My views that 'hell' exists are based on sound, logical reasoning.

[Age]

But I do NOT 'have to'. IF I felt that I 'had to', then I would be desperately 'trying to'. Obviously I am NOT desperately 'trying to'. As can be CLEARLY EVIDENCED I just wait, patiently.

But why wait patiently or even bring up the idea of ... '' ''If you WANT logical and sound PROOF that 'hell' exists, then question AND challenge me about this.'' ... at all-if you do NOT have to? ... sounds like a lot of desperation to me.

I wrote that, in the thread I did, because the one who started that thread BELIEVES that 'hell' does NOT exist, and because they were actually SEEKING OUT people to argue with/against. I was just showing them that 'I' am here, that is; IF they Truly did want to discuss this.

If that sounds like a "lot of desperation" to you, then that is PERFECTLY FINE with me. We ALL KNOW that what 'sounds LIKE ...' does NOT necessarily mean that it actual is like that.

When, and if, anyone interested comes along, then they do. And, if they do not, then so be it.

So here, you now believe there is an interest in challenging and question what has already been claimed to be proven.

HOW MANY TIMES do you need to be informed of some thing BEFORE you comprehend and understand it?

I do NOT believe ANY thing at all.

Also, what has already been, claimed, to be proven to 'one' does NOT necessarily mean that it has been proven to "another".

So what makes you think that there would be an interest in something that has already been proven?

I do NOT think this. Your questioning is so FAR OFF THE MARK.

surely if the proof has been announced then what would be the point of arguing or challenging what has already been proven?

Has, for example, the existence of 'hell' been proven to 'you'?

I CERTAINLY DO NOT have any feeling nor notion that I 'have to' do anything, especially prove anything.

That's correct, and of course if you already claimed to have the proof, then you don't have to prove your proof to anyone, not even yourself.
But then why assume that there would be anyone interested in what has been proven by you there, surely if 'hell' is proven to exist for you there, then that proof could also exist for everyone else as well, else one would be left wondering why they don't have the proof but you do, it would be like where did you get the proof from that they haven't got.

Firstly, I am NOT assuming that there would be anyone interested in what has been proven to me, HERE. Please, do NOT forget that I wrote those comments in a thread, which was started by "another" who BELIEVES 'hell' does NOT exist, and wanted to PROVE this BELIEF.

Secondly, the proof I have does exist for EVERY one.

Thirdly, if ANY one is left wondering why the do not YET have the proof but I do, then I have suggest enough times ALREADY on what is the BEST thing to do, that is; IF one is Truly interested in becoming wiser.

Fourthly, if it would be like 'that', then so be it.

You see, all you are doing here is assuming there are others who may WANT you to provide the proof that 'hell' exists.

Please do NOT forget WHERE I posted my comments.

So again, why would others even WANT to argue this 'hell' exists subject with you, when they can also already know their own proofs...

Again, if you are wondering the views of "others", then I suggest you clarify with THEM.

you would have to assume that others would not have their own proof by requesting they challenge you...

I "would NOT" have to assume any such thing.

Please do NOT forget that some one started a thread about the issue of 'hell', based on their own BELIEF that 'hell' does NOT even exist.

but why would others WANT to challenge your proof, surely that would be a VERY ONE-SIDED argument on your part ONLY, simply because you have already decleared the truth that 'hell' exists, and have also stated that there is no need to prove it.

WHEN have I stated that there is no need to prove it.

WHAT I did state was that I have NO need to prove it.

Obviously, if some one needs proof before they accept some thing, then there is a need to prove it.

So any assumed challenger on your part of the argument would be bascially wasting their time with you, wouldn't they, and so the whole argument would be totally and utterly pointless wouldn't it?

NO, NOT AT ALL.

1. If I can, as I say, prove some thing, then it can NOT be disproved.

2. My views are just views, and as such are NOT fixed, forever more. So, if I can NOT prove some thing, and are thus SHOWN otherwise, then I will SEE things differently, obviously.

3. I find ANY argument, which is sound and valid VERY MEANINGFUL, and NOT pointless at all.

But I do NOT 'need' to do 'that'. You just made this ASSUMPTION here, and have JUMPED to this CONCLUSION.

