Is the Earth really a globe, and why isn't Mary fat? :)

Any Divine Truth related question relating to the teachings of Jesus & Mary
User avatar
Brian Brill
Community Member
Posts: 26
Joined: Tue Aug 25, 2015 6:51 am

Re: Is the Earth really a globe, and why isn't Mary fat? :)

Post by Brian Brill » Wed Aug 26, 2015 6:26 pm

Anneli wrote: Thanks Brian - the second video is exactly what I was looking for!
No prob!
Anneli wrote: And the first one for sure addresses the geocentric point of view that many flat earthers like to have, although I need to watch more of this one or the Universe-videos to hear what is said about the actual globe shape.
You don't need to do that, or you can watch, but it's not necessary for that reason. The globe nature of the Earth is implicit in what AJ already said. "The Earth is just one planet surrounding one solar system." By surrounding one solar system, he means circling one sun. And he talks about other galaxies, etc., and at some point he mentions gravity. All of these are inherent parts of the globe model, and they don't exist in the Flat Earth model, so you don't really have to look any further to resolve this. I have actually been observing this FE resurgence a lot over the last few weeks since it came to my attention, which is why I jumped in here. When you say, " Logically, they do have a number of mind-boggling arguments," I can't agree, or I can agree they are mind-boggling, but not that they are logical. All (and I mean every last one) of the FE arguments are nonsense if you understand the relevant science. And many of them are outright lies. These people are distorting the facts to fit the geocentric model. There are various reasons for this, but a primary one is that they are so internally disconnected from God that they are desperate to find an external proof that God exists. Since the Bible describes a flat, unmoving Earth, and because the Flat Earth simply cannot have formed naturally, they see the FE model as proving the existence of a creator. So they are inventing things like "The Law of Perspective" to explain sunrise/sunset, they take a few isolated instances of miraging and claim they are proof you can see farther than the horizon, they misunderstand just how large the Earth is and how that affects perceived curvature from anywhere near the ground, they are ignoring things like the south polar stars and 24 hour sunlight at Antarctica, they call everything that conflicts with their claims a conspiracy, and some even claim that clouds go behind the sun and moon, which even by their model, means rain falls from thousands of miles up! I think that last one is the most absurd claim I've seen so far.

Just for fun, I'll take a moment to dispense with their key argument, that the Law of Perspective means that the ground rises to meet the eye level, and that this results in things in the distance, including the sun, being lost to our view behind this raised ground. Seems to me that the ground going up and down as a result of us looking around would create constant earthquakes, but let's assume that they just mean it's an illusory effect. If so, they have no explanation for why this effect occurs, they just say "Law of Perspective" as if that means anything. What's going on is that they are misinterpreting what the Rules of Perspective tell us. These rules are used to help artists accurately represent three dimensional places and objects on a two dimensional surface. While it is true that these rules address the appearance of the horizon converging with eye level, it doesn't work the magical way flat Earthers claim. Consider that your eye level is just that, level. It's a straight line from your eyes to (presuming you're looking horizontally) the horizon. Now the gap between your eyes and the ground is 4 or 5 feet or thereabouts. We all know that as things get farther from us, they appear smaller. So the farther away we look, the smaller this gap between eye level and the ground appears, until miles away, this 4 or 5 feet becomes almost imperceptibly small. Since your eye level is a fixed straight line, and the gap between the ground and your eye level in the distance appears very small, it looks like the ground "rises" to meet with your eye level. But it's just perspective, nothing has actually changed about the ground or how much of it you can see. The only thing limiting your view (other than trees, buildings, mountains, etc.) is the curvature of the Earth. If the Earth was flat, the straight line of the ground and the straight line of your view would never actually meet, and you would be able to see nearly infinitely rather than just three miles. Particulates in the atmosphere would, after a very long way, eventually scatter enough light to obscure what you see, but other than that, there would be no practical limit. With a child's telescope, you would be able to see New York City from the western shore of Africa.

Another part of the rules of perspective that Flat Earthers mis-apply for their model is how the sun appears to grow closer to the horizon as it gets farther away, thus giving the illusion of it setting. Of course, when things move farther away, their speed appears to be reduced in a relative sense (compare a plane high in the sky with one zooming right over your head) and they also appear smaller. Flat Earthers have no explanation for why the sun continues going down at the same rate as it moves directly overhead, and why it doesn't shrink as it is receding in the distance.

