Consensus on God: calling to form Teams

[emilynghiem]

Dear USMB Friends Fans and Foes:
I am calling on schools and campus groups to help form teams to prove that a consensus on God can be established by agreement.
1. By aligning common terms and concepts (one key proof involving agreement that Christ Jesus means Restorative Justice and this factor determines if people from different views can reconcile in agreement)
2. By demonstrating, proving and measurig that the degree or rate of forgiveness or unforgiveness reported by participants and teams affects rate of success or failure in the the proof process of reaching agreement (so there can be teams on both sides proving the correlation)
3. By proving how spiritual healing works and the reasons it fails, using science and medical research studies.
4. By real life application of this process to political debates and reconciling groups to work together on solutions, where the study samples should show correlation between the forgiveness, spiritual healing of relations, and real life impact on communities, institutions and nations.

So there is both logistic proof involved, as well as sample studies to be replicated, and real life proof in terms of change in society as a result.

Which team would you volunteer to be on and/or which issue would you form a team around?

Thank you and please share any referrals to other students, teachers, researchers or schools/institutions where you know someone who would be interested in refining and replicating these studies in forgiveness and spiritual healing to reach a consensus on God.

The same process will involve reaching a consensus on law, I know these are interrelated, and it will be interesting to see if progress is faster with religious or political groups.

I believe religious groups will unite first, and the political groups will follow.
There is too much tied up economically and legally for the political groups to change first and makes peace, without first reaching agreement among religious leaders and groups.

Yours truly,
Emily

 

[emilynghiem]

Rice U student crusades against creationism in public schools - Houston weather, traffic, news | FOX 26 | MyFoxHouston

I read this story online about A Rice student’s campaign on how “creation” is taught in schools, and would like to respond by launching a local academic campaign between schools in Houston to establish a consensus on God
(by proving people of diverse beliefs can agree on terms, concepts and principles that God means and Jesus represents collectively)
by first proving how forgiveness works to make the process of proof possible in itself,
and how Christian spiritual healing works using science and medical research so there is tangible proof that can be replicated.

Since Houston is diverse and I have already been working to find key contacts from
Various groups who have already reconciled with each other, I believe forming a consensus here in Houston can serve as a model proving that it can be done in other communities and worldwide, using the same methods and resolving the same conflicts or problems that come up in the process of proof.

Instead of debating “creation and evolution” (where I find both to be equally valid
And based on a person’s faith to varying degrees, where the conflicts come from the explanations) I propose to prove “spiritual healing” is real and natural, and consistent with science and medicine.

So there is no need to reject science for faith or faith for science, and the false division
between them can be resolved. Again, Houston has the medical and academic resources needed for this. And once people understand that barrier can be overcome, then it already has a beneficial effect and impact in itself.

In practice, I have more success reaching an understanding with secular scientist by focusing on how “spiritual healing” works in relationships, and how the tangible impact
on mental and physical health can be demonstrated proven by medical research
and traditional science. This field also has great potential in massive reform and impact within our government, legal and social institutions. People can actually see the process,
before and after, of spiritual healing and there are already books
and research studies done on forgiveness and healing. (Even a book
by Scott Peck on exorcism and deliverance as part of successful therapy
on severe schizophrenic patients who otherwise refused treatment
and could not be cured without applying the spiritual methods first.)

Where “math” comes in most helpful is in setting up agreed rules and steps of the proof by
borrowing terms and methods from higher math. (please see examples listed below as points 1-3) It is a major benefit to keep the process and framework focused academically as in math and science, in order to manage deep rooted emotions and personal issues connected with religion and politics.

I would like to invite the academic community and campus ministries interested
To join in issuing a challenge, to form student and alumni teams, including both
Christians and nontheists, and members of groups political or religious most opposed to each other, to establish a Consensus on God by proving how spiritual healing works, both
as part of the proof process itself and as the subject of academic study and medical research.

I tried to summarize the approaches to forming a team around this challenge, below this,
but it came out disorganized in my hasty attempt to explain it “in one email”. Sorry for this!

I am working to refine and edit this where I can post it on a website, and
organize forums for students on the different points.

Whatever methods and explanations works, I plan to publish those in
Books on “Jesus for Gentiles” and the “Math of God.”

I would love to work with anyone else interested in how math and science can be applied to set up a proof process of universal meaning of God, and how God works
through spiritual healing that is consistent with natural laws of life energy and science,
and how to align the meanings and concepts behind God and Christ in the process.

