Inclusivity

[pogi]

10 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Thanks pogi.    I disagree with you on this too.  I also find your career analogy pretty sad.  I admit the ideas of telestial and terrestrial aren't very intriguing.  

That’s ok.  I find your life void of free-will not very intriguing, and your lack of belief in an after life to be sad. 

10 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I'm also sad to think of the way believers have to view others.  

And how do you imagine that to be exactly?

10 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

The way you described believers who thought they tried and prayed to god as wicked is just too pessimistic for me.  

Perhaps you confusing me for someone else.

I feel that it is your perspective of believers that is pessimistic and misguided.

Edited October 1, 2020 by pogi

[stemelbow]

3 minutes ago, pogi said:

That’s ok.  I find your life void of free-will not very intriguing, and your lack of belief in an after life to be sad. 

And how do you imagine that to be exactly?

Perhaps you confusing me for someone else.

I feel that it is your perspective of believers that is pessimistic and misguided.

I rather enjoy believers, it's their beliefs I find problematic.  When jesus said god doesn't know many believers, many people who tried to pray to him and tried to do good, what do you imagine their "wickedness", as you tagged them with, to be?  

[pogi]

17 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

When jesus said god doesn't know many believers, many people who tried to pray to him and tried to do good, what do you imagine their "wickedness", as you tagged them with, to be?  

I see.  You are projecting your misinterpretation of scripture onto me.  

Christ is distinguishing evildoers and workers of iniquity, who superficially acted in his name, from true followers.

He sees their hearts and intentions and they are frauds.  

Edited October 1, 2020 by pogi

[stemelbow]

24 minutes ago, pogi said:

I see.  You are projecting your misinterpretation of scripture onto me.  

Christ is distinguishing evildoers and workers of iniquity, who superficially acted in his name, from true followers.

He sees their hearts and intentions and they are frauds.  

Thanks.  Sounds rough to have to conclude as much.  Makes me sad to think about.  All the best.  

[3DOP]

On 9/28/2020 at 8:24 AM, stemelbow said:

"This" was simply meant to discuss inclusivity vs exclusivity in religion and with that my intent was perhaps to voice some misgivings with religion as it pertains to that idea, or at least the western religion of Christianity and that which falls under its broad wings.  

I found your thoughts intriguing and figured it was an interesting direction from which to voice my concerns.  Feel free to respond or not.  I mean if someone is willing to answer my objections, perhaps I can be set right or we can at least agree there is something worth talking about here.  

Hey stemelbow,

Thanks much for the reply. I am glad you jumped in. I should probably explain, since the opening thread has a history, that I wasn't arguing for inclusivity or exclusivity. There was another thread in which the LDS were being accused of being too exclusive. This thread was intended to suggest inclusivity/exclusivity should not be a standard whereby to weigh truth claims. I will admit that I thought some LDS were being too defensive about it, trying to prove that they are inclusive...after we are dead. That does not really work for someone who is trying to be "part" of an LDS community without joining while they are alive.

But that isn't my point. A valid priesthood is incompatible with believing that everybody else in other religions has access to the blessings of a valid priesthood that for now, the people in other religions refuse to accept. That is an exclusive dogma. It cannot be inclusive. I am in the same position as a Catholic. What are we supposed to do about people who don't choose to believe what we believe? Should Catholics let people who don't believe in the Real Presence of Christ receive the Holy Eucharist, in the name of inclusivity? Who would go on a mission for an entirely inclusivist religion? These are questions I have for those who object to every form of exclusivity.

It was probably unfortunate that I chose to attack the concept of being "nice" in my opening post. It was an attempt to criticise a shallow love that fears to appear to be mean-spirited. It was not meant to indicate that exclusive characteristics in religion are followed by being "not nice". It is a matter of justice and love for our neighbour to do everything we can to make our faith appealing. We do this by giving the "cup of cool water" to a stranger (neighbor), not by reading out condemnations. We have to tell what we believe if asked, and we give a reason for the hope that is in us. But if we don't genuinely love our neighbor with a love that is heavenly and good, our neighbor will detect it and be alienated. This is what souls thirsts for in God; a loving, beneficent God.   