But you obviously do need to do it, because why would you even announce it in the first place?

Do you 'need to do' EVERY thing you announce?

I, obviously, do NOT need to do it, BECAUSE, as I keep REMINDING you, of what the actual THREAD, which I posted that in, was actually about WHETHER 'hell' exists or NOT.

I was just providing the poster who opened the thread with the 'type', which they were seeking and looking for. I announced what I did BECAUSE of what they BELIEVE IS TRUE.

the need to announce it is here in black and white...for the READER to see > > ''If you WANT logical and sound PROOF that 'hell' exists, then question AND challenge me about this.''

But there is NO 'need' here.

There was a 'want'. This is because I 'wanted' to have a discussion with some one in regards to what they BELIEVE is True.

So here we have another ASSUMPTION that there is a 'you' that would WANT proof that 'hell' exists from an external source, namely this announcement that YOU made. And yes, you really did make it.

Why do the words under the label "dontaskme" make the CLAIM; "here we have another ASSUMPTION that there is a 'you', but then the end of that sentence the words CLAIM that a 'YOU' made that ASSUMPTION.

Is the contradiction, and irony, here, being SEEN in this?

The contradiction and irony is even FURTHER HIGHLIGHTED by stating; "And yes, 'you' really did make it"?

So, if according to 'you', and 'your' logic, that it is an ASSUMPTION that there is a 'you' but to argue this out 'you' go on to say that A 'YOU' made this ASSUMPTION, and that A 'you' really did make the ASSUMPTION that there is A 'you'.

If 'you' want to CLAIM and ARGUE that A 'you' made an ASSUMPTION, that there is a 'you', then there is NO assumption here. It would just be absolutely ludicrous and absurd to CLAIM that a 'you' is an ASSUMPTION, which was made by a 'you'.

Also, besides 'I' NEVER assumed that there is a 'you', I also NEVER assumed that there is a 'you' that "would WANT" proof.

I just said; 'If 'you' (ANY one) WANT ..., then ....'.

I NEVER even thought NOR suggested ANY one "would WANT ...". I said that from the context of 'ONLY IF any one WANTS ..., then ...'.

Obviously, from my own OBVIOUS resistance to prove anything and my own OBVIOUS patience to just WAIT for those, who are Truly inquisitive, interested, OPEN, and Honest, I have SHOWN that I have had NO 'need' to 'that'.

Steady on there is no need to keep repeating what you have already said above, to which I have ALREADY given a very open and honest reply.

Your "open and honest" reply was to keep insisting and arguing that I did 'need' to announce/say 'that'.

I was providing thee EVIDENCE that I did NOT AT ALL 'need' to do any such thing.

And what are you proposing here is the, so called, "dead certain" view?

Dead certain view is another terminology for ''proof'' ..most educated people know that.

I was NOT asking 'that' question, which you answered to. I did NOT ask; "What is A "dead certain" view?" Nor did I ask; "What does A "dead certain" view mean?"

What I was asking was; "What is THIS "dead certain" view", (which you are talking about here?).

In fact, what actually took place was this:

You wrote; why would you even want to consider starting an argument over a view that is already a dead certain.

And what I actually wrote was; And what are you proposing here is the, so called, "dead certain" view?

What can be CLEARLY SEEN is I NEVER asked any thing, like what you responded to and answered.

Also, why did you NOT propose this question to the one who started that thread, and who obviously holds a position, which they BELIEVE is absolutely True? Have you forgotten that it was 'them' who first claimed that they KNOW what thee actual Truth IS, and that it was 'them' who was seeking out someone/anyone with the opposite BELIEF to argue with, and prove things to?

On your request.

Here, I will insert a KNOWER by the name of AGE

What are you talking about now?

I did NOT start that thread. Some one "else" DID.

I just took up their offer, on the provision that it was CLEAR that I do NOT have belief either way.

Is the one known as AGE the one who started the thread, and who obviously holds a position, which they BELIEVE is absolutely True?

NO. Any one only has to OPEN the thread, and LOOK AT it, to SEE what thee actual Truth IS.

The one known as "age" did NOT start that thread. So, the rest is a moot point.

