# Intimacy with Men



## OrchidSugar (5 mo ago)

I want to know if men experience real-life intimacy from women outside of their mothers, romantic interests, and daughters. If not, would you like to experience this kind of (non-sexual) intimacy with women? Do you or would you like to experience it from other people in your life?

I'm going to define the word in an attempt to avoid falling into bickering about semantics:

*intimacy (n.) - a state marked by the consensual sharing of deeply personal information or revealing oneself to another, caring deeply for another, and a comfort with close proximity. The state of intimacy involves sharing private thoughts, dreams, beliefs, and emotionally meaningful experiences. Intimacy requires both self-disclosure and empathic feedback. *


----------



## Ms. Aligned (Aug 26, 2021)

*Following, great thread.


----------



## ENTJudgement (Oct 6, 2013)

OrchidSugar said:


> I want to know if men experience real-life intimacy from women outside of their mothers, romantic interests, and daughters.


I did with some of my exes although theres a huge difference between a gf/wife's intimacy and your mothers, for one, gf/wife is statistically less reliable than your mother and secondly, intimacy from your mother is maternal and from your gf/wife is usually more... sexual.



OrchidSugar said:


> If not, would you like to experience this kind of (non-sexual) intimacy with women? Do you or would you like to experience it from other people in your life?
> 
> I'm going to define the word in an attempt to avoid falling into bickering about semantics:
> 
> *intimacy (n.) - a state marked by the consensual sharing of deeply personal information or revealing oneself to another, caring deeply for another, and a comfort with close proximity. The state of intimacy involves sharing private thoughts, dreams, beliefs, and emotionally meaningful experiences. Intimacy requires both self-disclosure and empathic feedback. *


I find it significantly easier to experience said intimacy with the female gender, I think a lot of men are just biologically wired that way, I believe as a female you have a huge advantage over other men if you want to become intimate with men. Its very difficult for men to become intimate with other men, we're kinda closed off emotionally with each other, we tend to challenge each other and compete with one another, don't get me wrong, we love to hang out and do stuff/hobbies together but we aren't highly emotional with one another and even if u did start to get emotional with your male friends, many would receive it negatively like wtf bro? Some would think you've gone full h0m0, some would think you're weak and think less of you, some dunno how to deal with it and just act awkwardly, some would tell u to toughen up and be dismissive of it. I don't think women understand how difficult it is for 2 men to become intimate unless you're gay obviously.


----------



## OrchidSugar (5 mo ago)

ENTJudgement said:


> I did with some of my exes although theres a huge difference between a gf/wife's intimacy and your mothers, for one, gf/wife is statistically less reliable than your mother and secondly, intimacy from your mother is maternal and from your gf/wife is usually more... sexual.


Just one quick clarification that I don't mean women you're romantically involved with or romantically interested in.



ENTJudgement said:


> I find it significantly easier to experience said intimacy with the female gender, I think a lot of men are just biologically wired that way, I believe as a female you have a huge advantage over other men if you want to become intimate with men. Its very difficult for men to become intimate with other men, we're kinda closed off emotionally with each other, we tend to challenge each other and compete with one another, don't get me wrong, we love to hang out and do stuff/hobbies together but we aren't highly emotional with one another and even if u did start to get emotional with your male friends, many would receive it negatively like wtf bro? Some would think you've gone full h0m0, some would think you're weak and think less of you, some dunno how to deal with it and just act awkwardly, some would tell u to toughen up and be dismissive of it. I don't think women understand how difficult it is for 2 men to become intimate unless you're gay obviously.


And thanks for this perspective. Wondering if other men are feeling the same way about male bonding relationships.


----------



## NIHM (Mar 24, 2014)

OrchidSugar said:


> I want to know if men experience real-life intimacy from women outside of their mothers, romantic interests, and daughters. If not, would you like to experience this kind of (non-sexual) intimacy with women? Do you or would you like to experience it from other people in your life?
> 
> I'm going to define the word in an attempt to avoid falling into bickering about semantics:
> 
> *intimacy (n.) - a state marked by the consensual sharing of deeply personal information or revealing oneself to another, caring deeply for another, and a comfort with close proximity. The state of intimacy involves sharing private thoughts, dreams, beliefs, and emotionally meaningful experiences. Intimacy requires both self-disclosure and empathic feedback. *


Slow clap for defining the word. That prevents that what-if in me from going off. 










