dellme

Banned
  • Posts

    76
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by dellme

  1. No, I understand. I'm not trying to picks fights either, just trying to wake people up. So I totally agree with wanting to protect people's rights and I do not in general like a law like this. However, one of the things that is deeply concerning is the religious idea within Islam that a woman who is not fully covered is sexually available. Denmark banned the burqa and the nigab NOT the hijab. Which means that Islamic woman can still wear religious clothing, just not full cloak as seen in countries like Egypt, Afghanistan, etc. In countries like Denmark and the EU, white, western, non Islamic women are having serious problems as Islamic men think they can take advantage of them b/c they aren't fully cloaked like their Islamic women. As seen in the uk article linked, these people think they can take advantage of women b/c they aren't fully cloaked, but they don't take advantage of their own women b/c their Muslim and they are fully cloaked. So what do you do as a country when you have this massive problem, i.e. the native women of your country are being raped and pillaged by immigrants? (Sidenote: hmm, isn't that what conquering invaders used to do to women in the old days-rape and pillage??) Well, a smart country would stop the immigration from those nations (which Denmark can't do b/c it is part of the EU), and then severely punish anyone who commits said crime. So closing your borders is off the table, so what do you do? You ban the burqa and nigab to do 2 things, one make it clear that your country will not tolerate this barbarian activity and is not friendly to it and then you do it to also level the playing field so to speak. If it's your belief you can rape western women b/c they don't wear the burga and the nigab, you make is so no one does. Like I said before, it's survival. The thing is most people think that "racism or xenophobia", etc. come about b/c someone doesn't believe or look like you do-at that's totally false. It comes about b/c people ACT differently. And Muslims as a group when they have political power act differently than non-Muslims. Out of all religions, you'd think Mormons would get this the best-but unfortunately we have some sort of persecution complex that won't allow us to see the world as it really is. For LDS, moving out west was the BEST thing to happen, it provided a secluded area where we could practice without any intrusion from the outside and it worked pretty well. The reason why LDS aren't persecuted nearly as much now as before is b/c as a religion we've assimilated into the broader culture-we are still different but by and large we look like, act like, a significant portion of the rest of the population. Even our beliefs have changed in order to assimilate into the broader culture.
  2. That's great, what percentage are Muslim? 1%, 2%, 10%? It's all great to be egalitarian when those who are very different than you comprise a relatively small part of the population. When the scales start to get a little more even, then it don't look so good. When the percentage of the Muslim population was a couple of percent in the EU no big deal, now that they have 5,6,7,8%-yeah it's a big deal. So sure, low Muslim population percentage-wise isn't going to be a problem, but if it climbs to a significant percentage, yeah it will be a big deal.
  3. Yes Muslim, Mormons, Christians all claim Prophets, all claim a higher power God, but that's about where it ends. Muslims have the Five Pillars. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_Pillars_of_Islam We don't have 5 pillars, we have the 10 Commandments. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ten_Commandments Seriously, the fundamental basis of Judeo Christian belief is the 10 Commandments, which Muslim don't have! Sure there are similarities in things like Charity and Prayer, etc. But fundamentally the highest values of Christianity are found in the 10 Commandments, the highest values of Islam is find in the 5 pillars. How anyone can claim Mormons are closer to Muslims than Christians, when the underlying value structure of what we hold most dear is totally different, is beyond me. Are there similarities? Of course, all religions have similarities among them that should be self-evident. But there are way, way more differences than there are similarities. Right, there is a difference in teachings and what is valued, b/c not all teachings have the same value. And the underlying basis of LDS belief is based upon the 10 Commandments, not the 5 Pillars. We have more in similar to Jews than with Muslims.
  4. Again I'm not going to read an academic's papers when he so CLEARLY get's wrong Paris. Did he go to Chapelle-Pajol district? No he did not. I don't hold weight to ANY of his articles if the FIRST article I read talks about how Paris is just fine and there are no problems, when I have an article written in French, explaining yes, yes there are problems. No IF he went to Chapelle-Pajol and did research and said, well you know the French article is really off-base, then I could say okay at least he is serious about research. But he didn't, which plainly tells me HE IS NOT SERIOUS about really figuring out this issue, all he is serious about is political correctness and carry water. And therefore I'm not going to waste my time, reading his academic trash-when he clearly didn't even address correctly Paris.