Also, just for your information; NONE of the positions I have, I BELIEVE are absolutely True.

And yet also claims to know that '' I do NOT have belief either way.''

The word 'yet' is unnecessary because the first two claims were WRONG, to begin with.

I also, for your information, "claim to know" that 'I do NOT have belief either way'. This is just A FACT.

Very CLEAR that isn't it? NOT!

I do NOT know what your question, and your own response to it, "Very CLEAR that is not it? NOT!" is actually saying NOR meaning.

I also have NO interest in even 'trying to' CLARIFY this with you. So, I will just leave your own words, to thy own 'self'.

But that proven is NOT requested to be challenged nor questioned at all.

And yet clearly this is not the case when one reads the following statement .... ''If you WANT logical and sound PROOF that 'hell' exists, then question AND challenge me about this.''
That sounds like a request, or a demand made to an assumed other to respond.

ONCE AGAIN, you completely and utterly MISCONSTRUED my words, and MISINTERPRETED what is meant.

There is definitely a request for proven KNOWN

Is this a 'definite', without doubt, KNOWN, for sure, absolute, and irrefutable, actual Truth here?

that the character that goes by the believed label 'AGE' is able to give a clear logical explanation of how the existence of 'hell' is known proven to exist....and that request..aka question is being made, because it's clearly there for the reader in said/written bolded statement.

Okay, if you say so.

'I' am the one who has been seeking to be challenged and questioned.

But why would an 'I' that already KNOWS and HAS the proven that ''hell'' exists - then want to seek out that proven knowing again by assuming there would be a counter argument for what is already proven by I ?

BECAUSE, contrary to 'your' BELIEF, there are actual things, known as 'human beings' do NOT believe that 'hell' exists, and would LOVE to 'try to' formulate counter arguments. Also, what is already proven by 'I' has OBVIOUSLY NOT already been proven to those of 'you', who OBVIOUSLY BELIEVE otherwise.

Why would an assumption be made that there exists another entity who can question what you've already declared as proof to yourself?

Why do 'you' claim there is a "yourself"? If there is a 'your' and a 'self', then this immediately implies there is two. Unless, of course, 'you' can SHOW otherwise.

The fact that there are two separate labeled 'identities', declaring that they KNOW what is true, in CLEARLY MARKED different wording, is the VERY EVIDENCE and PROOF that there exists "another" entity.

If there are NOT two separate and differently labeled entities writing words, through the hands on human bodies, or through speech from the mouths of human bodies, which "other" entities can CLEARLY SEE HERE, in words, then what IS actually going on here?

Surely there would be no need for you to make a request for a questioner to then question what you already know to be true?

This is Right. As I have been saying; There is NO 'need' for me to make a request for a ANY thing. But, if I would 'like' or 'want' some thing to happen, and for that to happen requires "another" entity, then 'I' make a request out to "other" entities.

Now, if one of those entities, known as a human being, 'wants' to take up the request/challenge, then so be it. But, if NONE of those human being entities 'want' to take up the request/challenge, then so be it, also. I have ALL the 'time' there IS, and ALL the 'patience', AS WELL.

You surely must believe that other questioners exist if you are making the request?

WHY 'must' I 'surely' believe this?

For all I KNOW ALL-OF-THIS could just be a figment of MY 'imagination'.

Don't you seem to understand that ALL questions are NOTHING but answers unanswered?

Was I 'meant' to understand what 'you' CLAIM here, and BELIEVE, is the absolute Truth?

Is there any REAL 'need' to understand this?

Why seek outside yourself if you already have the proven truth there with you already?

Please, do NOT forget I said; 'IF 'you/they' want'.

This means that I am NOT seeking outside of thy Self for anything I want NOR 'need'. I am just suggesting what 'you', human beings, 'need' to do, that is; IF 'you/they' Truly 'want' some thing. IF 'you/they' do NOT Truly 'want', what I said, then just IGNORE it and/or FORGET it. Very simple, and very easy, REALLY.

Are 'you', by these very words under the label "dontaskme", informing 'us' here what has obviously already been proven in your view?

Why you asking me, unless you believe this dontaskme character exists?