Love this thread. Interesting premise. I can't ask my husband because he's clearly a romantic interest. INTJs have like a small set circle around them, for me to be in his house (his den) I would have to share this high level of intimacy with him. They're a very private bunch. Unfortunately, it might be biased of me to ask him if he was like this prior to our dating... because would he have shared with me if he wasn't romantically interested in me. He said yes and that we would still be best friends but I'm not 100% certain about this theory.


----------



## ENTJudgement (Oct 6, 2013)

OrchidSugar said:


> Just one quick clarification that I don't mean women you're romantically involved with or romantically interested in.


If you're saying that it CANNOT involve any female that I've had any form of romantic relationship with or romantic interest in then unfortunately I've essentially had 0 experience, every woman who I've been intimate with excluding my mom has had some kind of romantic involvement whether it was mutual or one way.

Even thinking about it, it's really difficult to detach intimacy completely from any kind of romantic interest with the opposite gender. It's like if I like you so much that I wanna be intimate with you, that involves physical touch like hugs etc... Then you're probably attractive enough for me to like you romantically to begin with.

So for your scenario to play out, she'd have to be physically repulsive so that I won't ever think of her in a romantic way yet somehow I made an effort to befriend her, got along with her in all the right ways, confided in her and opened up emotionally with reciprocation even though I have no need to do that coz I'm completely independent and don't actively seek out emotional support or w/e. Like sure it can happen but the chance is so low it probably won't happen.


----------



## LeafStew (Oct 17, 2009)

I think it's an interesting thread. I haven't experience intimacy with woman outside from my mother, even though I don't share everything with her. I'm not really afraid to be authentic and reveal personal information to people (maybe not so much over the internet), one of my guy friend told me once that I should better size the degree of intamcy I can have with someone and that I shouldn't overshare with anyone.

I'd be open to share with a woman, just that I don't have that many relationship with woman. I'm mostly an hermit at this point I don't really talk to anyone besides my roommate and I eat lunch at my parent's place once during the week. :\


----------



## Angry-Spaghetti (Feb 25, 2021)

I few times when I'm drunk. Me and my friend just hug eachother for hours. Sometimes all you need is someone to hold you lol.


----------



## intranst (Jul 13, 2021)

I’ve “felt” intimacy with other men psychologically but as soon as I try to delve more such as expressing appreciation for the talk or what have you I end up hitting a wall, like they weren’t as emotionally involved in the conversation as I was. I am however only physically attracted to women. As far as the same psychological intimacy with women separate from romantic attraction, I haven’t experienced it to the same degree as men, but I imagine that’s just coincidence.


----------



## intranst (Jul 13, 2021)

I could also add that I’m open to the idea of polyamory for the whole psychological compatibility with more than one person, it makes sense logically, I just haven’t experienced the thinking of more than one person at a time in a sexual/romantic way. Not sure if I chalk that up to Fi and emotional tunnel vision or oxytocin brain chemicals.


----------



## chad86tsi (Dec 27, 2016)

It's pretty rare across the board (all types and flavors) for men if that's what your are wondering. It's also almost taboo in some ways (many ways for specific cultures).

I also don't think men are quite wired that way, and on top of that society precludes any chance at change/evolution.

Men are certainly capable and do actively experience this, but it's rare and atypical.


----------



## Lonewaer (Jul 14, 2014)

OrchidSugar said:


> I want to know if men experience real-life intimacy from women outside of their mothers, romantic interests, and daughters. If not, would you like to experience this kind of (non-sexual) intimacy with women? Do you or would you like to experience it from other people in your life?
> 
> I'm going to define the word in an attempt to avoid falling into bickering about semantics:
> 
> *intimacy (n.) - a state marked by the consensual sharing of deeply personal information or revealing oneself to another, caring deeply for another, and a comfort with close proximity. The state of intimacy involves sharing private thoughts, dreams, beliefs, and emotionally meaningful experiences. Intimacy requires both self-disclosure and empathic feedback.*


I don't have that experience, no. The closest to that would be my sister, and it's probably the same as "mothers and daughters" so I'm assuming you'd include that in there too.