Thank you so much!
I am open to hear any advice suggestions or referrals you may have
For this project!

Yours truly,
Emily

Emily Nghiem at hotmail or at yahoo
B.A. Math/Arts, 1988, Rice University
713-820-5130

 

[emilynghiem]

Where “math” comes in most helpful is in setting up agreed rules and steps of the proof by
borrowing terms and methods from higher math. (please see examples listed below as points 1-3)

It is a major benefit to keep the process and framework focused academically as in math and science, in order to manage deep rooted emotions and personal issues connected with religion and politics.

For example:
(1) Algebra: variables and multiple equations
First defining and aligning consistent “variables and values” by identifying parallel terms and common concepts across secular and religious systems, like languages, and translating between religious and secular principles. Instead of setting up strawman arguments by assigning conflicting concepts to the same words or terms. Such as defining God/Jesus/Biblical messages [or evolution/creation etc] to mean something false or negative in order to prove these false.

Organizing the points as multiple variables in multiple equations which are interrelated.
Where people debate multiple issues and conflicts combined in our minds,
it causes a chain reaction where an issue from the past that was not resolved forgiven and healed, is projected and repeated into further relations and situations to create more issues to be forgiven and healed.

Solving any one problem is like dealing with “multiple variables in multiple equations,” which need to be organized in the order they were created and work backward, depending where the person is willing to start, in order to prove that all such issues can be resolved and agreement reached.

Once we isolate one variable by itself, resolve issues and establish agreement around that,
it is easier to resolve the other issues in succession which depended on it. Again, very much like the steps we follow in algebra! But if we don’t set up variables to align first, we don’t agree what we are proving or talking about, and the proof tends to fail.

(2) Backwards proofs, and proving smaller lemma’s first.

Because of interrelated points that are stacked on top of each other, some of the proof process takes the form of counterexamples,
Or “assuming the conclusion that we can reach agreement on point X”, and eliminating ALL the obstacles and objections that people use as counterproof that agreement cannot be reached.
By resolving or forgiving each issue, as it comes up in the process, eventually people run out of objections, forgive and resolve the strongest issues, let go and open their minds to the neutral unconditional mindset where agreements can succeed.

This is where the key factor I found in whether proofs and debates succeed or fail is “forgiveness.”
The more people understand forgiveness, the more success in resolving issues especially with diverse groups that otherwise see no reason to forgive each other while their whole goal is to disprove, debunk and reject the other!
Unforgiveness is the root cause of rejection, denial and projection that blocks human mind.
And relations from reaching resolution and agreement.

So proving and understanding that is 98% of the proof process.

From debating online, I find this point of the proof is directly demonstrable and measurable statistically:
To show that the success rate of agreement correlates to the degree participants self-report they agree or don’t agree to forgive and correct whatever conflicts are preventing them from reaching an agreement, on a particular point or on the whole thing.
(For anyone who doesn’t agree, it’s usually because there is a different point before that which requires forgiveness and correction first, so even this can be forgiven and corrected in order to proceed from there. Even if people refuse, that can still be used for the part of the proof that unforgiveness correlates with failures to reach agreement.)

Given the math structures in proofs of proving smaller “lemma’s” first, I believe this is one of them. To first prove that forgiveness is necessary as part of the proof process, and
anything unforgiven tends to get projected emotionally causing people to fail in their attempts to reconcile.

If people don’t believe forgiveness makes a difference, we can still form teams to prove this point and how it works or fails, as PART of the studies and proof process.

And in the greater proof, proving spiritual healing works will then affect the
Proof that related problems in society from health care to criminal justice and govt/political reform can follow by applying the same healing to relationships between whole parties and nations to solve problems by agreeing to work together on points of common focus, as an application or extension of this same process.

(3) The Sandwich theorem and proof by showing the pattern of conversion

Since everyone’s issues are different, everyone would have to forgive and resolve
Every issue they have with everyone else for the proof to be global for all people.

In order to show a pattern, I suggest taking the most fundamentally opposed people or groups on the spectrum, and first proving these differences can be reconciled. So it could be interpreted by the “sandwich theorem” that any other “degree or variation” of the same beliefs within that range of extremes, should also be able to reconcile following the same methods or patterns. If the two extremes can converge to agreement, so can any points in between.

