From: dicksilk@gmail.com   
      
   On Tuesday, May 8, 2018 at 8:49:32 AM UTC-5, David Mitchell wrote:   
   > On 07/05/18 21:05, Richard Silk wrote:   
   > > On Monday, May 7, 2018 at 4:07:54 AM UTC-5, David Mitchell wrote:   
       
   > Just giving anyone who doesn't know you a heads-up.   
   >    
   > Ad Hominem attacks are a logical fallacy, so cannot be used to attack a    
   > logical argument; which this isn't.   
      
   Again, when the argument is focused upon the other actor, one is failing to   
   focus upon the argument.  "You are..." or "You " in any present tense   
   assertion is always and demonstrably false.  Example:  "You are avoiding the   
   actual point of the    
   discussion."  Now, tell me I'm right.   
      
   > It's a series of (ridiculous) assertions on your part:   
   >RCS> If she has one while driving, then her higher self is directing it.   
   >    
   > Presumably you're trying to make the point that if the "Higher Self" is    
   > directing it, then it's either safe, or the accident and injury /death    
   > resulting from it must be for a higher purpose (otherwise the comment is    
   > a non-sequitur).   
   >    
   > Feel free to correct my assumption though.   
      
   One's higher self (one's subconscious, better judgement) would never allow one   
   to put one's physical self in danger, therefore, it's a logical and sensible   
   assertion.   
      
   Of course, one is always free to argue, as is one's choice.  It doesn't mean   
   one is correct in arguing.  Satan is always free to disrupt order and logic,   
   as an example.   
      
   > If you were trying to make a logical argument, you'd need to prove that   
   > - all OBE's are the same,   
      
   They are all the projection of one's consciousness beyond the focal point of   
   from behind one's own eyes (in the "here" and "now," as some say.)  In that   
   way, yes, they're the same.  However, the NATURE of the OOBE is *always*   
   different as to why it's    
   occurring, or how it's viewed, perceived, interpreted, etc.   
      
   > - the higher self (whatever *that* means) exists, and   
      
   already explained.   
      
   > - it's always able to determine whether an OBE does or does not happen, and   
   > - it can drive.   
      
   First, if one has an OOBE, one can only report it *after* having returned,   
   otherwise, one merely experiences physical death.  If one's lower self were in   
   charge (one's physical being) an OOBE can never occur, as the body prevents it   
   from leaving.  *IF*    
   you don't understand that, then you have no understanding of OOBEs.  In order   
   to *experience* an OOBE, one's lower body must NOT be "in charge."  That's an   
   "inner body experience" compared to an "out of body experience."    
      
   The physical body still drives the car.  It's what the lower body is trained   
   to do.  The mind has sufficient resources to take a "quick trip" but only when   
   it judges the "safe path" actually exists.   
      
   > > To counter any form of "personality disorders," it's only necessary to   
   focus upon *one* personality:  "Love thine enemies" (per Matthew  5:44.)   
   > > It works miracles"   
   >    
   > That's just nonsense, personality disorders differ in effect, cause and    
   > severity, simplistic wishful thinking just won't cut it as a cure.   
      
   Your failure to understand is not my responsibility.  Loving one's enemies is   
   not wishful thinking:  it's an actual action with consequences, with direction   
   and purpose.   
      
   > > Thanks for clearing up this next part:   
   > >    
   > >> And, David [Dalton], I'm sorry but you're not really a competent person   
   to judge whether someone is having a psychiatric disorder or a spiritual   
   experience, whatever that means in this context.   
   > >    
   > > And judging others leads one to potential error,    
   >    
   > Ill-considered pontification is one of your defining characteristics.   
   > (Is that better than just calling you an idiot?)   
      
   That's *your opinion.*  What one may consider "ill-considered," another may   
   have actually thought through with careful reasoning, analysis, and   
   deduction.  One is not what others think of one.  One is what one thinks of   
   others.   
       
   > which is why Jesus advised "judge not, lest ye be judged" likewise.   
   >    
   > I bet he didn't.   
      
   Matthew 7:1-3.  I don't mind a *slight* paraphrase, as the original was in   
   Aramaic, and I'm simply not going there right now.   
       
   > You do know that much of the [Bible,] even the bits which are supposed to    
   > be historical records - like the wedding at [Cana] - are entirely    
   > fictional, yes?   
      
   You  as an assertion is always false-- even as a question, when couched   
   as an assertion.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)