Fwd: Isn't abstinence a sexual preversion

[Michele Gennette]

Very enlightening about Mr. Pandeism Redshirt.   xnun ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Pandeism Fish <knujonmap...@hotmail.com> Date: Apr 28, 7:11 am Subject: Isn't abstinence a sexual preversion To: Atheism vs Christianity That is actually the moral basis of the theory of Pandeism -- that the Creator exists to experience through us, and that we'd best get to work having mutually pleasurable sexual experiences.... On Apr 28, 1:09 am, kenandkids <kenandk...@gmail.com> wrote: > isn't it a common theist assertion that god lives in each of us and > knows what we know-feels what we feel? then wouldn't god be the first > one encouraging rampant sexual activity? wouldn't a smart theist use > this as a reason that such a long lived species as we are reproduced > so quickly? in other words the prime mover likes getting primed and > moved. > On Apr 27, 3:17 pm, Eris <vith...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Not joking, I have been thinking about this after reading David > > Baldacci's novel First Family. Enjoyed the novel, right wing, as it > > was.

[Pandeism Fish]

What's the difference between a virgin and a light bulb?

> > > was.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[flying gorilla]

I think for some people, abstinence has an affect on a person's body
that is as bad as sleep deprivation, or forcing yourself to go without
food for extended periods of time. In those cases abstinence is just
like S&M in its approximation to self torture. Of course, just like
with food appetite, not everyone has the same libido. Some people
don't really feel much desire for sex. For those that do, it has
actual negative physical effect on the body to deprive yourself of at
least masturbation. Any physician (who hasn't been corrupted by
religion) knows full well the health benefits of both sex and
masturbation. These benefits, of course, are not dependent on marriage
or what some ancient myth says god's law is.

Its funny how the biggest proponents of abstinence either get their
freak on in secret, or have some sexual malfunction issues such as
impotence. I have been saying for a while now that Jesus was likely
either gay or impotent. There is no other believable reason why a
rabbi of his day would not marry and have children. Some say he might
actually have had a family, but why was it not mentioned in the Bible?
To me, it seems more realistic for the bible authors to cover up
homosexuality or impotence. Of course this hypothesis angers
Christians even more than the assertion that Christ didn't exist at
all. They would rather he didn't exist than be gay.

On Aug 25, 5:05 pm, Michele Gennette <xnun2...@yahoo.com> wrote:

[Michele Gennette]

--- On Fri, 8/28/09, flying gorilla <ryan....@gmail.com> wrote:

>I think for some people, abstinence has an affect on a person's body

SOME people.

>Any physician (who hasn't been corrupted by religion) knows >full well the health benefits of both sex and masturbation.

Hetereosexual love, yes. But masturbation causes a lot of psychic damage.

>These benefits, of course, are not dependent on marriage >or what some ancient myth says god's law is.

One man's benefits are another man's source of STD's.

>Its funny how the biggest proponents of abstinence either get their >freak on in secret, or have some sexual malfunction issues such as >impotence. I have been saying for a while now that Jesus was likely >either gay or impotent.

All of the above being indefensible lies, designed only to justify your self-indulgence to yourself.   xnun

[Tao]

The Buddha went through different phases in this experience for long
periods. He had one age of indulgence and another of abstinence. He
became enlightened and struck the balance between them, but I believe
in later life he restricted his self to moral pleasures, not physical.
That is a hard path. In Taoism and Hinduism sexual acts are sacred, a
celebration of the self!

On Aug 25, 5:05 pm, Michele Gennette <xnun2...@yahoo.com> wrote:

[ornamentalmind]

"...In Taoism and Hinduism sexual acts are sacred, a
celebration of the self!" - Tao


...and in Buddhism?....

[Tao]

On Aug 28, 2:23 pm, ornamentalmind <ornamentalmind...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> "...In Taoism and Hinduism sexual acts are sacred, a
> celebration of the self!" - Tao
>
> ...and in Buddhism?....
>

Buddhism regards sex as another aspect of the illusion that keeps us
from reaching enlightenment, in realizing the illusory nature of
existence. Life is suffering, and even the pleasures of life only keep
us from breaking away from this suffering. We can not achieve nirvana
so long as we are tied to the illusory form of existence by our
desires, and will be reborn again and again until it is realized.
Realization is inevitable, but one may need live many lives to come to
it.