(After sharing this idea with one of the members of a study group at church, I was advised that social statistics could be used to measure and compare the results, where groups who failed to reconcile report this at rates that correlate to the degree of unforgiveness self-reported between people, and the groups which succeed in reconciling report success rates correlating to the degree of forgiveness self-reported among their teams as well.
So this could be quantified to show a pattern, and then interpret that pattern as replicating for larger populations by proving it works with a sample of diverse and opposing groups)

 

[emilynghiem]

I ask to work with academic groups, both secular political or religious,
To map out a plan and challenge not only the debaters
Of creation/evolution but all campuses to participate in
a proof that consensus on God can be reached by first
proving spiritual healing works by forgiveness, which is
necessary to participate in and not obstruct the proof process
based on agreement in truth, and that Christ Jesus means
restorative justice. Thank you! Emily Nghiem 713-820-5130
======================================
I became active with Christ the King Lutheran when I went through
the education program with Pastor Moore and even sang with the choir
so I could learn more of the traditions which I was never brought up with.
I joined before I fully understood the impact and import of the Lutheran movement,
Which I found out later affects both the church and state going through a parallel reformation process.

Previously I studied and sang with South Main Baptist, where I have not finished
all the steps because I only had a sprinkling baptism (by a Buddhist Monk when
I first received my calling in 1990, I didn’t know why but knew it was God giving me
Visions about the second coming of Christ uniting all the world which I was never taught,
so I begged my Mom to bring me to the temple to ask the Monk what to do
with these visions I was receiving that I felt were in the Bible that I had never read,
and had no idea how to start.) My mother feared I had lost my mind, and I went with her
to many psychiatrists and counselors, explaining I was having a spiritual experience that
had something to do with resolving all my past family karma or issues so there would be
peace in the future, not only for my family, but in the process the whole world was
going through this same process; and it was joined as one, the changes on one level
were indirectly connected to spiritual changes happening on all levels and that is why
it was so emotional and mindblowing to see how my personal past and future were connected.

Since then I have been working on reconciling how this same message
Is explained and represented in the Bible and Christianity, with how
Other secular minded people like myself and my family and mother
Can understand, accept and follow it as consistent with what they believe as well.

The unique part of my process is that I was learning to
Explain it with Christian teachings and the Bible, at the same
Time as learning to explain it in secular terms, including
Buddhism and Constitutional principles both based on natural laws.

I do most of this interaction online, so I can study and learn at the same time.
I have been taking the advice and explanations
of Pastor Moore and others which helped me, and share those online to get feedback from many
Secular nontheists and even Atheists about the meaning of
God and message of Jesus in purely secular terms.
The reactions are wide in range, but always open the door
To agreeing in truth, even when objections come up in the process;
Naturally, anything people haven’t forgiven or resolved, that is preventing
Us from reaching agreement, comes up to be addressed so it CAN be
Forgiven and rsolved. So this PART of the healing process.

The people who get my secular explanations usually have
Some background in Christianity, but got lost trying to reconcile it,
And so it helps them to hear from a fellow secular Gentile how
To explain it so it makes sense both ways.

The Atheists or Anti-Theists main objection is that most Christians
Will not include Gentiles, nontheists, Buddhists in Salvation.
I believe Jesus fulfills both paths, the natural laws of the secular
Gentiles and civil laws of the state, and the sacred laws of the
Churched tribes including Muslim, Jews and Christians all under Scripture.

The key factor I found in whether we can reconcile as neighbors in Christ,
Even if we are born into and/or remain in distinct tribes, is the
Belief in “Restorative Justice.” Anyone, even Christians, who practice
Retributive justice and judgment/rejection gets that in return so it kills
The relationships. But as long as people accept and receive each other in the
Spirit of “Restorative Justice” then Christ Jesus can still govern our relationships
And help us to reach agreement on universal truth -- even secular scientists, and
One Atheist I know who believes in the “abundance of free grace” and works
Well with fellow Christians even though he does not personify God or Justice in terms of Jesus.
He does believe in Justice, and takes a Restorative Justice approach, so that is where we can still reach agreement in Christ.

Where people can’t forgive, even as Christians, that is where the process fails.