OK, so if there are any other Flat Earth claims that you would like addressed, just let me know. I'd be happy to apply the science to reveal the truth of the matter. I'm not sure how the shape of the planet affects us growing in Love, but I do believe that blatant lies and confusion about our reality are detrimental to us learning about God's Truths. :)

- B

User avatar
Anneli
Muted
Posts: 50
Joined: Tue Aug 25, 2015 6:22 am
Location: Lammhult, Sweden
Contact:

Re: Is the Earth really a globe, and why isn't Mary fat? :)

Post by Anneli » Thu Aug 27, 2015 9:48 am

Thank you Brian, for giving all of this effort to try and make it all clearer to me (and perhaps to others who have not felt the truth about this just yet).

I'm quite open-minded, which may have been helpful in moments such as when I watched the first video ever of Miriam, and she was answering a question about her 1st century memories. I felt that she spoke the truth (everything about her felt more true than I had ever felt coming from another person ever in my life), and I had no troubles accepting that she and Yeshua were who they said they were. It made sense, it was logical and it felt very loving. It did rock my entire feeling about life, surely, but it was still easy to just accept for what it was - they had returned!

However, when I hear people making numerous arguments about, for example, the Earth not being a globe, I also try to be open-minded, until I know for sure which way it is. I believe this knowledge will either come from when I receive the truth about it directly from God, or, before that, from someone like Yeshua who has progressed so massively in love and truth from God here on Earth, that it's easy to feel and logically understand the truth in what he communicates.

The scientific approach is interesting in itself, and I feel that it should be useful and correctly able to describe things from a physical perspective, but I belong to the group of people who can act on belief, until it's obvious that the belief is faulty, if that would be the case. And the beliefs I act upon, have only become my beliefs after they made it through my "both logical and loving" test, as far as my current soul state could determine those two levels. Science is not always logical, because it forgets about the love part. And logic is not logical without love fitting seamlessly into it, I feel :)

For example, aliens made sense to me for some years, and I even contemplated the possibility that there are "reptilians" and other alien species infiltrating humanity and Earth. When I heard Yeshua speak about how spirit people can show themselves with different appearances, as well as actually having their appearances getting deformed due to their soul condition, and how abductions and personal encounters with "aliens" would only be spirit people in action, it made even more sense to me, as well as feeling like a more loving (and simple!) explanation.

The "globe skeptics" have raised doubts about what else our governments are hiding from us, since they have found reasons to believe that the moon landings never happened, or that 9/11 was created by the U.S. themselves so they could enable very controversial laws "for protection of the people", and even if many of these globe skeptics occasionally claim quite amazing/unlikely things, such as us living inside a big dome operated by advanced technology etc, I'm still open to "scan for truth" even there.

I should say that I don't invest anything in particular in what I investigate or look into, until I feel that it's a truth. But, with that said - I am very keen on learning the truth about everything :) The more I investigate things from a mind perspective though, the more obvious it is that I will need to turn to God for any truth about things (or have a good hint from Miriam and Yeshua on my way there) :)

Here are a few of the "mind-boggling" ones:
1. The atmosphere meeting the vacuum of the space in immense speeds, while the planet is both rotating and moving around the Sun - this feels quite mind blowing.
2. The fact that gravity is strong enough to hold down all this water, while at the same time the water is being exposed to the forces of a spinning globe, the centrifugal forces. Mind blowing too :)
3. How the moon just happens to show the same side all the time (which adds to the overall picture of something being a bit odd about what we're taught about space, the Earth etc)
4. How there are never any stars on pictures from space, except for the ones of distant galaxies, then there are millions of them. But never on any moon or Earth pictures.
5. How there does not seem to be any authentic photos of Earth from space.
6. How videos supposedly shot from ISS never seem to show even one of the thousands of satellites (or space debris in general) that is orbiting the Earth.
7. How it was even possible for anyone to go to the moon back in the 60's, when today it's hard to even find good cell phone reception. Also, aren't there supposed to be thousands of little meteorites constantly hitting the surface of the moon, which would make it basically impossible to walk around there without a) being hit and b) watching splashes in the moon dust all the time as they hit the surface?

Oh well, my logical mind hasn't found the way through these things, among some other ones. So I ask about it, because understanding what kind of world we live in feels like a basic, and I am not satisfied so far with what school or conventional mass media teaches us about it.