[ornamentalmind]

And, you know this by first hand experience?

Oh, and do you have any sort of coherent praxis?

> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

[Michele Gennette]

--- On Fri, 8/28/09, Tao <taoch...@hotmail.com> wrote:

>The Buddha went through different phases in this experience for long

>periods. He had one age of indulgence and another of abstinence.

That sounds like Augustine.  After he wore himself out, he thought everyone else should stop "doing it."

>That is a hard path. In Taoism and Hinduism sexual acts are sacred, a >celebration of the self!

They are in genuine Christianity, and in Judaism.   xnun

[Tao]

I am assuredly far from reaching enlightenment! But it is something to
be seeking enlightenment, is it not? I must be closer now than in my
past lives, and I have led a fair life so far, so I believe I must
have been a good person in my past lives, or atoned in my last one for
the sins of the ones before.

I do not understand the second question. Is it the doctrine of
Buddhism or Taoism that you seek? I do not know which is correct.

On Aug 28, 3:42 pm, ornamentalmind <ornamentalmind...@gmail.com>
wrote:

[ornamentalmind]

"...I do not understand the second question. Is it the doctrine of
Buddhism or Taoism that you seek? I do not know which is correct. .."
- Tao

Whilst either is fine of course, I was seeking something more directly
from you, not regurgitation.

[Pandeism Fish]

On Aug 28, 2:28 pm, Tao <taochach...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Aug 28, 2:23 pm, ornamentalmind <ornamentalmind...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > "...In Taoism and Hinduism sexual acts are sacred, a
> > celebration of the self!" - Tao
>
> > ...and in Buddhism?....
>
> Buddhism regards sex as another aspect of the illusion that keeps us
> from reaching enlightenment, in realizing the illusory nature of
> existence. Life is suffering, and even the pleasures of life only keep
> us from breaking away from this suffering. We can not achieve nirvana
> so long as we are tied to the illusory form of existence by our
> desires, and will be reborn again and again until it is realized.
> Realization is inevitable, but one may need live many lives to come to
> it.
>
> > On Aug 28, 11:20 am, Tao <taochach...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > The Buddha went through different phases in this experience for long
> > > periods. He had one age of indulgence and another of abstinence. He
> > > became enlightened and struck the balance between them, but I believe
> > > in later life he restricted his self to moral pleasures, not physical.
> > > That is a hard path. In Taoism and Hinduism sexual acts are sacred, a
> > > celebration of the self!
>

Why can't someone "break out" of the illusion but still enjoy the
pleasure of sampling a multitude of sexual partners? If I enjoy
playing Grand Theft Auto, that doesn't keep me from realizing it's
just a video game!!

[Michele Gennette]

--- On Sun, 8/30/09, Pandeism Fish <knujon...@hotmail.com> wrote:

>Why can't someone "break out" of the illusion but still enjoy the >pleasure of sampling a multitude of sexual partners? If I enjoy >playing Grand Theft Auto, that doesn't keep me from realizing it's >just a video game!!

You obviously haven't reaped the "benefits" of being rear ended yet :)   xnun

[Tao]

Suppose the video game is just an illusion, and playing it keeps you
from pursuing a greater and more fulfilling reality outside the
illusion?

[Tao]

To be truthful, in my experience just about anything anyone has to say
on religion is regurgitation of something, even if they do not know.
All has been said, the task is to pick out what has been said rightly.
Whatever your beliefs, you likely find that to be thousands of years
old. I am drawn to Buddhism because of the example of the
enlightenment of the Buddha, and many who have followed in that path.
But I am still unsure, so I can not say I have a belief system of my
own to set forth. The concepts of enlightenment and reincarnation make
sense to me. I have a nagging certainty of previous lives, and I feel
that I have come closer to some kind of enlightenment each time.

On Aug 29, 2:46 pm, ornamentalmind <ornamentalmind...@gmail.com>
wrote:

[ornamentalmind]

Yes, most that is said/written about theology, even including Taoism
and Buddhism, the former of which, as is well known, is not a religion
and the latter, Gautama didn’t wish to become a religion either, is
the words/concepts from those who came before. Plato might even say
that which is recollected is a part of it too.