So this is the basis I wish to propose for an academic proof that consensus on God
Is not only possible, but is the process we are going through anyway, and that is what
The Bible represents: the growth from retributive justice in the OT to restorative justice in the NT.
Both the church laws AND the state laws are going through the same historical process of “reformation”
Of recognizing we have lost the spirit of the laws, and have become corrupted and destructive
By greed over the letter of the law, and by agreeing to forgive and work by the spirit of the laws,
By restorative justice, then we can fulfill the paths we are originally intended to uphold, by
Love of truth, love of justice, and love of humanity, also represented in the Trinity
(which I have found represented in all religions since man is made in the image of God, and all our laws reflect human nature as three in one body mind and spirit. Once we recognize all these religions and tribes are expressions and languages for the laws, then we can “align” and allow these to be reconciled and joined as one and fulfilled as the full meaning of God/Christ/Holy Spirit represent collectively for all humanity. The spirit of Restorative Justice, that Jesus represents, fulfills all the paths, in order for that authority to be Lord of all other lords or laws, all other authorities visible or invisible, secular or spiritual.)

This is something not taught as widely in Christianity, but among Universalists who often get so broad and relative,
The emphasis and focus on Christ as the central connection is lost.

So we need both the “intersection” of all these in Christ Jesus,
And the “union” or inclusion of all tribes; and not compromise one for the other.

That is what I see we can set up, using the internet and organizing teams from different
Campuses and religious or nonreligious affiliations, to apply these concepts, work through
The reconciliation process, and reach a consensus on God through Christ.

 

[emilynghiem]

The reason “spiritual healing” is key to the proof is
(a) Using science and medical studies to measure and prove the before and after effects would satisfy both the most fundamental Christians who only recognize Jesus authority as supreme and the secular scientists using research that can be replicated, and even the failures of healing prayer to work can be studies to show these also follow patterns of steps that were skipped or areas people did not or could not forgive so the healing was limited or blocked.
(b) The spiritual healing also affects the minds and relationships of all people participating in the study and proof process, so forgiveness can be demonstrated as the key factor in reconciling POLITICAL debates and relations including divisive issues of creation/evolution; gay marriage and whether homosexuality can sometimes be
healed, always or never; the death penalty and whether even dangerous pedophiles and drug addicts, gang or cult members, can be healed of demonic obsession or rage, and ever contribute safely to society, etc.

So I expect the proof (which is focused on spiritual healing, and also involves spiritual healing itself in the proof and participation)
to be organized on three levels:
(1) Terms and Teams:
First level of defining the terms, meanings, and concepts/manifestations that we mean by God and Jesus
Aligning positive concepts with positives, and negative perceptions with the negative terms such as Satan, Antichrist, and False prophet instead of blaming God/Jesus/HolySpirit for the negative problems that Christians teach as coming from their Opposites.
I call this the “alignment theory” of finding out each person’s own values that are the equivalent of human nature (body/mind/spirit) or the collective form of these as “God/Christ/HolySpirit”
Examples; Buddhism has Buddha/Dharma/Sangha and instead of Two great commandments; There are two basic principles of “Wisdom and Compassion” which can be shown to align with the Two Great Commandments on Love of God and Love of Neighbor or humanity. For Jesus Christ to come to fulfill and join these as one, with the new commandment to love our neighbor as he loves us, with God’s unconditional love and forgiving grace not with our human conditional love, then all other laws that are the equivalent in other systems, are equally fulfilled in this same spirit, for Jesus to be Lord of all lords or laws/authorities, and to be the Messiah or Message for all humanity.

So the separation of Sheep and Goats is not only to organize secular Gentiles (Buddhists, Nontheists, Constitutionalists, secular humanists) under natural laws; and believers (Muslims, Jews, Christians) under sacred scriptural laws [as two folds of the one flock where all are one in Christ Jesus who governs the Gentiles separately]

But also:
Aligning retributive justice fundamentalists with each other from ALL tribes (so if teams wish to continue to judge and punish each other, the results should show they report getting the the same justice back and this blockage causes attempts to prove or reconcile to fail)

Aligning Restorative Justice and peacemakers from ALL tribes
In order to prove reconciliation is possible where people AGREE to mutual forgiveness and correction, and even restitution where it is agreed for restoring good faith relations.

So the issue is not which tribe, Muslim or Atheist, but whether we agree and believe in
Restorative Justice as the unifying and healing authority of Christ Jesus.

(2) Scientific proof of spiritual healing, and the key factor being forgiveness:
I recommend bringing together the Buddhist and Christian therapists working on generational healing, replicating the studies cited in such books as Healing by Francis MacNutt, Glimpses of the Devil by Scott Peck, and also include the secular studies on forgiveness on mental and physical health.

(3) Physical real world proof of the effect of forgiveness on healing political relationships and ability of opposing or even warring factions to work together on collaborative solutions. Many people NEED to see this happen before they believe it will.
So this is part of the proof for those who require real life examples and testimonies.