Anyway, stem, given what you wrote before, I know I would need to back up and say something better than that religion has to be exclusive in some significant way. You seem concerned that the situation I describe if an exclusivist religion was true would prove that God is not good. I may not be able to think of anything that would be worthy of your consideration, but I am pleased that you could not worship a God that you perceived to be partial, unjust, unloving, or indifferent to human suffering. That is truly an important foundation and I fear that sometimes we (those who have embraced a religion) do not give the attention to that question that it merits. Anyway, if I think I can offer something worthwhile, I will try, probably over the weekend.

Take care,

Rory       

Edited October 1, 2020 by 3DOP

[stemelbow]

10 hours ago, 3DOP said:

Hey stemelbow,

Thanks much for the reply. I am glad you jumped in. I should probably explain, since the opening thread has a history, that I wasn't arguing for inclusivity or exclusivity. There was another thread in which the LDS were being accused of being too exclusive. This thread was intended to suggest inclusivity/exclusivity should not be a standard whereby to weigh truth claims. I will admit that I thought some LDS were being too defensive about it, trying to prove that they are inclusive...after we are dead. That does not really work for someone who is trying to be "part" of an LDS community without joining while they are alive.

But that isn't my point. A valid priesthood is incompatible with believing that everybody else in other religions has access to the blessings of a valid priesthood that for now, the people in other religions refuse to accept. That is an exclusive dogma. It cannot be inclusive. I am in the same position as a Catholic. What are we supposed to do about people who don't choose to believe what we believe? Should Catholics let people who don't believe in the Real Presence of Christ receive the Holy Eucharist, in the name of inclusivity? Who would go on a mission for an entirely inclusivist religion? These are questions I have for those who object to every form of exclusivity.

It was probably unfortunate that I chose to attack the concept of being "nice" in my opening post. It was an attempt to criticise a shallow love that fears to appear to be mean-spirited. It was not meant to indicate that exclusive characteristics in religion are followed by being "not nice". It is a matter of justice and love for our neighbour to do everything we can to make our faith appealing. We do this by giving the "cup of cool water" to a stranger (neighbor), not by reading out condemnations. We have to tell what we believe if asked, and we give a reason for the hope that is in us. But if we don't genuinely love our neighbor with a love that is heavenly and good, our neighbor will detect it and be alienated. This is what souls thirsts for in God; a loving, beneficent God.   

Anyway, stem, given what you wrote before, I know I would need to back up and say something better than that religion has to be exclusive in some significant way. You seem concerned that the situation I describe if an exclusivist religion was true would prove that God is not good. I may not be able to think of anything that would be worthy of your consideration, but I am pleased that you could not worship a God that you perceived to be partial, unjust, unloving, or indifferent to human suffering. That is truly an important foundation and I fear that sometimes we (those who have embraced a religion) do not give the attention to that question that it merits. Anyway, if I think I can offer something worthwhile, I will try, probably over the weekend.

Take care,

Rory       

Thank you for the thoughtful reply, Rory.

I think you make a fine point in suggesting "inclusivity/exclusivity should not be a standard whereby to weigh truth claims".  What seems to get religion defensive, if I may be so generalizing, is their claim to some form of exclusive truth.  What is religion, in comparison to another, but a purveyor of something unique in teaching, or at least, something novel in how to prioritize certain teaching.  What's the difference between a Catholic and a Mormon when it comes to religious belief?  Someone within Christianity might suggest there are some huge differences...but to outsiders the beliefs are so similar its pointless to even call out disagreements.  What really gets odd, when you see different sorts of evangelicals make conclusive statements about how Mormons or Catholics aren't Christian because of some tweaked understanding or reasoning about the beliefs you all share.  To me its almost an embarrassing scene to stumble upon arguments that wish to exclude each other in some way or another.  Mormonism is so petite compared to these others and yet it seeks, in its own defensive sense, to proclaim an exclusive place within Christianity.  If there's a god sitting in the yonder heavens and he favors one sort of Christianity over another, what might he think of those who are so far away they aren't even Christian at all?  If He's the grand know-it-all people say he is, why would he ever be concerned with whether any religion has truth beyond another?  None, after all, could possibly ascend to the absolute truths he supposedly has.   What's the point of even being the true religion?  Is it simply to point out, constantly, heaven is reserved for you and not for others? 