But I can ask 'you' without necessarily 'believing' that there is an entity that wants/wanted to recognized by the label "dontaskme".

I can just ALREADY KNOW this to be an actual FACT, without at all having to necessarily 'believe' it.

Just because you do NOT like it when I say I can PROVE some thing,

But there was never any mention of NOT LIKING hearing that a proven exists. You have slipped that notion in yourself for what ever reason.

Because 'you', the one known as "dontaskme", cannot stand it and HATE IT when I CLAIM I can do things and prove things, which you BELIEVE can NOT be done or can NOT be proven.

Or, are 'you' going to tell us that this is NOT true at all?

which you do NOT believe with, then this does NOT mean I am doing thy Self "so much injustice" at all.

Yes it does, because you are just playing silly mind games with yourself...[/quote]

If 'you' want to and are going to make a CLAIM like this, THEN you are going to 'have to' PROVE what this 'mind' thing IS, and then SHOW how this PROOF logically fits in with the CLAIM, itself, about these 'your/self' things. That is; if you WANT to be heard, listened to, AND understood.

unless you BELIEVE there are other characters that you are communicating with? which incidently are only ever inside your own mind there anyway.

Now, who or what is this 'thing', which, supposedly, has its "own mind"?

Also, just because you BELIEVE that I can NOT prove what I say and claim, then this ALSO does NOT mean I am doing thy Self "an injustice.

Yes it does, because you are now making the assumption that there are others who hold BELIEFS...while denying that you have beliefs. [/quote]

Are you 'trying to' suggest that there is NOT a human being, AND, that there is NOT a human being who holds a BELIEF?

If so, then I am pretty sure that you might find some opposition, to this position.

In fact, using the word 'PROOF' here is NOT doing Me any injustice at all. If I can PROVE what I say and claim, then that is actually what IS JUST, what I actually can do.

Then if I can do what I claim I can do then what is the point in requesting a counter-challenge...surely no such counter-challenge would be required would it?

As I have continually told 'you', there is NO 'need', which therefore also means there is NO 'requirement' ALSO.

But obviously, there ARE some human beings with counter-claims, who propose that they would love to, so call, "counter-challenge" me. And, as I say, I just wait, patiently, for them to come along, and play.

So, when I use the word PROOF 'I' am doing, for thee Self, actual JUSTICE, Itself.

Except when you assume that proof can be challenged by an assumed OTHER...

Obviously, A 'proof', itself, can NOT be challenged, by ANY one. But, just as obvious is there IS "others" who have NOT YET seen, or who have even been exposed to 'proof', JUST YET.

which is why you are very confused to deny you have no BELIEFS - then make the assumption that there are others who can challenge your JUSTICE....any such challengers would have to be BELIEVED
to exist.

WHY?

I can SEE and KNOW lots of things, without any necessity to BELIEVE they are true.

Also, and by the way, I have NOT YET SEEN, NOR EVEN EXPERIENCED ANY REAL, so called, "challenges", so far YET.

[Age]

psst... what if proving anything through sound logical reasoning is hell?

where's my boulder?

-Imp

Age is someone who BELIEVES he can explain the ABSOLUTE from a relative perspective, which of course is a very absurd idea.

'you' BELIEVING that I BELIEVE such a thing is just absurd, in and of itself.

1. I do NOT believe any such thing.

2. I KNOW how to explain what the objective perspective IS, and how to be able to observe things, and SEE, from that Truly objective perspective, AND THEN I also KNOW how to explain HOW the absolute is obtained, from that One objective perspective, (which some, of course, will STILL SEE is a very absurd idea, which is only based solely from and upon their very own subjective perspective.)

By the way for 'one' who BELIEVES there is ONLY 'One', then talking about there being separate identities, with their own 'relative' perspectives, actually counters your very OWN perspective, ideas, and BELIEFS.

It's really so hilarious and a very entertaining game to play, which goes absolutely nowhere, but Age just loves to roll that ball, always believing there is another there to catch it.

And, 'you' continually saying, "I believe things" is actual PROOF that this is actually going absolutely NOWHERE, or is that NOW-HERE? If 'you' are NEVER able to catch on and understand what I am actually saying, AND MEANING, then does this actually mean we do NOT go anywhere, and so just stay HERE-NOW, which, to put in your terms, IS; 'NOWHERE'. NOWHERE IS, literally, NOW-HERE, correct?