This said, regarding a belief system, what criteria would you propose
using to determine that which is real/valid etc.?

[Tao]

I am compelled by the many who have followed the teachings of the
Buddha to enlightenment. But there is a paradox, for how can their
higher reality be known to be a true reality. That is part of the
problem, I guess. I don't know how to determine what is valid without
trusting the reports of others.

On Aug 30, 11:49 pm, ornamentalmind <ornamentalmind...@gmail.com>
wrote:

[ornamentalmind]

While this IS a very big question, in the current context perhaps we
should go to the source?

http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/b/buddha122706.html

[Pandeism Fish]

On Aug 28, 11:29 am, flying gorilla <ryan.kle...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I think for some people, abstinence has an affect on a person's body
> that is as bad as sleep deprivation, or forcing yourself to go without
> food for extended periods of time. In those cases abstinence is just
> like S&M in its approximation to self torture. Of course, just like
> with food appetite, not everyone has the same libido. Some people
> don't really feel much desire for sex. For those that do, it has
> actual negative physical effect on the body to deprive yourself of at
> least masturbation. Any physician (who hasn't been corrupted by
> religion) knows full well the health benefits of both sex and
> masturbation. These benefits, of course, are not dependent on marriage
> or what some ancient myth says god's law is.
>

What bothers me is not self-denial in the name of faith (which of
course everyone is free to do, even to their own detriment), but
efforts to use the strong arm of the state to say who among consenting
adults can do what sex acts with who.... apparently people really are
lying when they claim to believe in a God that cares whether people
are regularly exchanging sex partners or having threesomes or going
same-sex, since they seem to think they need to get government in on
stopping it -- not necessary if they have faith that God will smite
the sinners!!

> Its funny how the biggest proponents of abstinence either get their
> freak on in secret, or have some sexual malfunction issues such as
> impotence. I have been saying for a while now that Jesus was likely
> either gay or impotent. There is no other believable reason why a
> rabbi of his day would not marry and have children. Some say he might
> actually have had a family, but why was it not mentioned in the Bible?
> To me, it seems more realistic for the bible authors to cover up
> homosexuality or impotence. Of course this hypothesis angers
> Christians even more than the assertion that Christ didn't exist at
> all. They would rather he didn't exist than be gay.
>

Or he had a family (wife or wives and kids), but left them to do the
preacher man thing.... the evidence is lost in the sands of time....
but if Jesus died a virgin, then either he needlessly supressed a
sexual urge that he could have fulfilled through culturally acceptable
means, or he wasn't really a "man" after all, in terms of desires....

[Pandeism Fish]

False dilemma, as I can be aware of the falseness of the game and
still enjoy the game for what it is -- another different
experience.... why presume there is something more fulfilling I could
be doing at that particular moment? Maybe I'd just be doing something
mundane....

> > just a video game!!- Hide quoted text -

[flying gorilla]

it is a medical fact that masturbation is healthy

On Aug 28, 12:41 pm, Michele Gennette <xnun2...@yahoo.com> wrote:

[flying gorilla]

On Sep 1, 4:52 am, Pandeism Fish <knujonmap...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Aug 28, 11:29 am, flying gorilla <ryan.kle...@gmail.com> wrote:

> What bothers me is not self-denial in the name of faith (which of
> course everyone is free to do, even to their own detriment), but
> efforts to use the strong arm of the state to say who among consenting
> adults can do what sex acts with who.... apparently people really are
> lying when they claim to believe in a God that cares whether people
> are regularly exchanging sex partners or having threesomes or going
> same-sex, since they seem to think they need to get government in on
> stopping it -- not necessary if they have faith that God will smite
> the sinners!!

They are afraid of temptation. They are afraid their children will
become too open-minded, too worldly, and be swayed into a life of sin.
Therefore, they need to get the government to remove all influences
they consider negative. It's the equivalent of being on a diet and
forbidding your roommate from having chocolate cake in the fridge.