 

[Caroljo]

I don't know if i could choose one....i like to talk about Religion, all parts of it. I would probably like to be involved in almost all your points. I'm going to need to re-read your comments tho....had a LONG day and too tired to take all this in! Lol! Good luck!!

 

[Avatar4321]

Im not entirely sure i follow what you are trying to do. Form teams? What are the teams for?

What if the consensus of the team is wrong? Truth isnt found in consensus. 1 million French men can be wrong. (In fact, they probably are wrong about something).

Can you elaborate?

 

[emilynghiem]

I don't know if i could choose one....i like to talk about Religion, all parts of it. I would probably like to be involved in almost all your points. I'm going to need to re-read your comments tho....had a LONG day and too tired to take all this in! Lol! Good luck!!

Thanks Caroljo you can choose more than one.

Maybe i shoulda specified the yes let's prove it team from
the naysayers bench, which may run out of space. I want to have fun with this!

If people don't believe this will work, I want to include that too, and take that input seriously as part of the proof, and still have fun. no need for hate unless someone wants a hate team for venting
as part of their healing? their anger/grief process? that's valid too, want to include everyone!

(whoever can manage and facilitate the naysayers and fingerpointing/mudslinging teams,
should win a Nobel Prize. I nominate Thich Nhat Hanh, so Dr. King's wishes are honored)

 

[emilynghiem]

Im not entirely sure i follow what you are trying to do. Form teams? What are the teams for?

What if the consensus of the team is wrong? Truth isnt found in consensus. 1 million French men can be wrong. (In fact, they probably are wrong about something).

Can you elaborate?

Dear Avatar thanks for asking.

True Consensus depends on resolving all the conflicts preventing true agreement, based on informed consent and free will and reason. This is NOT about forced consent, peer pressure, political bullying, etc. which will come out in the process and prove that is what is PREVENTING consensus from being reached.

If there is anything false or coercive, people will object, which isn't consensus.
So resolving those objections IS part of the healing/proof process
and is the MAJORITY of the work. That is why it is important for all people/views
to be represented and included.

The Consensus team is only right if all issues with objectors and objections are resolved.

Some people may already start giving the benefit of doubt to the consensus team if could prove that the people who can't reconcile with each other (regardless of faith or no faith, it's not affiliation that determines one's forgiveness of people or points) demonstrate patterns of unforgiveness, while those who can reconcile do report forgiveness, and those who changed their minds report likewise. So if we can prove the patterns then some people will start believing this process works even if it isn't fully finished yet: if we can prove the processs of why people can or can't reconcile or when they change their minds, follows these patterns.

Thanks Again! if you know any friends or followers of Thich Nhat Hanh I'd like to form a special team around his work as part of the Buddhist-Christian generational healing studies.
If such teamwork can win him the Nobel Prize, as Dr. King nominated him for, I believe that would honor both of them and the historic relations between Buddhist-Christian and Asian-African communities in peace and justice work leading up to this culminating study.

 

[Avatar4321]

So basically, you want to create teams of people who will help reconciles people on certain matters?

 

[emilynghiem]

So basically, you want to create teams of people who will help reconciles people on certain matters?

Yes.

With religion, I believe key issues can be resolved first, by proof that satisfies both scientific and religious standards (such as spiritual healing and whether homosexuality can be changed, both of which can be studied medically to resolve issues); while in general, resolving relations and perceptions falsely dividing groups will allow more effective collaboration and partnership between them to save resources wasted on fighting to dominate or exclude each other, legally, legislatively, or in practice.

I believe the change in spiritual perception would happen first, before political change follows.

For political application to programs and policies in society, I am particularly interested in resolving the most contentious issues that otherwise divide people religiously or politically by affiliations or parties (such as the prochoice/prolife issue, health care managed by federal or state or localized enterprise, gun control, immigration, homosexuality and gay marriage, federal reserve and banking/financing economic reform, labor reform, criminal justice reforms). Things that are directly affecting resources, where solutions would prevent wasting any more on conflict and political competition, and invest in programs agreed by all.

Again, I believe even setting up teams and asking how to best work together would start to change attitudes, and encourage people to prepare for change, instead of fighting about it.

Already I am getting feedback from people saying 'there is nothing to prove that's not going to work' or "no one is going to participate in real change which is the whole problem" And my answer is, that is even more reason why we need to address the issue of spiritual healing since there is ignorance that it can be proven to be consistent with both science and religious teachings; and even if people refuse, that is part of the study also!