That God would see things in the same way as religious purveyors tend to speak about them, is simply nonsense, it seems to me.  If God is sitting on his clouds of glory and looking down thinking "I favor the Mormons and their exclusive claims to truth".   That's one thing (that's kind of silly sounding).  If He's sitting upon these clouds and saying "I gave them special privilege to disseminate my ordinances, and only they are worthy of proclaiming my everlasting gospel and pushing people down in the water as they say certain words".  Then to me we're just getting to a silly God.  Why do such arbitrary things matter for a population of many billions, most of whom had already passed on before Mormonism ever appeared?  A Mormon might say, "well, we got baptism for the dead and everyone will be baptized by proxy so these arbitrary things will be for everyone".  Then what's the point exactly?  A formality?  What if a random person who lived and died in an era millennia gone on a remote corner of this earth without anyone ever finding his people in our archaeological searches?  "well God knows his name and stuff so he'll get his ordinance done". 

"But you realize,"  comes a response, "Jesus said God doesn't know many believers...makes you wonder if he knows any unbelievers with all this exclusive religion talk."

"that's not what Jesus meant when he said that.  He meant something else."   

It seems the claims of religion only work when you start telling people what Jesus really meant, or why some old teaching really was God's truth (a particular attempt by Mormons to justify archaic sounding "truths" that have been abandoned).  

To me religion as a whole is the problem.  It divides and leaves us in a place of not even being able to talk about things because the base of religion is dogma--that pernicious conversation-stopper who finds offense at the smallest of slights.  As it is though, all we have in working through the difficulties of our lives is conversation, all too often.  Religion seems to fight that impulse of ours by saying a conversation can't go there until each parties agrees on certain unfalsifiable ideas.  To me that's the heart of the exclusive problem religion is.  

[pogi]

14 hours ago, stemelbow said:

Thanks.  Sounds rough to have to conclude as much.  Makes me sad to think about.  All the best.  

I don't understand your response. What is rough about distinguishing and holding evildoers and frauds responsible from good hearted people?  It seems you don't want to distinguish between them and want to reward everyone equally.  I thought you were all about holding people responsible?

From a non religious perspective, are you opposed to a penal system for fraudsters?  Does it make you "sad" to see fraudsters, (those who put on masks to take advantage of others for their own corrupt designs) go to prison?

IT is funny, you get all upset when we talk about just judgment and division in heaven, yet you don't seem to have a problem with the same thing happening in mortality.  

Edited October 1, 2020 by pogi

[stemelbow]

26 minutes ago, pogi said:

I don't understand your response. What is rough about distinguishing and holding evildoers and frauds responsible from good hearted people?  It seems you don't want to distinguish between them and want to reward everyone equally.

From a non religious perspective, are you opposed to a penal system for fraudsters?  Does it make you "sad" to see fraudsters, (those who put on masks to take advantage of others for their own corrupt designs) go to prison?

IT is funny, you get all upset when we talk about just judgment and division in heaven, yet you don't seem to have a problem with the same thing happening in mortality.  

Oh no...sad to think you seemingly must conclude that "many" believers are those God never knew, or not "never knew" in your view, it was more like though they prayed and sought to do good by Him, He simply didn't appreciate their efforts, which to you means they practiced wickedness, evil and fraud.  Makes me sad to think you have to speak for God, correcting his words, and then also concluding there are actually many believers who are nothing but wickedness, evil and fraud.  To me that'd be a miserable mindset to be in.  But, you know, to each his own.  

I don't think people who do bad deserve punishment.  I think they should be separated from others if they pose danger.  I'm not up on vengeance, since it doesn't really make sense, in light of reality.  Of course, I know vengeance is what God is all about--with his vengeance is mine, emotional release.

[pogi]

14 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Oh no...sad to think you seemingly must conclude that "many" believers are those God never knew, or not "never knew" in your view, it was more like though they prayed and sought to do good by Him, He simply didn't appreciate their efforts, which to you means they practiced wickedness, evil and fraud.  Makes me sad to think you have to speak for God, correcting his words, and then also concluding there are actually many believers who are nothing but wickedness, evil and fraud.  To me that'd be a miserable mindset to be in.  But, you know, to each his own.  

I don't think people who do bad deserve punishment.  I think they should be separated from others if they pose danger.  I'm not up on vengeance, since it doesn't really make sense, in light of reality.  Of course, I know vengeance is what God is all about--with his vengeance is mine, emotional release.