[Michele Gennette]

--- On Tue, 9/1/09, flying gorilla <ryan....@gmail.com> wrote: > it is a medical fact that masturbation is healthy.   Like homosexuality is normal?   xnun

[flying gorilla]

exactly.

I just googled the health benefits of masturbation and found article
after article in support of my claim. I could post the links, but I'm
not sure you would bother reading them. If this is not the case, let
me know and I will post some of the links. Of course you are free to
disagree with doctors and experts in the field. I'm sure the biblical
authors knew much more about health and medicine than we do today.

On Sep 1, 12:58 pm, Michele Gennette <xnun2...@yahoo.com> wrote:

[ornamentalmind]

RE: Para

After checking your profile, I began a search too Ryan. The best so
far is the sanskrit phrase:

http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Para+Tattva

> >   xnun- Hide quoted text -

[Michele Gennette]

--- On Tue, 9/1/09, flying gorilla <ryan....@gmail.com> wrote:

> Of course you are free to disagree with doctors and experts in the >field. I'm sure the biblical authors knew much more about health >and medicine than we do today.

Doctors are notoriously bad lovers; too clinical.  I'm not surprised you rely on them.   Maybe you should  read "The Song of Solomon."  It's in that big book the Bible.   xnun

[Pandeism Fish]

Dude, the same Bible that requires stoning to death for adulterers
(and idolators).... and the same praised Solomon of that song,
according to that very Bible, had a THOUSAND wives.... guess there's
some blessed wisdom in polygamy, better take up Mormonism -- but I
doubt the Bible declares doctors to be bad lovers, so from what
experience do you draw that? And hey, doctors may be bad basketball
players too, so does that mean you'd ignore doctors and instead look
to the Bible for instructions on treating a bone spur or a pulled
muscle?

On Sep 1, 4:30 pm, Michele Gennette <xnun2...@yahoo.com> wrote:

[flying gorilla]

Para is actually my capoeira nickname. It's the name of an old mestre
who was from the Brazilian state of Para. But that's not actually
supposed to be the nickname that appears in this group. Google messed
up. Sometimes I show up as Flying Gorilla in the capoeira newsgroup.
Everyone gets pretty confused by this.

[flying gorilla]

Are you one of those people that would pray instead of taking your
children to a doctor? Parents like that are often convicted of child
abuse. And rightly so.

I don't rely on doctors for love. Just for medicine. Was Jesus a good
lover?

On Sep 1, 4:30 pm, Michele Gennette <xnun2...@yahoo.com> wrote:

[ornamentalmind]

...no confusion here...except that on your profile one finds the
following:

http://groups.google.com/groups/profile?hl=en&enc_user=56YHgxUAAACP9DyBLqUhrRiZ984ge6gR9h3i3SmjGmAJbX05nZ-8fQ

( "The real name is Ryan, the nickname Para. I am named after an old
master that I can't seem to find anything about on the internet. All
searches seem to come up with Parana, which is a different mestre
named after his state of origin. " )

Thus I looked too...for Para...

> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

[Michele Gennette]

--- On Thu, 9/3/09, flying gorilla <ryan....@gmail.com> wrote:

>Are you one of those people that would pray instead of taking your

>children to a doctor?   No.

>I don't rely on doctors for love. Just for medicine.

That's all most of them know how to deliver.

>Was Jesus a good lover?

He loves us all.  Too bad that in the USA today so many think of love as only sex.   And, no gorilla has ever flown.   xnun

[flying gorilla]

so when you said doctors are notoriously bad lovers, you meant they
were bad emotional lovers? that was certainly not clear from the
context. It sounded more like you were trying to put doctors down as
bad sexual lovers. I guess you must live in the USA, too, and sexual
love must be the first type of love you think of as well.

On Sep 3, 6:26 pm, Michele Gennette <xnun2...@yahoo.com> wrote:

[Pandeism Fish]

On Sep 3, 6:26 pm, Michele Gennette <xnun2...@yahoo.com> wrote:

Orgasms release hormones that keep you young.... try it sometime when
you have a headache, it'll clear that right up!!

[Michele Gennette]

--- On Fri, 9/25/09, Pandeism Fish <knujon...@hotmail.com> wrote:

>Orgasms release hormones that keep you young.