This is a bit like the diagram below. Not getting any where is being stuck here now, or no where, really. If you are getting no where, then you are stuck now here, which some would say, " is, literally, 'hell' ".


[/quote]

[Age]

But if there exists a view that 'hell' exists and that proof is already based on sound logical reasoning. Why would that proven view WANT to be challenged or questioned?

But that 'proven' does NOT WANT this at all.

Are you, at all, able to explain just HOW 'a view', proven or not, could WANT any thing at all?

To me, 'views', themselves do NOT 'want' any thing. 'Views' are just what has been observed or what is being observed.

''If you WANT logical and sound PROOF that 'hell' exists, then question AND challenge me about this.''

So WHO is this 'me' that is being refered to - that seeks to be challenged?

Finally a Truly clarifying, AND "challenging", question.

'me' that seeks to be challenged is the one in a human body, known as 'age', here in this forum, for now.

'I', or 'Me', in the non visible sense, is God, or thee Mind, which, by the way, is One, and this One does NOT seek to be challenged. But, as I have already spoken, and said, 'IF, [it is], 'you', [who], WANTS logical and sound PROOF [of, or for, any thing], then just question and challenge Me.

when the 'you there' have already concluded the following > >
[ But that 'proven' does NOT WANT this at all. ] So why bring it up? unless the view really does WANT ?

Where is 'there'? And where is 'there' in relation to 'here', exactly? Once again it is like 'you' are implying or inferring that there are two.

'Proven' is a concept. 'Concepts' do NOT WANT 'things'. 'you', human beings, WANT 'things'.

Are you assuming there is another observer with a different opposing view to your view?

No. This is ALREADY A PROVEN FACT.

and if there were a different observer, then obviously their view would be their own proof and truth that would also not require challenging or questioning either.

In case you have NOT YET HEARD, I have suggest that IF, and ONLY IF, you want to find and SEE thee actual Truth of things, then do NOT assume NOR believe absolutely any thing at all.

SEE, as what is CLEARLY EVIDENCED in what you wrote here in this quote is WHY 'you', human beings, have NOT YET discovered and found what thee actual Truth IS, YET.

When a human being see "their view" as being its/their own proof and truth, then that is WHY 'they' have still NOT YET discovered and found what thee actual Truth IS.

If a person believes that their own personal, obviously SUBJECTIVE view is PROOF and TRUTH, then they are OBVIOUSLY NOT open to ANY thing, other than 'their own view'.

And, OBVIOUSLY, if one is NOT open to ANY thing other than what they BELIEVE is ALREADY PROOF and TRUE, then they can NOT learn and understand more or anew.

So any such counter requests would be futile anyway...so what exactly are you trying to achieve by making such futile counter requests?

The GLARINGLY OBVIOUS twisting and distorting 'you' are making, of my actual words and meanings, is all but BLINDING to those who are ALREADY AWARE.

The fact of the matter is AGE

ONENESS really does not have any arugment with itself now does it...

This all depends on how 'you' are defining the word 'argument' here "dontaskme".

so stop assuming it does by believing there are counter arguments to be had.

Are you aware that I am NOT assuming this.

Are you aware that there are 'illogical arguments', 'unsound arguments', 'illogical and unsound arguments' and 'sound, valid arguments', and what the actual differences are?

'you' human beings can 'try to' counter argue things. But, obviously, a sound, valid argument can NOT be countered.

Also, are you aware that the word 'argument' can refer to two completely opposing things? One being 'fighting, disputing', the other being 'logical reasoning'. 'Therefore, it could be 'argued' that actually the Oneness of God does have arguments with Its Self. It, in fact, has a myriad of sound and valid arguments, which have ALL ALREADY been Truly logical reasoned through, and out.

And also why you are at it, stop saying you have no beliefs, because you cannot make assumptions unless they were believed to exist, and you clearly do make assumptions just like everyone else.

Name the ACTUAL assumptions i make, and NOT the ones, which you just ASSUME i am making. Then we can and WILL LOOK AT 'them' and DISCUSS 'them'.