Again, thanks for taking the time to present your explanations the way you did. I felt it would be good to explain with the same level of thouroghness, only coming from my perspective :)

User avatar
Alkhemst
Community Member
Posts: 74
Joined: Tue Aug 25, 2015 6:18 am
Location: Sydney
Contact:

Re: Is the Earth really a globe, and why isn't Mary fat? :)

Post by Alkhemst » Thu Aug 27, 2015 11:52 am

Hey Anneli, I'm the same I prefer to give people a chance and not dismiss them just because others say they are mad so I'm happy to listen to different ideas. However we've got to use discernment as there's heaps of silly ideas going around and sometimes they are ill intentioned.

But say the earth is flat, to get from a country on one edge to another country on the other edge would be the longest plane flight there is, but on our allegedly fake globes these countries would be close. You'd think people who believe in the globe idea would start wondering why some international plane routes take 10 times longer than they should. That doesn't happen though and its easy to investigate by looking at international plane routes and times for example.

Those other mind blowing facts can also be explained easily too. If you do a bit of investigatation into it, those things that seem strange do make sense. For instance the moon spin on its axis takes exactly the same time as the rotation around the earth, so we always see the same side of the moon. It's kind of neat! I like that side of the moon too, cause if you look carefully you can see an almost perfect ying yang symbol in it.

All in all I reckon its good to investigate everything we hear, and develop our own barometer for truth. One good process I sometimes use is to be open for this feeling for God, and ask questions. When I've got wrong direction or assumption I kind of feel the intensity of that feeling drop.

User avatar
Brian Brill
Community Member
Posts: 26
Joined: Tue Aug 25, 2015 6:51 am

Re: Is the Earth really a globe, and why isn't Mary fat? :)

Post by Brian Brill » Thu Aug 27, 2015 2:09 pm

Anneli wrote:Thank you Brian, for giving all of this effort to try and make it all clearer to me (and perhaps to others who have not felt the truth about this just yet).

I'm quite open-minded, which may have been helpful in moments such as when I watched the first video ever of Miriam, and she was answering a question about her 1st century memories. I felt that she spoke the truth (everything about her felt more true than I had ever felt coming from another person ever in my life), and I had no troubles accepting that she and Yeshua were who they said they were. It made sense, it was logical and it felt very loving. It did rock my entire feeling about life, surely, but it was still easy to just accept for what it was - they had returned!