REALLY? no kidding!!

>... try it sometime when you have  a headache, it'll clear that right up!!

1. I never get headaches.   2. I had an orgasm about 3 hours ago.     xnun

[ornamentalmind]

Typing on google groups keeps the vampires away too! ;-) (See?)

On Sep 25, 3:23 pm, Michele Gennette <xnun2...@yahoo.com> wrote:

[Pandeism Fish]

Wait a moment, let me get my calculator....

On Sep 25, 6:23 pm, Michele Gennette <xnun2...@yahoo.com> wrote:

[Pandeism Fish]

On Sep 25, 6:23 pm, Michele Gennette <xnun2...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> --- On Fri, 9/25/09, Pandeism Fish <knujonmap...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >Orgasms release hormones that keep you young.
>
>   REALLY? no kidding!!
>
> >... try it sometime when you have  a headache, it'll clear that right up!!
>
>   1. I never get headaches.
>
>   2. I had an orgasm about 3 hours ago.
>
>     xnun

So at about 12:23 PM then -- and on a weekday at that.... have a
nooner? Or by yourself? Was God in there too? Shame it was just the
one, though....

[Michele Gennette]

--- On Fri, 9/25/09, Chris <chris...@yahoo.com> wrote: >please Michele. Let's keep it somewhat clean. Oi.   Please explain what is "dirty" about what I wrote in response to pandeism.   xnun

[Michele Gennette]

--- On Fri, 9/25/09, Pandeism Fish <knujon...@hotmail.com> wrote:

>> 2. I had an orgasm about 3 hours ago. >> > >xnun >So at about 12:23 PM then -- and on a weekday at that.... have a >nooner? Or by yourself? Was God in there too? Shame it was just >the one, though....

Well, I am grateful to God that an a$$hole like you wasn't there.   xnun

[Pandeism Fish]

On Sep 26, 1:14 pm, Michele Gennette <xnun2...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> --- On Fri, 9/25/09, Pandeism Fish <knujonmap...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>   2. I had an orgasm about 3 hours ago.
>
> >     >xnun
> >So at about 12:23 PM then -- and on a weekday at that.... have a
> >nooner? Or by yourself? Was God in there too? Shame it was just
> >the one, though....
>
>    Well, I am grateful to God that an a$$hole like you wasn't there.
>
>   xnun

I see, so it was a nooner then.... well since you've brought it up you
simply must tell us all about it -- don't leave out any details, I'm
sure we all have much to learn from your technique!!

[Michele Gennette]

--- On Sat, 9/26/09, Pandeism Fish <knujon...@hotmail.com> wrote:

>> Well, I am grateful to God that an a$$hole like you wasn't there. >> > >xnun >I see, so it was a nooner then.... well since you've brought it up

You brought it up.  I'm putting it down.

>simply must tell us all about it -- don't leave out any details, I'm >sure we all have much to learn from your technique!!

Your prurient interest might be satisfied by reading "The Song of Solomon" in the old testament, but I doubt it.   In any case, this is my last response on this topic. I was SO correct about you.   You're a real no-lifer.   xnun

[Bridge]

On Aug 25, 8:03 pm, Pandeism Fish <knujonmap...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> What's the difference between a virgin and a light bulb?
>

But were you joking? I thought you were being funny.

The thing is, finding ways to pair beliefs with our wants isn't very
enlightened at all. It's a bit creepy because our desires are
designing our ethos.

We think that because we like it then "God" likes it. How do you
explain two people liking opposing things?