  5. Personal attack? Because I said you stick your head in the sand? You want to engage but not engage. You don't address any of the articles, you want to ignore the proof of what is going on in Europe-that is by definition sticking your head in the sand-that's not a personal attack that's a figure of speech. I have not in any way shape or form called you a name and I'm not nit-picking. You are certainly fine to call me out if you think I cross the line; but the hypocrisy is quite astounding b/c if I have just now crossed the line, then oh boy oh boy there is quite a LOT of #3 and #4 that goes on here on this forum that never gets called out. I get it my viewpoint is unorthodox . . .but IF the US imports a significant amount of Muslims, give it 10-15 years-you'll be saying hmm, that guy was right you know.
  6. Okay, I can not take this man seriously if he won't even GO INTO THE MUSLIM NEIGHBORHOODS in Paris. A typical academic, talk about things in academia and ignore the real-world . . .no thanks. I don't even know what the guys viewpoint is, but CLEARLY Mormons are closer to Christians b/c we are CHRISTIANS!!! To claim otherwise is utterly stupid and to completely misrepresent both Christianity, Muslims and LDS.
  7. That's it? You can't deal with an argument and the proof from news articles about the massive problem, so you stick your head in the sand and just say goodbye? Okaay then . . . that's fine, leave it to the strong who actually want to protect heritage and the traditions of western culture to defend it for you. That's totally cool.
  8. Umm, because same-sex attractions and relationships are death-literally, figuratively and spiritually. And normal attractions are life.
  9. Well first off freedom of religion has become quite the misnomer over time. In contrast to the US, European countries do not believe in freedom of speech and if you don't believe in freedom of speech you can't believe in freedom of religion. Even in the US, the history of the US is 100% Christian, each of the individual colonies was FOUNDED on religion-the only one that wasn't was Pennsylvania-ever other single state has it's own state religion. Baptists in the south, Congregationalists in the North, etc. The first amendment was to the Establishment of a federal religion and official oaths and tests of religion for office it also included the freedom to SAY what you want to say. This was later expanded to the state level-but make no mistake upon founding of the US religion was HIGHLY integrated into the government. That's great, but freedom of religion is only protected in so far as people believe it is protected-the Constitution won't do one dang thing to protect freedom of speech or religion unless the majority of people believe in freedom of religion or speech. In the US this is seen time and time and time again as the Supreme Court has made decisions only later to reverse themselves over and over again. Slavery is a prime example, FDR's federal programs in the 1930s is another one. SSM is another one. As soon as you get a significant amount of people who do not believe in freedom of speech (FS), they will elect politicians who don't believe in FS, who will put in place judges who don't believe in FS, who will eventually overturn or create new judicial proceedings against FS. This is why immigration and immigration policy is so critical to the vitality of a nation. What are the belief structures of the individuals who are immigrating to your country? If the fundamental belief structure of those immigrants is AGAINST say Freedom of Speech, then by immigrating a bunch of people with that belief system-you are literally killing your own culture. It's why up until the 1970s the US immigration policy favored heavily European nations b/c those immigrants came from a Christian background. There is such a fundamental difference between freedom of speech and immigrants from Muslim countries that it can't be reconciled without giving up freedom of speech. It's very hard for most Westerners to understand today b/c our own faith systems are so completely destroyed, we are extremely secular. What happens when you have a very devoted (and I think that's great they are so devoted) culture worm it's way into a decaying culture . . .one is going to overthrow the other. If you immigrate 30% of the middle east into your country and the people aren't assimilated, you will become like the middle east. And right now, Muslims in the EU are not assimilating-they are developing their own pockets of sub-culture. If they assimilated, great-but they aren't, hence laws like this.