It seems to me that you are the one speaking for God and correcting his words.  Have you ever watched an episode of dateline?  "Many" is an understatement!  So many people wear "Christian" masks and do "good deeds" and say "Lord, Lord", and behind the scenes are as dark and evil as they come.  Committing murder, rape, serial killers, etc. etc., then show up to church on Sunday preaching the gospel of love and service to others.    Why do you assume that God is speaking of good hearted honest people that are not two-faced?  Many say, "I would have never guessed that they could do a thing like this..."

Separation from others is not punishment?  Isn't that exactly what God's judgment is all about - separation? 

Edited October 1, 2020 by pogi

[Ahab]

15 hours ago, stemelbow said:

That's not very convincing, it seems to support my impression, believers think god is out to condemn people.  They seem to feel joy or satisfaction at the idea.    

Like I said, God doesn't need to say another word to you.  He proposed a plan for our benefit and here we are now in the midst of it.  Once he unblocks all of your memories of your premortal life and the reason you came down here you will be thinking some thoughts like:

What have I done to myself?!?

I really messed up, didn't I?

Oh my God!

Eeeek!

Can I have a do-over?  How about reincarnation? Is that possible? No, I remember now, it isn't.

Oh my God!

I really messed up, didn't I?

Is there ANY way at all that I can get a mulligan or some kind of a do-over now?

What about repentance?

Is that still a possibility for me?

[Ahab]

27 minutes ago, pogi said:

Separation from others is not punishment?  Isn't that exactly what God's judgment is all about - separation? 

No, it is a form of salvation.  Placing each of us with other people like us, however good or bad we are.  Rewards based upon how we acted and what we did including what we thought and tried to learn, individually.

I won't mind at all if I am stuck with someone like you, pogi.  Or any other true latter-day saint.  I just don't want to be with anyone who is a worse person than I am.  

To God I pray: let the separation commence!  I am really sick and tired of being around so many bad people in this world!  If I can do something to help them get better, just let me know, but a lot of these people down here act as if they don't want to be helped!

Edited October 1, 2020 by Ahab

[stemelbow]

23 minutes ago, pogi said:

It seems to me that you are the one speaking for God and correcting his words.

How so? Hes the one who said he never knew them.  You said that's not what he meant really. Maybe not.  

23 minutes ago, pogi said:

  Have you ever watched an episode of dateline?  "Many" is an understatement!  So many people wear "Christian" masks and do "good deeds" and say "Lord, Lord", and behind the scenes are as dark and evil as they come.  Committing murder, rape, serial killers, etc. etc., then show up to church on Sunday preaching the gospel of love and service to others. 

Jesus should have said what to convey the more than many?  Why are you intent to change jesus words again?  What you presents is a very simplistic evil/good dichotomy for humans, but the human condition is far more complex. 

23 minutes ago, pogi said:

 

  Why do you assume that God is speaking of good hearted honest people that are not two-faced?  Many say, "I would have never guessed that they could do a thing like this..."

Who is to faced and what does it mean to you?  You present a way too simplistic view of humanity in my view.  

23 minutes ago, pogi said:

Separation from others is not punishment?  Isn't that exactly what God's judgment is all about - separation? 

No separation is not punishment.  Gods judgement is all about vengeance according to him.  

[pogi]

8 minutes ago, Ahab said:

No, it is a form of salvation.  Placing each of us with other people like us, however good or bad we are.  Rewards based upon how we acted and what we did including what we thought and tried to learn, individually.

I won't mind at all if I am stuck with someone like you, pogi.  Or any other true latter-day saint.  I just don't want to be with anyone who is a worse person than I am.  

To God I pray: let the separation commence!  I am really sick and tired of being around so many bad people in this world!  If I can do something to help them get better, just let me know, but a lot of these people down here act as if they don't want to be helped!

I'm not sure what you are disagreeing about.

[pogi]

30 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

How so? Hes the one who said he never knew them.  You said that's not what he meant really. Maybe not.  

Jesus should have said what to convey the more than many?  Why are you intent to change jesus words again?  What you presents is a very simplistic evil/good dichotomy for humans, but the human condition is far more complex. 

Who is to faced and what does it mean to you?  You present a way too simplistic view of humanity in my view.  

No separation is not punishment.  Gods judgement is all about vengeance according to him.  