However, when I hear people making numerous arguments about, for example, the Earth not being a globe, I also try to be open-minded, until I know for sure which way it is.
I understand, which is why I'm helping you see which way it is. Not everybody has a strong science background, and therefore could use help sorting fact from fiction. To wit:
Anneli wrote:The "globe skeptics" have raised doubts about what else our governments are hiding from us, since they have found reasons to believe that the moon landings never happened, or that 9/11 was created by the U.S. themselves so they could enable very controversial laws "for protection of the people", and even if many of these globe skeptics occasionally claim quite amazing/unlikely things, such as us living inside a big dome operated by advanced technology etc., I'm still open to "scan for truth" even there.
While dark conspiracies do indeed exist, the bulk of what you will find on the internet amounts to the commercial product of the merchants of fear. They generate content for their ad-laden sites which exploit people who have an emotion of wanting special knowledge that other people don't have. Consumers of conspiracies often operate in echo-chambers of paranoia, reinforcing each other with ever more outlandish theories. This is another thing I could go on about in great length, but not here.
Anneli wrote:I should say that I don't invest anything in particular in what I investigate or look into, until I feel that it's a truth. But, with that said - I am very keen on learning the truth about everything :) The more I investigate things from a mind perspective though, the more obvious it is that I will need to turn to God for any truth about things (or have a good hint from Miriam and Yeshua on my way there) :)
That's all well and good, but you do yourself no favors by underestimating your ability to figure out basic things about the world for yourself. The shape of the Earth is pretty basic, and is completely in your grasp to comprehend, once it's removed from the muddying effects of the bad information of those who either don't have a good grip on reality or want to intentionally deceive and confuse you.
Anneli wrote:Here are a few of the "mind-boggling" ones:
1. The atmosphere meeting the vacuum of the space in immense speeds, while the planet is both rotating and moving around the Sun - this feels quite mind blowing.
Since space is a vacuum, there is no friction generated as the planet and its atmosphere travel through space. Since the speed of the Earth and everything on it is relative, it isn't as fantastic as flat Earthers make it sound. If you've ever flown in a plane, you know that it doesn't feel like you are going hundreds of miles of hour. The same applies in any frame of reference. Flat Earthers often contend that if you jump into the air, you should land far away because the speeding Earth would move away underneath you. But if you're on a plane and toss a ball into the air, it doesn't hit you in the face at hundreds of miles an hour. That's because the ball has the same momentum as the aircraft and the passenger, and continues to travel along with them unless some other force is applied against it. This same physical law, one of God's Laws, applies in a car, an airplane, or a spaceship or a planet. The Earth's atmosphere is just the cabin in which you ride.
Anneli wrote:2. The fact that gravity is strong enough to hold down all this water, while at the same time the water is being exposed to the forces of a spinning globe, the centrifugal forces. Mind blowing too :)
You can demonstrate centrifugal force by doing something like quickly spinning with yo yo at the end of its string. It will fly out, as expected. But try to get centrifugal force to work on the yo yo while only spinning around one time per day. At that rate of spin, it just doesn't work. It's the same on the Earth. While the surface speed may sound fast (at least at the equator), that doesn't begin to amount to enough actual rotational force to counter gravity. Even Jupiter, as large as it is, spinning a full rotation in ten hours with an equatorial speed of 28,000 miles per hour, can't throw off its mass with centrifugal force.
Anneli wrote:3. How the moon just happens to show the same side all the time (which adds to the overall picture of something being a bit odd about what we're taught about space, the Earth etc.)
The moon is in a state of "tidal lock" with the Earth. It's just the physics of how gravity affects the orbiting bodies. Just as the moon distorts the surface of the Earth's waters in the observable tides, the Earth contorts the moon enough that it has an asynchronous mass distribution which prefers interacting with Earth's gravity in a certain orientation. It seems amazing, but its actually not odd at all if you are taught a bit more than what a general education can usually offer.
Anneli wrote:4. How there are never any stars on pictures from space, except for the ones of distant galaxies, then there are millions of them. But never on any moon or Earth pictures.
Any photographer can tell you that the exposure of a bright source will wipe out the exposure of dimmer sources. It's the nature of the photographic technology. If you change the aperture enough to get an image of the stars, you will get a completely over-exposed image of the Earth or moon. You can experiment with any camera to learn this fact for yourself.
Anneli wrote:5. How there does not seem to be any authentic photos of Earth from space.
Yes there does seem to be authentic photos of the Earth from space, and the ones from the 60's and 70's came from a time when it was not possible to fake them. You can compare video of early space walks with video of today's state of the art CGI, and clearly we still haven't come close to recreating real space footage with a computer. What flat Earthers often ramble on about is that most full-earth images are composites, and this is true, because we don't send many craft out far enough and in the proper direction to take an image that encompasses a full half of the Earth. However, a month or so ago the DSCOVR craft was parked where it is now sending back full Earth pictures daily. http://www.nesdis.noaa.gov/DSCOVR/mission.html. And before that there has been a channel on my satellite TV where you can watch a view of the Earth live.

Also, many times I've seen flat Earthers use "artist depictions" of satellites in space and present them as though they are actual NASA photographs, and then mock them with "who took that picture?" They are either straight up lying or displaying incredible ignorance when doing this.
Anneli wrote:6. How videos supposedly shot from ISS never seem to show even one of the thousands of satellites (or space debris in general) that is orbiting the Earth.
Space is very big and most orbital debris is small and often extremely fast. The ISS is positioned to avoid known orbital debris and can be maneuvered away from such debris path when needed. It would be difficult to pick one up on video without specifically trying to zoom in and track it, so this is another non-issue.
Anneli wrote:7. How it was even possible for anyone to go to the moon back in the 60's, when today it's hard to even find good cell phone reception.

Also, aren't there supposed to be thousands of little meteorites constantly hitting the surface of the moon, which would make it basically impossible to walk around there without a) being hit and b) watching splashes in the moon dust all the time as they hit the surface?
I get good phone reception all the time. But the main thing is that there is absolutely no relationship between these two things, and so it's an invalid comparison to make. That kind of question only servers to obfuscate things.