What if people who refuse to mediate to include all views equally did not have authority to make decisions, but only those who do enforce the standard of consensus and inclusion? Maybe we would not have people in government abusing the system to favor one group over another, either for political or financial benefit of a private interest. If we could show consensus is possible, and works in application, then we can argue public policy should be based on THAT, not the messes that occur between groups who refuse to resolve issues.

Right now it seems backwards.

Only the biggest bullies who push out opposition get to be in positions of power to make policies and preach in public. While the neutral facilitators and mediators, by their nature of working with all sides in forming consensus solutions, would get run over if these are the minority, and most people use majority rule and power of bigger groups to dominate others.

I want to hear from people who can reconcile and put those answers out there.
And if more people try those ways, and they work, then that would start catching on,
instead of the mess we have now with people making policies by yelling louder or getting more votes from one side while excluding input and reasons for objection from the other.

By organizing the mediators, then all that input CAN be taken into consideration and worked out. How can we set that up where all the information from all sides and parties is included, instead of groups being divided by party and religious affiliation and NOT sharing directly?

 

[Avatar4321]

I think a key would be actuallyl convincing parties to listen to any other information. That's the toughest part about reconciling people.

 

[MisterBeale]

A consensus is not desirable. I believe what you are trying to do is unnatural and therefor doomed to failure before you even begin your project.

Religion is the synthesis of spirituality and politics. It requires as many variations in dogma as there are politically divergent groups of humanity. It is the province of the spiritual to keep the political ethical, you cannot therefor come to a consensus anymore than you could ever get a consensus on this forum. Not unless the entirety of the membership were as spiritually enlightened as the Christ and the Buddha. Fat lot of luck with that.

To give you an example on just how disparate humanity is on the subject of spirituality, I recommend you read two ground breaking and historic pieces of literature. Then come back and you tell me if there can ever be "consensus," or even if it is desirable. The answer I think you will find, is a clear, no.



Of course, agents of Jesuits seeking ecumenical oneness and control of the planet would have no interest in this sort of research. . . . Spiritual freedom interests them little, only control.

 

[emilynghiem]

Hi Mister Beale:
1. First, consensus does not mean people have to change to become something they are not. When the reps of the different states agreed to write up a Constitution, there was vast disagreement we still see today regarding federal vs. state powers and people's rights.
the Constitution was passed where people agreed, and it still leaves room for where people have differences and leave those to the states or the people.

So consensus does not mean you have to become the same!

See also Code of Ethics for Govt Service, which was passed unanimously by
Congress by consensus, and the writing and focus of the principles show this:
ethics-commission.net

A consensus is not desirable. I believe what you are trying to do is unnatural and therefor doomed to failure before you even begin your project.

Religion is the synthesis of spirituality and politics. It requires as many variations in dogma as there are politically divergent groups of humanity. It is the province of the spiritual to keep the political ethical, you cannot therefor come to a consensus anymore than you could ever get a consensus on this forum. Not unless the entirety of the membership were as spiritually enlightened as the Christ and the Buddha. Fat lot of luck with that.

To give you an example on just how disparate humanity is on the subject of spirituality, I recommend you read two ground breaking and historic pieces of literature. Then come back and you tell me if there can ever be "consensus," or even if it is desirable. The answer I think you will find, is a clear, no.



Of course, agents of Jesuits seeking ecumenical oneness and control of the planet would have no interest in this sort of research. . . . Spiritual freedom interests them little, only control.

2. MB, let these people speak for themselves as to whether they wish to participate.

I find it very odd that people like you would justify not agreeing based on 'what other people will or won't do because they only want control'

Why are you basing your decisions on what YOU THINK other people are doing to try to control others?

Isn't that like letting them control you and then you blame them for it?

I run into this all the time.

Like no one wanting to clean up because no one else is doing it.
Well maybe that's why!

 

[emilynghiem]

I think a key would be actuallyl convincing parties to listen to any other information. That's the toughest part about reconciling people.

Yes, Avatar, that is part of the importance of asking for this,
and part of the process. The more people realize that if they want so much
to share a message, they must create space for that change in the relationship
by receiving equal information from the other person they did not know before either!

So starting by what people want to share or prove to others would be a good start.
From there, it's helping them to communicate to be received, and you are right
this of course takes listening to how other people see and say things so there
can be understanding, which is a mutual process. This is part of the proof,
to prove that such change is possible if not inevitable as I believe!

Thank you for your thoughtful replies
I hope to start an organized dialogue and encourage more of the same!