> On Aug 25, 5:05 pm, Michele Gennette <xnun2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> >   Very enlightening about Mr. Pandeism Redshirt.
>
> >   xnun
>
> > ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>
> > From: Pandeism Fish <knujonmap...@hotmail.com>
> > Date: Apr 28, 7:11 am
> > Subject: Isn't abstinence a sexual preversion
> > To: Atheism vs Christianity
>
> > That is actually the moral basis of the theory of Pandeism -- that the
> > Creator exists to experience through us, and that we'd best get to
> > work having mutually pleasurable sexual experiences....
>
> > On Apr 28, 1:09 am, kenandkids <kenandk...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > isn't it a common theist assertion that god lives in each of us and
> > > knows what we know-feels what we feel? then wouldn't god be the first
> > > one encouraging rampant sexual activity? wouldn't a smart theist use
> > > this as a reason that such a long lived species as we are reproduced
> > > so quickly? in other words the prime mover likes getting primed and
> > > moved.
>

> > > On Apr 27, 3:17 pm, Eris <vith...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > Not joking, I have been thinking about this after reading David
> > > > Baldacci's novel First Family. Enjoyed the novel, right wing, as it

> > > > was.- Hide quoted text -

[Pandeism Fish]

On Sep 28, 12:33 am, Bridge <bqs4l...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Aug 25, 8:03 pm, Pandeism Fish <knujonmap...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > What's the difference between a virgin and a light bulb?
>
> But were you joking? I thought you were being funny.
>

I was exaggerating a principle for comedic effect, but a fundamental
proof of pandeism is that the Creator necessarily creates to
experience through the Creation things that it by itself can not, and
one of those things is physical pleasure -- hence when we experience
physical pleasure we are delivering that experience to the Creator....

> The thing is, finding ways to pair beliefs with our wants isn't very
> enlightened at all. It's a bit creepy because our desires are
> designing our ethos.
>
> We think that because we like it then "God" likes it. How do you
> explain two people liking opposing things?
>

"God" likes a variety of experiences.... I like avocado and eggplant,
but I don't eat meat.... there's someone else out there who eats meat
daily but can't stand avocado and eggplant.... so when I enjoy the
things I enjoy, I pass the experience of enjoyment of those things on
to the Creator, as does my counterpart who eats the things he enjoys
(even though I don't).

[Bridge]

On Sep 29, 10:05 am, Pandeism Fish <knujonmap...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Sep 28, 12:33 am, Bridge <bqs4l...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Aug 25, 8:03 pm, Pandeism Fish <knujonmap...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > What's the difference between a virgin and a light bulb?
>
> > But were you joking? I thought you were being funny.
>
> I was exaggerating a principle for comedic effect, but a fundamental
> proof of pandeism is that the Creator necessarily creates to
> experience through the Creation things that it by itself can not, and
> one of those things is physical pleasure -- hence when we experience
> physical pleasure we are delivering that experience to the Creator....
>
> > The thing is, finding ways to pair beliefs with our wants isn't very
> > enlightened at all. It's a bit creepy because our desires are
> > designing our ethos.
>
> > We think that because we like it then "God" likes it. How do you
> > explain two people liking opposing things?
>
> "God" likes a variety of experiences.... I like avocado and eggplant,
> but I don't eat meat.... there's someone else out there who eats meat
> daily but can't stand avocado and eggplant.... so when I enjoy the
> things I enjoy,

I dig it and have always been a fan of pandeism. Now, the acid test:

Did the Creator also want to experience the unenjoyables?

[Pandeism Fish]

Well here's the rub -- imagine you are walking down the street and you
stub your toe, badly.... and just then on omnipotent Creator happens
by, and the being asks how you are, and you say, "well actually, I
just stubbed my toe"; and the Creator kind of contemplates that for a
moment and asks, "so what's that like?" And you say, "it's
painful".... and Creator says, "Ah, painful.... and what's pain like?
Nothing can inflict physical 'pain' on me so I have no idea how that
is -- is it fun?" So you see, the Creator wants us to experience the
range of experiences because our own ability to understand them, and
thus fit it to understand them through us, depends on our own contrast
of experience....

Now, you may say that you don't enjoy pain, but you've had your share,
and everyone has some pain in their lives -- but if you never had any
pain, never had a badly done meal, never did something un-noble that
you later regretted, then how could you fully appreciate your day to
day absence of pain, your really good meals, the feelings come from
having done noble deeds? We must be vessels for the whole mix of
experiences, good and bad, the best and the worst, and the wider our
range of experiences, the more dots we create that the Creator can
connect to get the entire picture of how it feels to exist is a being
with any level of limitation, overcoming (or even falling to) any
level of the obstacle in our lives!!

[Bridge]

It's an interesting perspective. Thanks.