I am not creating an evil/good dichotomy.  His point was simply to suggest that there are two-faced people out there.  Do you deny it?  Why is that so hard for you to accept?  Aka - people who put on a face to the outside world, but are secretly abducting and raping children in their basement.  Seems like an extreme example, but evil like that happens all the time.  "Many" people who say "Lord Lord" are in fact "evildoers".  The degree of evil varies, obviously, but "many" are extremely evil and have no place in exaltation.  There is nothing simplistic about it.  It is entirely individualistic.  The degrees of glory are as varied as the stars in heaven.  

Separation is not punishment?  Tell that to people in prison.

Edited October 1, 2020 by pogi

[Ahab]

7 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

How so? Hes the one who said he never knew them.  You said that's not what he meant really. Maybe not.  

To try to help you understand what JESUS said when he said to some people "I never knew you" I am now suggesting that you read this: https://www.gotquestions.org/I-never-knew-you-depart-from-me.html

Then again, maybe he meant something else when he said that.  Who really knows.

7 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

No separation is not punishment.  Gods judgement is all about vengeance according to him.  

I agree that separation from others not like how we are is not a form of punishment. And vengeance is not a bad thing, either, as long as it is done correctly.  Vengeance is "punishment inflicted or retribution exacted for an injury or wrong" and God does vengeance the way it ought to be done.  In fact, nobody does vengeance better than God.

[Ahab]

37 minutes ago, pogi said:

Separation is not punishment?  Tell that to people in prison.

Come on.  Not really the best kind of people to ask what they think.  I am happy to be separated from people like that.

[pogi]

28 minutes ago, Ahab said:

Come on.  Not really the best kind of people to ask what they think.

Actually, they are the best people to ask, in this regard. They are the ones being separated.  Who are you to speak for them and their perceptions and experience?  To forcefully separate someone from the rest of society is a form of punishment as it strips them of personal liberties and separates them from loved ones.  To pretend otherwise is blind. 

Edited October 1, 2020 by pogi

[Ahab]

1 minute ago, pogi said:

Actually, they are the best people to ask, in this regard. They are the ones being separated.  Who are you to speak for them and their perceptions and experience?  To forcefully separate someone from the rest of society is a form of punishment as it strips them of personal liberties and separates them from loved ones.  To pretend otherwise is blind. 

I realize there is a segment of society that regards separation as a form of punishment, and would say so if they were asked.  On the other hand there is another segment of society that regards separation of the wicked from the righteous as a form of reward to those who are righteous and not required to live among the wicked.  So the answer just depends on the type of person you ask for an answer.  Opposition in all things, including things like that, as you know.

[mfbukowski]

15 hours ago, 3DOP said:

That does not really work for someone who is trying to be "part" of an LDS community without joining while they are alive.

 

That's the contradiction right there- "trying" to be a part of something without joining it.  It's an odd stance.  Sorry- I just finally figured it out from your great comments- "I want to be a Catholic without joining".

Now THAT is something I can understand.     Just change a little of your doctrine for me please, and I will gladly return! 

On a personal note, I am sorry that we have been at odds sometimes in the past.

 

[pogi]

9 minutes ago, Ahab said:

I realize there is a segment of society that regards separation as a form of punishment, and would say so if they were asked.  On the other hand there is another segment of society that regards separation of the wicked from the righteous as a form of reward to those who are righteous and not required to live among the wicked.  So the answer just depends on the type of person you ask for an answer.  Opposition in all things, including things like that, as you know.

So you acknowledge that separation is a punishment for the wicked and a reward for the righteous.   What exactly are you disagreeing about then? 

 

[Ahab]

Just now, pogi said:

So you acknowledge that separation is a punishment for the wicked and a reward for the righteous.   What exactly are you disagreeing about then? 

 

The blanket statement that separation is a form of punishment.  Period.  What you said here that I am quoting sounds much better to me and is more factually correct because you are stating both views, with its opposite, together.

We should always realize that everything can be viewed with an opposite view by those who disagree with a particular point of view.  As Obi Wan Kenobi said, you're going to find that many of the truths we cling to depend greatly on our own point of view.

And it is that way with good and evil too.  What someone would call good is what someone else would call evil, and in a sense it is both when viewed from both points of view. 

Just as what some people would say is inclusive is what some other people would call exclusive.  Every perspective we get is from a particular point of view.