Please, do NOT forget that just because you ASSUME and/or BELIEVE some thing, that does NOT make it true in any way whatsoever.

You cannot exclude yourself from these ridiculous mind games you are playing with yourself and then make up these other characters you believe to exit.

But you can seemingly change the way you LOOK AT and SEE things, whenever you WANT TO, correct?

Because, every time you respond to me, I will call you out on the mind fuck that you love to play with yourself. And that is why I started this thread in the first place, to call you out on your own bullshit.

Did you REALLY think that this is what you were/are 'trying to' do, was NOT OBVIOUS, from the outset?

Also, what is being SHOWN, or 'called out', is being HEARD and SEEN LOUD and CLEAR.

And always remember this Age, the female is smarter than the male. But don't take that personally, it's a metaphorical meaning for oneness.





.

What gave 'you' the impression that "age" was a so called 'male'?

[Dontaskme]

I wrote that, in the thread I did, because the one who started that thread BELIEVES that 'hell' does NOT exist,

No, that belief that 'hell' does NOT EXIST was never mentioned AT ALL. That was just you assuming that the threads intention was to argue with you against what you originally said, which was .. '' My views that 'hell' exists are based on sound, logical reasoning.''

So the real reason, not your assumed reason that this thread was started was to put forth the sensiblity that there would be no need to refute the claim that 'hell' exists if you already know it does. The threads intention had nothing to do with any attempt to deny or refute the claim...which was just your assumption and belief it was.
And so the desperation idea is all inside your own head. In your belief that there is another consciousness here that could possibly refute an idea that has already been self evidently proven.


Sounds more like an unhinged confused mind to me, it's a desperation on your part only, when there is actually no need for it at all, but the need just keeps on needing, and is why you will continue to argue with yourself add infinitum, while never getting any real satisfaction.

.

[Dontaskme]

What gave 'you' the impression that "age" was a so called 'male'?

Because I've never known a girl called Ken.


So it was just an assumption, nothing to get hung up about. Just remember, nothing in reality is known, all known knowings are purely assumptions only.

The GLARINGLY OBVIOUS twisting and distorting 'you' are making, of my actual words and meanings, is all but BLINDING to those who are ALREADY AWARE.

Well it's good to see that you can be aware of this error you are making.

'you' human beings can 'try to' counter argue things. But, obviously, a sound, valid argument can NOT be countered.

Well stop assuming there can be a so called trying by 'humans' then.

And don't try to con me by saying there is no trying....because you clearly state here in yet another assumption that there is a human trying....'' This all depends on how 'you' are defining the word 'argument' here "dontaskme".

A classic assumption that the character dontaskme exists, and the proof of that assumption, is in the response to a comment, a response made by you, yes by you Age.


.

[Sculptor]

So, WTF, do you mean by "hell".

Oh wait I remember.. Hell is a place in Norway...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hell,_Nor ... dalshalsen.

[Sculptor]

[Age]

I wrote that, in the thread I did, because the one who started that thread BELIEVES that 'hell' does NOT exist,

No, that belief that 'hell' does NOT EXIST was never mentioned AT ALL. That was just you assuming that the threads intention was to argue with you against what you originally said, which was .. '' My views that 'hell' exists are based on sound, logical reasoning.''

WHERE did I write this?

If it was in that thread, then OBVIOUSLY the thread was started BEFORE I wrote that. And, in that case, I could NOT HAVE assumed that the threads intention was to argue with me against what I originally said, AFTER the that thread was started.

So the real reason, not your assumed reason that this thread was started was to put forth the sensiblity that there would be no need to refute the claim that 'hell' exists if you already know it does.

What can be CLEARLY SEEN and EVIDENCED is I 'was' talking about 'that' thread and NOT 'this' thread.

The threads intention had nothing to do with any attempt to deny or refute the claim...which was just your assumption and belief it was.

IF you had read the actual words that I have used, then you would NOT be so confused here now.

I was NEVER talking about 'this' thread AT ALL.

And so the desperation idea is all inside your own head. In your belief that there is another consciousness here that could possibly refute an idea that has already been self evidently proven.