Would I want to have that ? No. That sounds miserable to me for a couple of reasons : 
1) I have a pronounced discomfort with close proximity (physical or otherwise) with anyone unless I'm sleeping with the person. That means I have that same discomfort with my direct family too. So I don't see why strangers would have access to that about me.

2) "non-sexual" and "non-romantic". Here that's where I'm getting confused : I don't see the point. Why would I go for that ? It would be as ENTJudgement described, actively seeking to befriend a woman (???) I find physically repulsive (???), only to give her the hope that we could be more, as well as ammunition to damage me in some way.
If I don't go for someone who's physically repulsive, then I'll have another intent in mind, the only way for me to not have that other intent in mind despite her being physically attractive is if she's completely messed up in the head, the dangerous kind of crazy, but then I'd rather avoid that person altogether. So it creates another problem : if I find her physically repulsive, it basically means that I'm out of her league. So an additional problem with providing that ugly chick with intimacy, is that if I'm out of her league and I provide her with one of the main things that women want, intimacy, then she's going to start imagining things, and then she's going to be the one with a further intent in mind.

So I don't experience it, and I don't want to, unless that's with my partner I'm having abundant sex with. There's really nothing to be gained out of this from my point of view in any other case, I would not be surprised if it was the same for a lot of men.


----------



## OrchidSugar (5 mo ago)

ENTJudgement said:


> Even thinking about it, it's really difficult to detach intimacy completely from any kind of romantic interest with the opposite gender. It's like if I like you so much that I wanna be intimate with you, that involves physical touch like hugs etc... Then you're probably attractive enough for me to like you romantically to begin with.
> 
> So for your scenario to play out, she'd have to be physically repulsive so that I won't ever think of her in a romantic way yet somehow I made an effort to befriend her, got along with her in all the right ways, confided in her and opened up emotionally with reciprocation even though I have no need to do that coz I'm completely independent and don't actively seek out emotional support or w/e. Like sure it can happen but the chance is so low it probably won't happen.





Lonewaer said:


> So I don't experience it, and I don't want to, unless that's with my partner I'm having abundant sex with. There's really nothing to be gained out of this from my point of view in any other case, I would not be surprised if it was the same for a lot of men.


It sounds like y'all are saying similar things here. I grouped you both together. So neither of you value emotional intimacy with anyone. Therefore when you are using it, you are only doing so with romantic partners. *So would you say that emotional intimacy is a "means to an end" for you? Are you only using it to get something that you want romantically?*

@Lonewaer The other things your comments made me think of is that:
1. There is another scenario. In which you find the woman repulsive and she also finds you equally repulsive. Or just romantically undesirable, which isn't the same as being physically unattractive.

2. Instead of "actively seeking to befriend a woman," a friendship or a closeness can happen organically. Or do you strategically become friends with people?

3. Sister could be an option for non-romantic intimacy with a woman. It's not the biological nurturing reflex of your mother. Nor the sexual urge of you wanting to pursue a woman you're attracted to. So emotional closeness with a sister could work.


----------



## OrchidSugar (5 mo ago)

LeafStew said:


> I think it's an interesting thread. I haven't experience intimacy with woman outside from my mother, even though I don't share everything with her. I'm not really afraid to be authentic and reveal personal information to people (maybe not so much over the internet), one of my guy friend told me once that I should better size the degree of intamcy I can have with someone and that I shouldn't overshare with anyone.
> 
> I'd be open to share with a woman, just that I don't have that many relationship with woman. I'm mostly an hermit at this point I don't really talk to anyone besides my roommate and I eat lunch at my parent's place once during the week. :\





intranst said:


> I’ve “felt” intimacy with other men psychologically but as soon as I try to delve more such as expressing appreciation for the talk or what have you I end up hitting a wall, like they weren’t as emotionally involved in the conversation as I was. I am however only physically attracted to women. As far as the same psychological intimacy with women separate from romantic attraction, I haven’t experienced it to the same degree as men, but I imagine that’s just coincidence.


I'm grouping your responses together because it sounds like neither of you are actively opposed to emotional intimacy with women. @intranst You mention the difficulty of establishing it with men. @LeafStew You mention being told that you maybe jumped too quickly into emotional intimacy and received pushback from a male friend. 

I have some experience with "oversharing" as well. I have a low barrier for emotional expression. (Could be an Fi thing rather than gender). But it concerns me that if some men are associating this with romance, then they will easily mistake this for a romantic advance. I have also found myself oversharing in a group of male friends where I'm talking about something that has deeply affected me and some are silent and withdrawn and the poor unfortunate soul who tries to provide comfort does so haphazardly and is anxious to escape into a safe space of withdrawal himself. "Pathetic!" I think. But maybe I'm too hard on them. Anyway, these same dudes can be made slightly more receptive in one-on-one situations, but only slightly. Either way I end up "hitting a wall" as intranst suggests.


----------



## OrchidSugar (5 mo ago)

Angry-Spaghetti said:


> I few times when I'm drunk. Me and my friend just hug eachother for hours. Sometimes all you need is someone to hold you lol.


Would you clarify genders here for educational purposes?


----------



## OrchidSugar (5 mo ago)

chad86tsi said:


> It's pretty rare across the board (all types and flavors) for men if that's what your are wondering. It's also almost taboo in some ways (many ways for specific cultures).
> 
> I also don't think men are quite wired that way, and on top of that society precludes any chance at change/evolution.
> 
> Men are certainly capable and do actively experience this, but it's rare and atypical.


Speaking subjectively, about your own experience, would you say non-romantic intimacy is something that you value and would be open to from either men or women?

(I'm assuming you're a man right?)


----------



## intranst (Jul 13, 2021)

It should be one-on-one situations to begin with, you can’t expect deep emotional connections in a group setting since there are too many other psychological elements involved.


----------



## OrchidSugar (5 mo ago)

\


intranst said:


> It should be one-on-one situations to begin with, you can’t expect deep emotional connections in a group setting since there are too many other psychological elements involved.


This is fine for female friend groups, in my opinion. It's the whole basis of bottomless mimosas at brunch.

Edit: I'm talking small group of 3-4.


----------



## intranst (Jul 13, 2021)

OrchidSugar said:


> \
> 
> This is fine for female friend groups, in my opinion. It's the whole basis of bottomless mimosas at brunch.
> 
> Edit: I'm talking small group of 3-4.


I could see that with a small group of close friends. For me personally though I won’t feel emotional intimacy toward a group, it’ll be directed at individuals, so I see relishing that intimacy can only be had one-on-one.


----------



## Angry-Spaghetti (Feb 25, 2021)

OrchidSugar said:


> Would you clarify genders here for educational purposes?


I'm a guy, friend is a girl.


----------



## OrchidSugar (5 mo ago)

intranst said:


> It’s not like it’s split between men providing to show worth and women giving sex, it’s all on a spectrum. I personally don’t mind being a stay at home dad (given our children are fish) and putting on sexy get-ups for my wife when she comes home from work.


Don't worry. You will find your ENTJ woman soon. So long as you don't treat your children this way, you should be just fine!


----------



## OrchidSugar (5 mo ago)

ENTJudgement said:


> It’s been a dream of mine to marry a boss babe who pays all the bills + my life style, comes home wanting to fk and treats me like a house husband but boy is it difficult to find a boss babe that’s willing to settle for lil ol me :’(


Start lifting


----------



## OrchidSugar (5 mo ago)

ENTJudgement said:


> [email protected] the “damned android” remark, I predicted as much haha


You and your damned predictions


----------



## intranst (Jul 13, 2021)

OrchidSugar said:


> Don't worry. You will find your ENTJ woman soon. So long as you don't treat your children this way, you should be just fine!


Hey, it’s not about being provided for, it’s about ENTJ being the most efficient for me to communicate with, I think.. I just have to convince all these freakin INFJs and INTPs that they don’t actually want an ENTJ lol


----------



## Scoobyscoob (Sep 4, 2016)

OrchidSugar said:


> Start lifting


and @ENTJudgement Honestly, pathetic.