  10. I don't know why it has become so taboo to be against Muslims. It seems rather quite silly to me. History is the story of civilizations who rise and fall. A civilization is comprised of a group of individuals who have a basic common set of beliefs, structures and ethics on how to operate in life. I don't want to live in a Muslim country, I want to live in a predominately Christian country, I don't want to live in a Muslim neighborhood-I want to live in a predominately Christian neighborhood-why b/c there is a shared set of ethos that accompanies that, I automatically know (or should know) where the other person stands on a lot of basic issues. I honestly fall to understand why this is so bad-I don't blame the Muslim in the least bit for wanting to live in a place that is predominately Muslim-it is the history of the world, civilizations and cultures that don't protect their own cultures eventually fade away into the dust.
  11. No it's not anti-religion. It is specifically targeted against Muslims. No other religion covers their face as such. I understand why they are doing it. In principle I disagree with laws that regulate behavior as such like this, however it is clearly a reaction over things which they have little to no control. They CAN'T control their own immigration-if they could then laws like this wouldn't exist b/c they would severely control immigration from predominately Muslim countries. As soon as someone enters the EU-by law (since they abolished passport controls), the person has free access to every single country in the EU. This is a clear law that is specifically designed to say to Muslim immigrants, WE DON'T WANT YOU HERE. They are literally trying to do everything they can to protect their own culture and to avoid being overrun by foreign nations. It really is simple demographics: http://www.pewforum.org/2017/11/29/europes-growing-muslim-population/ I would say the estimates are under b/c the percentage of traditional european blood that are having kids is declining quite dramatically while the Muslim population tends to have lots and lots of kids. Denmark which has 5.5% of the population Muslim is CLEARLY seeing the massive problems Muslims are causing in the other UE countries and doesn't want any part of it. The US has maybe 1% of the population Muslim so the left and people in general can be very egalitarian and say oh it's just nice and fine let them all in. But that doesn't fly when you have a country like Denmark that has 4x the percentage of Muslims in their country. Right now their is ~2.5 million in the US, what would the US look like with ~10 million. It looks small, but man it factors into EVERYTHING. Look at France with 8.8% Muslims. The US and the EU is extremely secular, but Muslims in general are not-they are an extremely vibrant faith-i.e. they are in general "true" believers. What do you think happens when you have a clash of cultures as such-will they assimilate and integrate into the larger EU culture-nope, not at all. The whole political landscape changes b/c now you have people with an entirely different set of beliefs who will be voting and electing politicians. There are literally no-go zones in the EU where police don't go to enforce the law in Muslim areas. For example, it is well documented that rape of women and young boys is very common in countries like Afghanistan and in much of the Middle East-it is fool-hardy to believe those individuals can immigrate to the West and become "Westernized". What Denmark is doing is simply called survival.
  12. Well the doctrine behind Blacks not having the priesthood is actually very simple and easy-just no one wants to hear it. The doctrine is that at different points in time the Gospel or parts of the Gospel are restricted to certain groups. This doctrine that God can restrict the Gospel and the preaching or exercise of the different portions of the Gospel to different groups is plain in the scriptures. That is doctrine. The policy is the implementation of the doctrine; i.e. the implementation being that at one point Blacks were restricted from access to parts of the Gospel (in accordance with long-standing scriptural doctrine that restriction when approved or commanded by God is good) and then they were not restricted (again in accordance with the doctrine that the Gospel may or may not be restricted).
  13. Again, they may "hate" doing it, but they don't hate it enough to stop. I've also had "addictions" myself, but the scriptures tell us EXACTLY what an "addiction" is, it is love of sin over love of God. "If thy right hand offend thee, CUT IT OFF!" People in today's society are so jacked up, they think they need counselors or psychologists or whomever to fix their problems, when the honest to God answer is that ALL of the answers to life's problems are found in the scriptures. I'm sorry dude, I've had "addictions" that I've gone years, even decades with and it is nothing more and nothing less than a love of sin. I loved the sin too much to stop-oh of course I hated the guilt afterwards (we use the word shame incorrectly, anything that is punishment is now associated with shame which is total crap), the knowledge that I wasn't worthy, but when it boils right down to it- I LOVED SIN MORE THAN GOD! I've been down the road of "figuring out" the root cause and understanding the psychobabble, but honestly all of that "root cause" was really a self-delusional lie-an excuse for me to cast the blame of the "addiction" on someone else's feet. When the truth is no one made me do the addiction-I did it myself. There are no excuses, I can plainly look back now