And I don't know where you get the thousands of meteorites constantly hitting the moon thing. That seems like a very high estimate since the moon gets hit less than the Earth. From what I can find, there's no solid data on that number. But for argument let's assume there are 2000 meteorites hitting the moon every minute. The surface area of the moon is 38 million square miles. We will be generous and say the lunar explorations generally covered something like a 1/4 mile area (Apollo 11 was entirely in the area pretty much the size of a soccer/football field). That means that the odds of an impact in the perceivable range of any moon mission would be something like 76,000 to 1 against for any given minute. Then you have to factor in that not very much footage was taken on the surface of the moon. It's not like today when we can keep cameras running all the time...video tape was a premium item to haul there and back. So overall we get very unlikely odds that any puff of dust from a meteorite impact would have been caught on camera. I'm sure someone more adroit with statistics could do much better than I did here, but that should give you an idea of why the claim is not at all compelling.
Anneli wrote:Oh well, my logical mind hasn't found the way through these things, among some other ones. So I ask about it, because understanding what kind of world we live in feels like a basic, and I am not satisfied so far with what school or conventional mass media teaches us about it.
You can get through these things with study and discernment. Not every authoritative source is lying to you about everything.

I understand that you want to be open minded, but at some point you have to step back and critically assess the sources of information you are evaluating. Time and again, the flat Earth and NASA-fakes-it people are proven wrong. They repeatedly demonstrate little or no comprehension of basic physics or math, so why assume they can accurately comment on such things? They also demonstrate a high degree of living with a paranoid world view. Since fear can strongly distort how we perceive the world, it just doesn't make much sense to give such people any particular credence for their claims.

- B

User avatar
Brian Brill
Community Member
Posts: 26
Joined: Tue Aug 25, 2015 6:51 am

Re: Is the Earth really a globe, and why isn't Mary fat? :)

Post by Brian Brill » Thu Aug 27, 2015 9:52 pm

BrianBrill wrote: Then you have to factor in that not very much footage was taken on the surface of the moon. It's not like today when we can keep cameras running all the time...video tape was a premium item to haul there and back. So overall we get very unlikely odds that any puff of dust from a meteorite impact would have been caught on camera.
After doing some research, I've got to correct myself here...I thought the better footage, which would have made it easier to see such impacts, was actually filmed/taped on the moon. But it looks like most or all of it was all beamed back to Earth, and there is quite a bit of it. But it is largely not particularly good video quality and it doesn't provide a lot of just surface coverage, so that doesn't really raise the odds enough to change the point I was making.

- B

User avatar
Anneli
Muted
Posts: 50
Joined: Tue Aug 25, 2015 6:22 am
Location: Lammhult, Sweden
Contact:

Re: Is the Earth really a globe, and why isn't Mary fat? :)

Post by Anneli » Fri Aug 28, 2015 6:48 am

Thanks for all the time and care you put into explaining all this to me, Brian.

I do feel that my perception of "logic" could be a bit off from yours / what it should be, and I suspect that it has something to do with growing up with an often drunk and overcloaked dad (somewhat at a distance though, I lived with my mom's family from about 4 years of age, but visited dad's family every second weekend, and there has been abusive situations before they separated as well). I learned some months ago that Yeshua explained a simple measuring tool for a woman who had been in somewhat a similar experience with her dad, which had made her logical approach end up a bit skewed. It took quite a while before she could understand how the tool worked, but naturally he was very loving and calm with her all the time. Listening to that story made me feel that this could have happened to me and my logic as well, which would explain that I can't see so easily what is obvious to you.

I find that I'm afraid to simply trust other's conclusions, I often question what they actually base those conclusions on. Even the logic others use must be examined, I feel - I believe I must have turned on some "red light" alert in my soul when facing the fact that my own dad could do certain very unloving things to me, when he was supposed to be the guiding, loving star of my life. The red ,light alert would tell me to only trust myself, I guess. And by that, also whatever sane sense of logic was left in there by that time :?

It's even more confusing to me since I find it so obviously true that Yeshua and Miriam are here, right in front of our noses, and so few people even ponder about the fact that they are potentially missing out on something huge and life changing, if they don't verify for themselves at least if "AJ and Mary" are who they say they are. That is not logical to me, and yet I'm asked by the same people to believe in their logic. This last paragraph does naturally not mean you, I can see that you are very open to all the teachings they present us with, and you seem to be open to the possibility at least, if not convinced yet, that they are the persons from the Bible and history. Perhaps I've learnt to trust my "gut feelings", or my inner truth radar, a lot more than I trust logic as it's presented to me in different forms, and that has helped me to work out the logic as I go along, but still trust that sense of truth I sometimes feel with things and people. After encountering Yeshua and Miriam, the truth radar has been very busy indicating truths detected :) :)

So thank you very much again, Brian. I do feel that I will need to cry some about my logic being pushed off the rail from so early on in my life, that I even find it hard to recognize it when it's right in front of me, like the way you seem to be able to do with a lot more ease (as well as David/Alkemist earlier on in this dialogue). I appreciate that you have made this become more obvious to me, making it easier for me to want to address it.