----------



## ENTJudgement (Oct 6, 2013)

Scoobyscoob said:


> and @ENTJudgement Honestly, pathetic.


OK boomer. U still able to get out of bed or u need a nurse for that shit? Kek


----------



## ENTJudgement (Oct 6, 2013)

intranst said:


> Hey, it’s not about being provided for, it’s about ENTJ being the most efficient for me to communicate with, I think.. I just have to convince all these freakin INFJs and INTPs that they don’t actually want an ENTJ lol


Why is INFJ a good match with ENTJ?


----------



## intranst (Jul 13, 2021)

ENTJudgement said:


> Why is INFJ a good match with ENTJ?


I meant it’s not a good match, but seems relatively popular.


----------



## Scoobyscoob (Sep 4, 2016)

ENTJudgement said:


> OK boomer. U still able to get out of bed or u need a nurse for that shit? Kek


Yeah, whatever. I'd feel bad for you, but having 100% unrealistic expectations makes it so I don't. You need to get real.


----------



## ENTJudgement (Oct 6, 2013)

OrchidSugar said:


> Start lifting


If only lifting helped kek, been lifting since 12 yrs ago, just made me heavier and sparring with mates more fun, that’s the extent of what lifting has done for me kek.


----------



## ENTJudgement (Oct 6, 2013)

Scoobyscoob said:


> Yeah, whatever. I'd feel bad for you, but having 100% unrealistic expectations makes it so I don't. You need to get real.


The only thing real is u at the beginning of the Dunning Kruger graph. Your inability to detect sarcasm and satire baffles me, perhaps boomers such as yourself really are a generation too old for the internet.


----------



## Scoobyscoob (Sep 4, 2016)

ENTJudgement said:


> The only thing real is u at the beginning of the Dunning Kruger graph. Your inability to detect sarcasm and satire baffles me, perhaps boomers such as yourself really are a generation too old for the internet.


Lol. I'd maybe buy that for a second if I didn't know who you're actually pining for and the fact that you can't drop it is what makes me think you're so pathetic.


----------



## ENTJudgement (Oct 6, 2013)

Scoobyscoob said:


> Lol. I'd maybe buy that for a second if I didn't know who you're actually pining for and the fact that you can't drop it is what makes me think you're so pathetic.


But why do I give a fk about whether u think I’m pathetic? I already see u as some washed up ex cop boomer, like wtf is impressive about that?


----------



## Scoobyscoob (Sep 4, 2016)

ENTJudgement said:


> But why do I give a fk about whether u think I’m pathetic? I already see u as some washed up ex cop boomer, like wtf is impressive about that?


Oh, so you also know nothing too. You're honestly not worth my time. Also, I was a cop for a few months but I changed jobs pretty soon after. You sound like some angry and angsty teen who likes cougars or something. That is well, you already know what I think about you. 😂


----------



## intranst (Jul 13, 2021)

Hey man don’t talk shit on cougars, they keep me young.


----------



## OrchidSugar (5 mo ago)

I hear they are pretty good cooks too.


----------



## Scoobyscoob (Sep 4, 2016)

Yeah, but that's not going to happen, because J's don't stray. 😄


----------



## ENTJudgement (Oct 6, 2013)

Scoobyscoob said:


> Oh, so you also know nothing too. You're honestly not worth my time. Also, I was a cop for a few months but I changed jobs pretty soon after. You sound like some angry and angsty teen who likes cougars or something. That is well, you already know what I think about you. 😂


Difference is in my original post where you started this shit, I was open and stated both scenarios implying that unless you were the general, president or someone who is actually involved with making the decisions in Iraq, Afghanistan etc, wtf would u know about the truth besides speculating? But u being at the beginning of Dunning Kruger talking as if you know all the truths and no one else knows shit made me think who the fk are u? Are you the general? President? Someone making the decisions? Or just some rand who thinks he knows everything but doesn’t know shit? Yet you’re trying to push that rhetoric to me, ironic, hilarious and pathetic.