[pogi]

21 minutes ago, Ahab said:

The blanket statement that separation is a form of punishment.  Period. 

Surely you didn't think that I was saying that separation is a form of punishment for the righteous, did you?  Sometimes things are so obvious that they don't need to be stated.  They are just implied.  Separation is a form of punishment.  I stand by that statement.  It is clearly in regards to those who have violated law.  I shouldn't have to spell that out for you.  To state the obvious is a waste of time and energy.  

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, stemelbow said:

I don't think people who do bad deserve punishment.  I think they should be separated from others if they pose danger.  I'm not up on vengeance, since it doesn't really make sense, in light of reality.  Of course, I know vengeance is what God is all about--with his vengeance is mine, emotional release.

Vengeance is the LAST thing God is about!  When you are teaching little children, sometimes they need to experience the natural consequences of their actions.  His "vengeance" is not from Him- we get to create our own hell AND heaven, but in the end, if we do our best to quit messing up, He makes up all the difference out of pure love.

[stemelbow]

1 hour ago, pogi said:

I am not creating an evil/good dichotomy.  His point was simply to suggest that there are two-faced people out there.  Do you deny it?  Why is that so hard for you to accept?  Aka - people who put on a face to the outside world, but are secretly abducting and raping children in their basement.  Seems like an extreme example, but evil like that happens all the time.  "Many" people who say "Lord Lord" are in fact "evildoers".  The degree of evil varies, obviously, but "many" are extremely evil and have no place in exaltation.  There is nothing simplistic about it.  It is entirely individualistic.  The degrees of glory are as varied as the stars in heaven.  

Separation is not punishment?  Tell that to people in prison.

Alright I can tell we're not really addressing the scriptures but your preferred reading into the scriptures.  

Quote

Not every one that ^asaith unto me, ^bLord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that ^cdoeth the ^dwill of my Father which is in ^eheaven.

22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not ^aprophesied in thy name? and in thy ^bname have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?

23 ^aAnd then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: ^bdepart from me, ye that work ^ciniquity.

24 ¶ Therefore whosoever ^aheareth these sayings of mine, and ^bdoeth them, ^cI will liken him unto a ^dwise man, which ^ebuilt his house upon ^fa rock:

25 And the ^arain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and ^bbeat upon that house; and it fell not: for it was founded upon a ^crock.

26 And every one that heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them not, shall be likened unto a ^afoolish man, which built his house upon the sand:

This is not saying that the people who don't do his will are those who abduct and rape children.  You seem to be trying to read something favorable into the passages.  Hey, and, I'm fine with that.  Even your reading is problematic, as I said it's an attempt to create an easy evil/good dichotomy with people.  Jesus seems to be saying you have to do things the right way.  Even if you cast out devils or prophesy, seek Jesus and all of that, it's simply not good enough. That's the message as given.  Of course you can read whatever you like into it.  And to be honest, either ways it's making God look silly.  

2-faced is just kind of a weird simplistic abstraction.  Everyone does something naughty at some point and everyone does something good.  Some just happen to also be psychopaths intent on hurting others and not feeling bad about it.  Are you saying God really only wants to punish them?  Admittedly you do have some weird views.  

[Ahab]

28 minutes ago, pogi said:

Surely you didn't think that I was saying that separation is a form of punishment for the righteous, did you?  Sometimes things are so obvious that they don't need to be stated.  They are just implied.  Separation is a form of punishment.  I stand by that statement.  It is clearly in regards to those who have violated law.  I shouldn't have to spell that out for you.  To state the obvious is a waste of time and energy.  

Isn't everything you think about obvious to you?  Who do you ever say anything?  I hope it is because you want to try to get a point across to some other person.  A thought that is right there in your mind and obvious to you which you think at least might be useful for someone else to think about.  A thought you think you might need to use words to try to communicate to them so that they can think of what you are thinking about.

Let's try this, as an experiment.  The next time you say something realize that someone else may not think the opposite of what you are saying.  The fact that everything has its opposite should be obvious to you since there is always an opposite view of whatever anyone is talking about.  So if you had said separation is a reward instead of saying it is a punishment do you think it should have been obvious to everyone that it is both when viewed from both perspectives?  Or do you think maybe it will be obvious that you are saying only what you are saying and not saying what you are not saying?

Edited October 1, 2020 by Ahab