having been a changed man, having more the Light of Christ within me, and I can plainly see and it is quite obvious-it was a love of sin more than God; and that is the root cause of all harmful addictions, love of sin over love of God. The idea that people are "hooked" on drugs is utter complete bull-it really is. Yeah actually people who are "hooked" on drugs, love the drug more than they love not being on the drug. It really is that simple. I know it seems unfathomable for most people, as in why would you love doing cocaine, but yes people love it. It's that simple b/c when people stop the "addiction" no one forces them to stop-they stop of their OWN freewill and choice. If you FORCE someone into drug rehab, inevitability they will be right back at it in no time. Now the process to get the person to realize that they are better off without the "addiction" maybe a long drawn out process, but as SOON as the individual realizes that they hate the sin and love God more, they will stop. And you don't have to "fix" the thing that is causing the addiction-because for all the psychobabble about there is a deep rooted psychological cause, blah,blah, blah. It is actually very, very simple. The addiction provides much pleasure, more pleasure than the pain of the guilt afterwards, as soon as the pain of the guilt and the consequences outwards the pleasure of the moment the "addiction" goes away. The greatest lie ever told with "addictions" is the lie that an "addiction" means you can't stop when you want to. Totally false, you exactly CAN stop anytime you want to-you just have to have the force of will to do so.
  14. This IMO is false; the scriptures command us to judge-we are just not to judge unrighteous and that's a big difference. Anyone who says we shouldn't judge is teaching false doctrine b/c the scriptures clearly tell us otherwise, we are commanded not to judge unrighteously. She can clearly judge that what he is doing is against God's commandments, b/c it is! Judging is all about determining what actions are correct and what actions are incorrect Now, then there is also judgement affixed with a judge, i.e. what is the discipline or punishment affixed to such judging of actions. It's certainly not for the wife to determine what discipline should be affixed to breaking the commandments of God-that is for the Bishop to decide. More importantly though than judging is forgiveness. You can't forgive other people if you don't judge whether their actions are right or wrong. Judging and forgiveness go hand in hand you literally can't forgive someone else if you don't judge their actions! "Not judging" renders personal forgiveness of others completely dead. And that's the beauty of forgiveness, it's knowing when other people have committed wrongs (i.e. you are judging) and then forgiving them of their actions. So yes judge him that he is making incorrect choices in his life, and those choices ARE harming her (she does not have a worthy Priesthood holder in the house), but don't affix punishment or discipline to him for that (that is reserved for his Bishop) and forgive him of those choices that are harmful. No he doesn't . . .that's modern psycho-babble not based upon gospel principles. If he hates it as much as you claim, he would stop period! The fact remains that he enjoys drinking alcohol and coffee or whatever and doesn't see the need to stop. For some reason, why I don't know, we can't seem to admit in the modern world that some people enjoy sin-that is why they do it. And this is where the Bishop comes in, affixing discipline to an incorrect decision to allow the sinner to reflect upon their mistakes (sometimes that discipline is in the form of punishment sometimes it is in the form of counsel other times it is in a different form) and to become spiritually minded. Because when you boil it all down, all the 12 step programs in the world, the only one who stops the addiction is the person who has it-i.e. it is a decision or a choice that the person makes to not be "addicted". Claiming "addiction" is just a lazy-man's way of saying, "I don't want to stop right now b/c I enjoy xyz too much". Now many people are motivated more by the short-term pleasure than long-term pleasure; in their mind the short-term pleasure of that drug or whatever outweighs everything else. As soon as they see that their long-term happiness is compromised by the short-term pleasure and VALUE long-term happiness more than short-term happiness, the "addiction" will go away. The scriptures tell us so, all "addictions" are is carnally minded. Romans 8:6-10 6 For to be carnally minded is death; but to be spiritually minded is life and peace. 7Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God,neither indeed can be. 8 So then they that are in the flesh cannot* please God. 9 But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you.Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his. 10 And if Christ be in you, the body is dead because of sin; but the Spirit is life because of righteousness.