----------



## Scoobyscoob (Sep 4, 2016)

ENTJudgement said:


> Difference is in my original post where you started this shit, I was open and stated both scenarios implying that unless you were the general, president or someone who is actually involved with making the decisions in Iraq, Afghanistan etc, wtf would u know about the truth besides speculating? But u being at the beginning of Dunning Kruger talking as if you know all the truths and no one else knows shit made me think who the fk are u? Are you the general? President? Someone making the decisions? Or just some rand who thinks he knows everything but doesn’t know shit? Yet you’re trying to push that rhetoric to me, ironic, hilarious and pathetic.


It gets annoying to see you pining for unavailable women. That's why I said get real. Because it's not going to happen. Also, ooo you learned a new theory because of something I said yesterday and are trying to use it on me. 😄 Like I said, you're not worth my time and I'm not going to explain my life to you when you. You're just some guy living in New Zealand who apparently thinks he knows anything and is trying to lecture someone older and wiser about something when you were probably in diapers while I was overseas. 

So like I said, get real.


----------



## ENTJudgement (Oct 6, 2013)

Scoobyscoob said:


> It gets annoying to see you pining for unavailable women. That's why I said get real. Because it's not going to happen. Also, ooo you learned a new theory because of something I said yesterday and are trying to use it on me. 😄 Like I said, you're not worth my time and I'm not going to explain my life to you when you. You're just some guy living in New Zealand who apparently thinks he knows anything and is trying to lecture someone older and wiser about something when you were probably in diapers while I was overseas.
> 
> So like I said, get real.


Mate, I’m referring to it coz u know what it is, for context, I learnt about it during my mmr climb in dota 10 years ago, most low elo/mmr players think they’re amazing but they suffer from the dunning Kruger effect being near the beginning. I mean you can try take credit for something u didn’t do if u want but I’m just laughing at you lul.

What does me pinning for unavailable women on some online forums got 2 do with u? U don’t need to explain ur life coz no one cares about ur life. The fact u think ur wiser just proves to me yet again, beginning of the Dunning Kruger graph coz wtf do u know about me besides the shit I say on online forums?

U, wise? Got something to show for your wisdom mate? Coz I ain’t seen shit besides u talking urself up and putting up a front with no substance.

P.S only close minded old men like urself assume age makes you wiser or right. True intellects don’t care who the person on the other side is, read the content and counter argue your point but it’s difficult to teach a old Scooby dog new tricks.


----------



## Vexus (Mar 23, 2020)

ENTJudgement said:


> Me to my mother 10years back: Following your logic, I'll acknowledge your theory of God in that before everything, there was an entity, you can call it God or w/e but that was essentially "everything" and since that 1 entity was "everything" it only had 2 options, either do nothing/remain status quo or divide. Eventually it's going to divide and you already summarized the rest. But the fact that we are all a part of that entity means that we're eternal and it shouldn't matter whether we choose him or not coz at the end of the day once theres enough division, sooner or later there will be a unification. You can only divide so much before you take back everything and perhaps start over again, thats what I would do as God so this whole suffer in hell for eternity rhetoric I find questionable coz that would mean God put a part of himself into hell to suffer for all of eternity, never taking that piece of himself back, thats just retarded.


You're spot on, in my opinion, except for the part of full reunification. It comes down to the qualities of God. It has to matter. If there was a reunification, the division didn't matter in the first place; why divide, if you will reunify eventually? You can find God through logic (or anything, since everything stems from God), and you did. But that last part is just because as men without God, we're often not good on our word, so we can't understand what adhering to our word is. Since I've come to know God, I do my very best to uphold my word. I don't say things loosely into the wind. I take what I say to heart, even if it is a fleeting comment; I pay attention to what I say and follow through to the best of my ability.

Yes, when God tells us "deny yourself" he must also abide by his own teachings; God denies himself, cutting off a part of himself to suffer for all eternity. Then, it all matters. Without sacrifice, what does it matter? You're there, bro. It's good to know you.



BlackPersimmon said:


> I read recently that men have trouble "performing" under the gaze of women who they feel are their superiors by looks, wit, intelligence, charisma, and so on. Is this so?