Sounds more like an unhinged confused mind to me, it's a desperation on your part only, when there is actually no need for it at all, but the need just keeps on needing, and is why you will continue to argue with yourself add infinitum, while never getting any real satisfaction.

.

But 'I' was NEVER 'dissatisfied'.

[Age]

What gave 'you' the impression that "age" was a so called 'male'?

Because I've never known a girl called Ken.

Is it possible that the word 'ken' could be a label for some thing else?

Or, was that never considered?

Was just what you assumed was/is true, was/is just believed to be true also?

Is it NOT possible that the label "ken" could refer to any thing other than a male human being?

So it was just an assumption, nothing to get hung up about. Just remember, nothing in reality is known, all known knowings are purely assumptions only.

I do not recall you ever once accepting and/or taking any responsibility for what you actually say and do. No matter when anyone points out some thing to you, which you have have said and which is not quite right or which is in contradiction to what else you say, you will seemingly always turn that around onto your "other" perspective of things. Whenever it is pointed out to you that you said some thing contradictory about 'Oneness', then you say that this is just the way human beings speak and use language, but, whenever it is pointed out to you that you said some thing contradictory or assumed some thing, for example, then you say some thing like you have here. You seemingly always come up with some excuse for the very contradictory and/or assuming way that you write.

An 'assumption' is an assumption, and NOT "just an assumption". End of story. You made an assumption.

I was also NEVER "hung up" about it, by the way. I was just pointing out and clearing up what thee actual Truth IS. I have also suggested the very reasons WHY to NEVER assume any thing. What you have done here is a PRIME EXAMPLE of WHY it is better to NEVER assume any thing at all.

The GLARINGLY OBVIOUS twisting and distorting 'you' are making, of my actual words and meanings, is all but BLINDING to those who are ALREADY AWARE.

Well it's good to see that you can be aware of this error you are making.

If you want to make a CLAIM that I am making an error here somewhere, then I suggest that you be able to back up and support that claim BEFORE you make it. So, are you claiming that I am making and error here somewhere?

If yes, then WHERE am I making the error, and, what is the actual error exactly?

'you' human beings can 'try to' counter argue things. But, obviously, a sound, valid argument can NOT be countered.

Well stop assuming there can be a so called trying by 'humans' then.

But I am NOT assuming this at all.

Obviously, there are human beings who 'try to' counter argue things. The human being who labeled "them" 'self' "dontaskme" is one who actually provides the evidence AND PROOF of this fact.

And don't try to con me by saying there is no trying....because you clearly state here in yet another assumption that there is a human trying....'' This all depends on how 'you' are defining the word 'argument' here "dontaskme".

WHY would 'you' even ASSUME that I would 'try to' even do such a thing?

What EXACTLY led 'you' to ASSUME what you did here?

A classic assumption that the character dontaskme exists, and the proof of that assumption, is in the response to a comment, a response made by you, yes by you Age.


.

[Age]

And here is just one PRIME EXAMPLE of how 'hell' actually exists, through sound, logical reasoning.

If human beings have agreed upon an area, and labeled that area 'hell', then 'hell' obviously exists, in that form.

[Lacewing]

And here is just one PRIME EXAMPLE of how 'hell' actually exists, through sound, logical reasoning.

Isn't "hell" just a label?

What exactly is it that actually exists?

If human beings have agreed upon an area, and labeled that area 'hell', then 'hell' obviously exists, in that form.

What form? Might human beings perceive different forms regardless of a label?

Where is the sound, logical reasoning?

I'm just pointing out absurdity. I don't actually care about your typical answers/excuses.

[Sculptor]

And here is just one PRIME EXAMPLE of how 'hell' actually exists, through sound, logical reasoning.

If human beings have agreed upon an area, and labeled that area 'hell', then 'hell' obviously exists, in that form.

People do not go there when they die.
No one who goes there, goes there as a punishment from god.

[Age]

And here is just one PRIME EXAMPLE of how 'hell' actually exists, through sound, logical reasoning.

Isn't "hell" just a label?

Yes, the word 'hell' just like EVERY other word are just labels in reference to some 'thing'. Gaining clarity into what 'it' IS EXACTLY that is being referenced to when words are being used helps tremendously in gaining True understanding.