  15. If you really want to go that route, the fact that the positions exist at all is a matter of policy not doctrine as they aren't found anywhere in the scriptures (assuming you are only counting things in the scriptures as doctrine). And considering a significant portion of "new mormons" completely ignore Paul's writings in Timothy, doctrine today more appears to be whatever "I" think is right. They are priesthood holders b/c the authorities they represent and spent time with are priesthood holders. Sometimes I really wonder if people think things through . . . in the error of #MeToo feminists within the Church and having two teachers in every class and having parents sit in on interviews with the youth are they really pining that the Secretaries and Clerks be female when these individuals will be spending significant amounts of time interacting alone with the Bishop or SP?? That is a recipe for disaster . . . le sigh.
  16. I agree there is not definitive bell, but in life time is definitely of the essence. I would think that if one is ready to be married it should take no longer than a year to make that decision. A year is plenty of time to get to know the family, the person, see the person go through the different seasons of life. I honestly can't think of why it would take more than a year if one is ready to be married. I dated my wife for several years in college, but I wasn't ready to get married, once I was personally ready to be married (and that didn't have to do with her) we were married fairly quickly.
  17. IMO, the problem is that you don't really know what you want and therefore you can't really make a good decision b/c you don't quite know what you want. IMO, nit picking over something so trivial as to how articulate he is in trivial conversation is really in the long-run very immature. It's okay to be immature about it (at this point) b/c well you are still very young and young people are expected to be immature to a large degree; however it is something that SHOULD in the long-run not be an issue at all . . . unless you have deeper issues. Now having said that something that most people don't talk about that COULD be indicative of problems down the road in not being inarticulate is that it COULD be indicative of his intelligence. It's just a fact of life that some people are more intelligent than others. If you were looking to hire someone and only knew one thing about them, the best single indicator of success is intelligence (obviously there is a lot more to that, but we are talking about if you only had 1 factor). Now this isn't to minimize other traits such as to be a good citizen in the least b/c I'd rather marry someone who was moral & ethical vs. someone who is a genius b/c there are a lot of super-smart psychopaths out there too! In general to minimize stress in marriage you want to marry someone that is roughly of the same level of intelligence as you and someone that comes from the same social-economic background and same religious background. Marriage is already hard enough and there are enough differences between men and women that you don't need any more major differences to make things challenging. The more major differences you introduce, the more likely those areas are going to be major stress points in your marriage. In LDS parlance, don't be unequally yoked. So IF you think his inability to be articulate in trivial conversation is indicative of that his level of intelligence is significantly lower than yours (which may or may not be the case, sometimes very smart people are horrible in small-talk)-than that needs some serious consideration. If it is not indicative of a lower level of intelligence than my guess is that as you mature it will become immaterial to you. If I were you, I'd rank order a list of qualities you want in a husband; and they need to be things that are somewhat quantifiable, like if you say considerate that's great but how can you quantify that this bf is considerate? Does he open doors for you for example? If I were back in the dating world (thank heavens I'm not), I would absolutely run my dates through a series of tests to test for specific qualities and to see their reactions to things. For marriage, IMO the #1 thing to look at is look at their family structure and upbringing. Come from a broken home-well that is going to mean a lot of emotional work and if they haven't already fixed it be prepared to be drug into their drama fest. Do their parents yell/scream? Be prepared, that will happen to you. Regardless of whether you move 1000 miles away you ARE marrying the family and if you have issues with his family now-it will take a lot of pain and suffering to get it straightened out in your marriage (doable-but very difficult). Personally, I would put of roughly the same intelligence level on my list-but it would be lower in the rank, the #1 thing is the family. I don't care if they hate their family, swear they will never be like them, give them 10 years and they will say "dang, I'm like my dad in xyz". Now, you will never find the perfect mate-just not going to happen, so the biggest quality is a willingness to stick together no matter what! There is no out, no other option, you get married and it's do or die-it MUST work. The second quality is a recognition that you can only change yourself. If both of you have those two qualities-then no matter what it will work out just fine.
  18. dellme