I assume by performing, you mean sex. Some, sure. Mostly when insecure, out of shape or have some other issue. Or emotionally hurt or otherwise "not in the mood" which is possible. I've been too tired to have sex. Once. Ever. But I was stunned I could even say that at the time. I remember it clearly. Mainly because I wanted to please her right and not just perform a meaningless action.

Some guys do have some mental health issues where being watched/seen/looked at brings up some childhood trauma and they cannot perform or get turned off. I've heard of guys who work out too much and get too lean stop having a sex drive (I've experienced this to a minor degree; when fasting you lose your sex drive, but when you consume good food your sex drive increases, which makes sense since when you have food resources, you can provide for offspring, but when fasting, you are telling your body there's no resources to provide for a child).

In the end I think it's entirely a personal thing and not a general thing for all men, so if you have a situation you might consider offering more detail, or, just discuss it with the person or look at them a bit more objectively. My top things to consider: are they watching porn where they feel less of a man, are they out of shape where they feel insecure in their skin, and are they dealing with some trauma like being told they were ugly by their mother as a child.


----------



## ENTJudgement (Oct 6, 2013)

Vexus said:


> You're spot on, in my opinion, except for the part of full reunification. It comes down to the qualities of God. It has to matter. If there was a reunification, the division didn't matter in the first place; why divide, if you will reunify eventually?


Because once you've created too many systems and divided too much, you'll eventually need to start over with a clean slate. The entire purpose of all of this was for God to learn/entertain himself so it only makes logical sense that once hes satisfied, he'll unify and divide with a different set of designs and repeat the cycle.


----------



## Vexus (Mar 23, 2020)

ENTJudgement said:


> Because once you've created too many systems and divided too much, you'll eventually need to start over with a clean slate. The entire purpose of all of this was for God to learn/entertain himself so it only makes logical sense that once hes satisfied, he'll unify and divide with a different set of designs and repeat the cycle.


In eternity, there's no point in repeating the cycle. No new design is necessary, the current one is already made perfect. Anyway think on it more it's great. The truths can be discerned by good thinking. God isn't limited to "too many" and "start over" and "clean slate" which are human follies of errors we're too imperfect to deal with, too bored, don't have enough time, and all other human things. God doesn't have those problems. He is consistent, perfect, errorless, and so on.

Now, there will be unification, but I'm just countering the full unification - of those cast into hell and those who weren't. God does not need to do that full unification of sin into himself, especially since immediately after, he'd perform the same process again. If you want to wipe the slate clean, as is basically the effect when Jesus returns, there may be a new creation after that point, I have no idea, but those who were cast out will still remain cast out, otherwise again, it never mattered in the first place, thus why do it. The scope of eternity means it has to matter; that is, because it matters, it must be eternal.

If those cast into hell are ever rejoined to the whole, then there was no point to the division in the first place. If there was no point, there was no reason to create autonomous little humans. And no reason to keep all these dynamic spins of energy around after death. No sacrifice by God was made; and thus no reason to worship or pay any attention to it all, since after a few trillion years of torture and suffering, you would be rejoined to the whole and lose all sense of ever having gone through that. So much more...

Everything matters. This is a quality of God. Super good.


----------



## ENTJudgement (Oct 6, 2013)

Vexus said:


> In eternity, there's no point in repeating the cycle. No new design is necessary, the current one is already made perfect. God isn't limited to "too many" and "start over" and "clean slate" which are human follies of errors we're too imperfect to deal with, too bored, don't have enough time, and all other human things. God doesn't have those problems. He is consistent, perfect, errorless, and so on.


Here is where I would start to disagree, if flaws exist, it is because God has flaws, perfection should not be able to create whats flawed, whats perfect should be perfect and everything it does is perfect, creating a flaw is no longer perfection. If we're going by the division philosophy rather than creation, you could argue that by dividing, hes lost what was "perfect" coz it's easy enough to see that if you took whats perfect and took a piece out, it's no longer perfect, the balance is off, which just proves hes no longer perfect.

If we were made in his image, we would share the feelings and thoughts he also possess thus if we aren't perfect, why is he? 

The fact he even needed to create/divide in the first place also shows hes not perfect, if you were perfect and complete then why would you need to seek something whether it be love, entertainment, cure for boredom <insertW/Ehere>? You would simply remain in status quo.