What exactly is it that actually exists?

In relation to 'what' exactly?

That picture? The 'hell' I made reference to in that quote? The 'hell' in the that thread that was started, which I replied to, and from which this thread is an off-shoot from? Or, to some other other 'hell'?

If human beings have agreed upon an area, and labeled that area 'hell', then 'hell' obviously exists, in that form.

What form?

That form, which the picture and sign was referencing, which is what I was replying to. That form is the parcel of land known as "hell", in the parcel of land and country known as "norway".

Might human beings perceive different forms regardless of a label?

I wonder if they could do otherwise.

Where is the sound, logical reasoning?

In relation to 'what' exactly?

But the sound, logical reasoning, in relation to that picture of 'hell', is in the words I expressed, which were;
If human beings have agreed upon an area, and labeled that area 'hell', then 'hell' obviously exists, in that form.

But, if you could NOT see it NOR understand it the first time, then I wonder if you could and will this time?

The sound, logical reasoning was also supplied by the "other" one when they wrote the words;
Oh wait I remember.. Hell is a place in Norway... And, then they backed this up and supported this with a picture of a 'sign of 'hell'.

I'm just pointing out absurdity.

But you have NOT pointed out 'absurdity' at all. 'you' just SEE and UNDERSTAND 'things' differently than 'I' do.

I don't actually care about your typical answers/excuses.

And this is a typical response from someone who already assumes and believes that they KNOW the truth already.

Posing questions to "another", on the presumption that you already have and KNOW the answers is a PRIME EXAMPLE of the belief-system at work and distorting the actual Truth of things. Also, you NOT giving the "other" a chance to reply and answer or NOT actually caring what they have to say in response to the questions posed, just shows the lack of decency and how far immorality has taken itself in the days of when this is being written.

[Age]

And here is just one PRIME EXAMPLE of how 'hell' actually exists, through sound, logical reasoning.

If human beings have agreed upon an area, and labeled that area 'hell', then 'hell' obviously exists, in that form.

People do not go there when they die.
No one who goes there, goes there as a punishment from god.

But if we are talking about another 'hell', then that is another issue, for another discussion.

My words in relation to your picture and words were in reply to your picture of that 'hell'.

What some may be noticing is that what I am doing is HIGHLIGHTING how it is only through CLARITY when we start to FULLY UNDERSTAND what "another" is actually saying, talking about, AND meaning. Because as EVIDENCED and PROVEN here words can actually be in reference to many different things and therefore can mean many different things. So, it is only AFTER clarifying with "another" can we Truly KNOW what the "other" is Truly talking about, AND MEANING.

If people, however, want to talk about and discuss another place, where people supposedly go "there" when they die, and/or the place where people supposedly go "there" as a punishment from God, then let us discuss that and talk about that 'place'. I am sure that through a Truly OPEN and Honest, peaceful discussion sound, logical reasoning will come through forthwith.

[Lacewing]

I'm just pointing out absurdity.

But you have NOT pointed out 'absurdity' at all. 'you' just SEE and UNDERSTAND 'things' differently than 'I' do.

Much of what you say is contrived absurdity. You can try to frame it as just "seeing/understanding things differently" so that you don't have to face what you're actually doing. People on this forum keep pointing this out to you, and you respond with more contrived and dishonest noise to try to justify/validate whatever absurdity you're claiming at that moment -- instead of simply acknowledging that you're momentarily full of crap. So it ends up being more of your absurdity on top of your absurdity.

It would be very simple: Just stop making claims! You clearly don't KNOW a lot that you claim to! Even if you want to think you do, tap into the awareness that you don't.

I don't actually care about your typical answers/excuses.

And this is a typical response from someone who already assumes and believes that they KNOW the truth already.

No, it is the response of someone who has already seen you continually demonstrate being a noisy fraud. There's no reason to keep going down that path with you. You are clearly addicted to going in endless self-absorbed circles of your thoughts, assumptions, and projections. It would be more interesting if you explored/discussed why you do that.

...in the days of when this is being written.

Oh get over yourself! You're not writing a fucking eternal Bible or history manual for humanity and the Universe.