    Answered

    I agree with Overwatch. I'm not upset; it's more commentary.
  19. dellme

    Answered

    The older I have gotten in life the more done I am in general with walking on eggshells, b/c you eventually get to a certain point where you realize how much of the problems in life really are just bull. And the people who have helped me out most in life are the ones who have given it to me straight with no fluffy junk around the edges. And IMO, if someone thinks they have to use fluffy words to not "offend" me, then they don't really think too much of me-b/c it indicates to me that they don't think I have a strong enough mind to be able to emotionally deal with whatever they say. And that is what has really happened in society, it is an infantilization of society, so you can't ever have the hard conversations b/c we treat each other like emotional infants who can't handle certain words, thoughts, or emotions. It's ironic, 50 years ago people were much more courteous, but not as afraid to speak their mind (they said yes sir, no sir, opened doors etc.). Today people are less courteous and more afraid to speak their mind . . .ironic isn't it.
  20. dellme

    Answered

    ?? What are you talking about. No, claiming someone is taking offense doesn't shut down the conversation unless all you are doing is arguing about who is taking offense, which is ludicrous. A lot more conversations in today's society boil down to "you said something offense, so I'm going to be mean to you", vs. "you are taking offense, so I'm going to be mean to you".
  21. People lie for one simple reason: they don't want to get into trouble. That "getting into trouble" could be getting into trouble with themselves, with their spouse, with others, etc. What you have to realize is that this is HIS struggle and battle not YOURS, you are there to support him, but not do it for him. At this point, of course he's not going to tell you the truth. Because even if you tell him you aren't mad at him or you aren't upset, your ACTIONS demonstrate something totally different. Through your words you tell him you aren't mad or upset, but your thoughts, emotions and actions say the complete opposite. I've highlighted the contradictions. In effect you are lying to him when you tell him you won't be upset or mad. And my guess is that it will take a while before he will actually stop lying to you b/c you've built up a history of being upset and mad over this sort of thing. It's like when you discipline a child, if you tell the child "just tell me what happened and I won't be mad" and then you get upset after they tell you, of course they will lie to you the next time and they won't trust you to not get mad. Why are you trying to solve HIS problem? At what point in YOUR temple recommend interview does the Bishop ask about the sins of your husband? He doesn't, period. So no, you don't tell your Bishop about your husbands sins. AoF 2: "We believe that men will be punished for their own sins". I certainly understand how hurt and upset and filled with regret you could be for not marrying the perfect Mormon guy, but you've got to stop comparing yourself and your marriage to your family. You made the choice to marry him, so you have to deal with that choice and it's your own journey. Comparing to anyone else will just lead to heartache and pain, in fact it's against the 10 Commandments, Thou shalt not covet. How to get him to be honest with you? You need to de-legitimize and de-stigmatize what he is lying over. You need to just clearly tell him, that as his wife you expect him to be honest and forthright in his upcoming temple recommend interview-that if he needs to work through some things before he can go to the temple worthily that's it's OKAY!!!! You need to mean it too! No side glaces, no sighs, no side comments about being worthy, etc. Nothing, you need to be 100% emotionally and spiritually okay with him needing to work through some things and he needs to know that you are okay with him working through it too. Then you say, I trust you, whatever the outcome of the temple recommend interview, I trust you! and you need to mean it! He's a big boy, trust him and let him handle it. Sidenote: If you don't want someone to tell you a lie, don't ask them the question. i.e. directly confront about the coffee receipts instead of asking "did you buy coffee?".
  22. dellme

    Answered

    Very true, but the intent for the offender is what really matters. For example in Spanish saying someone is fat is not offensive, why? b/c it is an accurate description. The person who says "he/she is fat" is not intending it as an insult or to make fun-it is a description and therefore should not be offensive. US (and Western culture in general) culture has gone so far in the direction of not trying to offend that it is literally restricting our ability to actually think. All the responsibility is being put on the offender to not say something offensive, well how in the world does the offender know if something is offensive? Today it's the mob reaction. If the mob tells you it's offensive then by edict it is offensive-which is totally against any Christian teachings and leads to some very, very bad outcomes b/c again people won't be able to have honest conversations and that is very bad. We see it here on this board plenty of times, someone comes in and says something that is "controversial" people GET offended and then tell that person off, when the original person was not intending offense. The OP says I don't intend to offend, the response is "well you did offend me". It's used as a weapon and as a mechanism to shut off any type of conversation and/or arguments that the other person doesn't want to hear. Just claim it offends someone and you effectively close the debate; it restricts the ability to bring in data, facts, or thoughts simply b/c it is deemed "offensive". Choosing not to be offended means that one assumes the intent of the offender is to NOT offend, therefore regardless of how or what words are said the offendee doesn't take offense. The offender has the responsibility to not intend to offend.
  23. Hmm . . .well the practical advice is to learn to forgive and move on with life. You've hung onto this for 30+ years!!! That means you've effectively hung onto this for HALF your adult life. My goodness, life is way, way too short to hold onto something like this and let it destroy your life. Forgiveness is exactly what you need and is the exact therapy you need, nothing else will work. But alas, it will probably fall on deaf ears. You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make them drink. As a sidenote, there are some people who simply just can't seem to figure out how to make a marriage work, if someone would hold a grudge for 30 years like this, even if the spouse was a complete angel the marriage would end in utter disaster. Because inevitably people who are like this (i.e. that hold long grudges) would easily find something to hold onto and use it to exert power in the marriage and would use it as a weapon against their spouse and the marriage will fail. Sigh . . .very, very sad.
  24. It's all in a framework or belief system, if you want to see ghosts everywhere you will see ghosts everywhere, real or imagined . . .
  25. Strangely enough not it was not Jordan Peterson, a different Canadian professor one who was giving a lecture on racism and I saw his lecture, a SJW type-surprising to say the least.