Thus I believe unification would happen because the the system is not perfect, it's actually quite flawed and needs redesign/structuring. A perfectionist engineer isn't going to allow any of his products to be defective rotting in a dumpster, he would certainly correct that mistake, no matter how you think about it logically, it makes no sense why God would simply cut u off and let u suffer in hell for eternity without ever taking that part back, once the creation is deemed a failure, it would be reused started over again from scratch until the product is satisfactory.


----------



## BlackPersimmon (2 mo ago)

Vexus said:


> In eternity, there's no point in repeating the cycle. No new design is necessary, the current one is already made perfect. Anyway think on it more it's great. The truths can be discerned by good thinking. God isn't limited to "too many" and "start over" and "clean slate" which are human follies of errors we're too imperfect to deal with, too bored, don't have enough time, and all other human things. God doesn't have those problems. He is consistent, perfect, errorless, and so on.
> 
> Now, there will be unification, but I'm just countering the full unification - of those cast into hell and those who weren't. God does not need to do that full unification of sin into himself, especially since immediately after, he'd perform the same process again. If you want to wipe the slate clean, as is basically the effect when Jesus returns, there may be a new creation after that point, I have no idea, but those who were cast out will still remain cast out, otherwise again, it never mattered in the first place, thus why do it. The scope of eternity means it has to matter; that is, because it matters, it must be eternal.
> 
> ...


Do you believe in Gnosticism then?


----------



## Vexus (Mar 23, 2020)

ENTJudgement said:


> You would simply remain in status quo.


I disagree; the status quo is "the heat death of the universe" basically. Nothing moving, nothing mattering, no reason to do anything, everything stale. It is backwards to think stasis is perfection; the opposite is true, that dynamics are perfection. A sine wave is perfection; a digital flat wave (no change) is not.

I like what you're saying and I've considered it all myself. Challenge your conceptions of perfection, error, and so on; I'm not trying to convince you. No one comes to these thoughts without a lot of effort and time and I respect your effort and I know I can't change anything. I'll simply encourage looking at things from a positive viewpoint, of good qualities, of order and structure, of things mattering and so on.

It's hard to wrap one's mind around. It took me a long time. To consider that the presence of "imperfection" is perfect. But that is love; when you love someone, you accept all their "imperfections" as perfections.



BlackPersimmon said:


> Do you believe in Gnosticism then?


Not exactly, but I like the story from what I heard of it. I believe in God - the father, the creator - and Jesus Christ, son of God, who died to atone for our sins. I believe the Bible is foundational knowledge of God's word, though, my own experience alone has shown me that God's word is not textual. God's word is "universal truth" that cannot be distilled any further. Simple truths, like "love is expressed through action" are possible to discern with careful deliberation. But you could just read John 3:18 in the Bible and really live it: "let us not love in word or tongue, but in deed and truth." I've been gifted many truths simply by asking God directly and waiting for his response; then, much, much later, I see it was already there in the Bible. The most recent one; when I experienced God, I was given understanding that this place is temporary. I read Ecclesiastes for the first time yesterday and it's like yep... I'm not the first to this knowledge. All things are vanity. God is the only worthwhile thing to praise, to give glory to, to worship and so on.


----------



## intranst (Jul 13, 2021)

One of the more interesting takes on creation, good read.


----------



## MadMaxSDP (2 mo ago)

OrchidSugar said:


> I want to know if men experience real-life intimacy from women outside of their mothers, romantic interests, and daughters. If not, would you like to experience this kind of (non-sexual) intimacy with women? Do you or would you like to experience it from other people in your life?
> 
> I'm going to define the word in an attempt to avoid falling into bickering about semantics:
> 
> *intimacy (n.) - a state marked by the consensual sharing of deeply personal information or revealing oneself to another, caring deeply for another, and a comfort with close proximity. The state of intimacy involves sharing private thoughts, dreams, beliefs, and emotionally meaningful experiences. Intimacy requires both self-disclosure and empathic feedback. *


Yes but only with one at a time. Intimacy requires energy time and commitment and I cannot spread myself thin.


----------

