a majority". Give me a break ("both" of) you and just read the actual words I write and do NOT assume that it could or does mean something else other than what is stated.

If you think what I say could be seen as ambiguous, then state that and I will fix/repair what I have written. But if you can only see one thing in what I write, then from NOW ON, if you are going assume anything, from all the past replies so far please assume that what I write actually means the opposite from what you are thinking it actually means. I do NOT yet know any other way to get you to understand the points I am making from what I actually do say and do write.

[ken]

WHY can you NOT understand that I MEAN absolutely everyone when I say, 'everyone'.

No, no...I believe you.

Finally.

It's apparent you actually believe you've said something profound there. [/quote]

I have asked you this numerous times already, by the way you still have not responded to the actual question once, "How many times do I have to inform you that I neither believe nor disbelieve anything, besides believing in the Self's ability to do and achieve any thing It wants to do and achieve?

Will I have to keep reminding you every time we have a discussion?

But I'm not part of your "everyone." Neither are a lot of people, I suspect.

Good luck to you. You'll need it.

WHY would you even use the foolish term "your" everyone?

If you do NOT want to be a part of everyone, which means you do NOT want to take part in this "world" with ALL others, then so be it. That is your choice and prerogative.

'Everyone' is a just term to describe every single one if and when (working) together they are joined as ONE. To Me, that is why the two words of 'every' and 'one' when separate 'every one' literally means every-single or individual-one, and, 'everyone' when together 'everyone' literally means every-one as ONE.

But the way I do KNOW why you used the foolish term "your" everyone here. You were "trying" to use it to refute what you alleged what I "believed" was profound. However, as I have just pointed out that I do NOT believe anything, besides in Self, and your use of the word "your" was just totally and absolutely inaccurate. "Your" implies ownership. Unless of course you could prove how I own 'everyone' then your statement would be totally and justified as accurate.

[henry quirk]

Two men enter, one man leaves.

Seriously.

[Immanuel Can]

Two men enter, one man leaves.

Seriously.

Okay, I'll leave.

[Hobbes' Choice]

Two men enter, one man leaves.

Seriously.

Okay, I'll leave.

It's better running round in circles chasing each other's tails or should that be tales.