User avatar
Brian Brill
Community Member
Posts: 26
Joined: Tue Aug 25, 2015 6:51 am

Re: Is the Earth really a globe, and why isn't Mary fat? :)

Post by Brian Brill » Fri Aug 28, 2015 7:44 am

Anneli wrote:Thanks for all the time and care you put into explaining all this to me, Brian.

I do feel that my perception of "logic" could be a bit off from yours / what it should be,
That and the rest you explain would be an interesting thing to explore, but perhaps in a different place.

Anneli wrote:It's even more confusing to me since I find it so obviously true that Yeshua and Miriam are here, right in front of our noses, and so few people even ponder about the fact that they are potentially missing out on something huge and life changing, if they don't verify for themselves at least if "AJ and Mary" are who they say they are. That is not logical to me, and yet I'm asked by the same people to believe in their logic.
There's plenty of twisted logic out there...which I see as emotions bending information toward a desired (or in some cases feared) conclusion that isn't in alignment with actual reality. And when in that state, it's not that easy to recognize, but humility helps a lot.
Anneli wrote:This last paragraph does naturally not mean you, I can see that you are very open to all the teachings they present us with, and you seem to be open to the possibility at least, if not convinced yet, that they are the persons from the Bible and history.
Ha, I almost immediately had a feeling that it could be true. It took about two years of my "logic" trying to find an alternative way to explain them before I relinquished that effort. So yeah, I'm completely convinced. :)

- B

User avatar
Lena
Community Member
Posts: 178
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2015 10:44 am
Location: Australia

Re: Is the Earth really a globe, and why isn't Mary fat? :)

Post by Lena » Tue Sep 22, 2015 12:50 pm

Hi Anneli,
I have seen this post for a while now, and have been feeling about the title you have chosen for it. Especially where you ask, why Mary isn't fat.
I understand what you were trying to ask, but I feel there are many ways to ask the question concerning sexual, emotional issues effecting the body, rather than making a bold statement about Mary.
I personaly feel that there is an emotion behind your choice of this particular topic, which you may not be aware of.

Lena

User avatar
Anneli
Muted
Posts: 50
Joined: Tue Aug 25, 2015 6:22 am
Location: Lammhult, Sweden
Contact:

Re: Is the Earth really a globe, and why isn't Mary fat? :)

Post by Anneli » Tue Sep 22, 2015 1:33 pm

Hi Lena,

I agree, and have been aware of it also. I have several other issues with my own older posts, and feel that I will need to apologize for and rephrase what I've written in some places. I am currently moving through some quite deep going injuries and feel like I'm not in a place to focus on this just yet, but I intend to come back and correct these things shortly. Thanks for addressing this,

Kind regards,
Anneli

User avatar
Anneli
Muted
Posts: 50
Joined: Tue Aug 25, 2015 6:22 am
Location: Lammhult, Sweden
Contact:

Re: Is the Earth really a globe, and why isn't Mary fat? :)

Post by Anneli » Tue Sep 22, 2015 1:52 pm

By the way, since I'm already here and writing I could write at least a little about this as well.

I am really sorry, Mary, for making you an unvoluntary part of my unlovingly performed search for an answer to this aspect. A more loving way to phrase it, I feel now, would have been for example: "how does a fat body and sexual injuries relate, where some sexually abused women are fat and some aren't".

My sincere apologies for projecting my envy and frustration over my lack of understanding about this towards you, Mary, and especially since you have been so humble and open about your experiences and your life in so many ways. This was not a good way of me to return your love towards us.
I feel that it may have originated from an unfelt grief about me raising myself emotionally, left hanging without answers and explanations so many times by my very busy mother. I misused your humility and your past experiences to express some of my own frustration about that and her. And I feel I still may need to come back later on to what Lena raised here, because of my current state and what I'm processing through right now, to address this further and with more love and accuracy.

With the love I have in me right now,
Anneli

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest