To the Christians in here... Exactly WHY did you choose it?

[-1-]

(1) All I do on this site is try to find people willing to discuss philosophy from square one which means we know nothing.
(2) Modern philosophy consists of people who believe they know a lot and want to argue opinions.
(3) I'd prefer to find those who have experienced that like Socrates they know nothing and willing to discuss why it is so.
(4) Those with this attitude learn from each other.
(5) Admitting we know nothing may be wise but it surely isn't righteous.

(1) did you mean this literally, that we know nothing? in that case, you don't know what you are talking about (literally, not meant or directed as an insult.) Everyone on this site knows SOMEthing. Like the alphabet, the language, their own passwords, etc. So either you meant it literally, in which case it's a sheer coincidence that you type intelligible sentences, or else you meant it symbolically, in which case you have a lot of explaining to do.
(2) Your opinion or stating of the status quo I fully agree with, and I only can add that you are part of that lot much like me and everyone else on the site.
(3) Please see point 1.
(4) Those who know nothing, can learn nothing only from those others who know nothing.
(5) Anyone on this site who admits they know nothing, is not admitting anything, but uttering a falsehood. They instead of uttering an admission, insist on the falsehood that they know nothing, while fully knowing that it is not true that they know nothing.
(6) Falsely purporting that you know nothing is righteous and not wise at all. It is, instead, parroting an absurd statement attributed falsely to a great man, and riding on it like on a paper tiger.

I wish to call your attention to books such as the Republic by Plato, in which Socrates is shown as a cunning and shrewd arguer. He commits even fallacies in arguments, in order to win a debate. He is a flesh-and-blood, full-of-healthy-egotism human, full of knowledge and full of vitality... a man who is cunning, clever, and revels in winning arguments.

I have once researched on Wiki and other sites the argument "I know nothing" by S. The research sites deny this was ever uttered by S., and they cite transliterations of his words (by Plato) that may have given rise to the false fact that S. did say this.

This is not rocket science, anyone can replicate my search.

[LuckyR]

(Nested quote removed.)


Interesting. Anyone can suppress their knowledge and life experience to address questions de novo. But if done perfectly, what is there to discuss? If we erase/suppress what makes us individuals (our accumulated experiences), then wouldn't we all be the same?

We are all different but do not respect differences or appreciate their value. Have you ever seen a group of three year olds interacting? They are all different. Their essences are different. Socrates said to "know thyself" We don't know how so it is impossible to know another without first being able to "know thyself."

I get what you are saying but I am not buying the notion that discourse minus bringing our accumulated knowledge and experience leads to superior conclusions. I used everything I've got to come to this decision...

[Nick_A]

-1-

(1) did you mean this literally, that we know nothing? in that case, you don't know what you are talking about (literally, not meant or directed as an insult.) Everyone on this site knows SOMEthing. Like the alphabet, the language, their own passwords, etc. So either you meant it literally, in which case it's a sheer coincidence that you type intelligible sentences, or else you meant it symbolically, in which case you have a lot of explaining to do.
(2) Your opinion or stating of the status quo I fully agree with, and I only can add that you are part of that lot much like me and everyone else on the site.
(3) Please see point 1.
(4) Those who know nothing, can learn nothing only from those others who know nothing.
(5) Anyone on this site who admits they know nothing, is not admitting anything, but uttering a falsehood. They instead of uttering an admission, insist on the falsehood that they know nothing, while fully knowing that it is not true that they know nothing.
(6) Falsely purporting that you know nothing is righteous and not wise at all. It is, instead, parroting an absurd statement attributed falsely to a great man, and riding on it like on a paper tiger.

Why not begin a thread on the Apology emphasizing what Socrates meant by saying he knew nothing. It begins about seven paragraphs down. I'll discuss it with you and perhaps it will help both our understandings

http://classics.mit.edu/Plato/apology.html

-- Updated Sun May 07, 2017 3:59 pm to add the following --

(Nested quote removed.)


We are all different but do not respect differences or appreciate their value. Have you ever seen a group of three year olds interacting? They are all different. Their essences are different. Socrates said to "know thyself" We don't know how so it is impossible to know another without first being able to "know thyself."

I get what you are saying but I am not buying the notion that discourse minus bringing our accumulated knowledge and experience leads to superior conclusions. I used everything I've got to come to this decision...

At some point all of us can approach the end of our subjective reason and the opinions and beliefs they have created. Then through impartial contemplation and meditation we can begin to experience objective reason and the noesis Plato referred to. Nothing is suppressed. A person just knows they have to submit to the reality that they know nothing if they are really called to experience wisdom.

[Supine]

You guys do get that a follower of any religion (or nonreligion, for that matter), can substitute the name of their belief into your posts, and sound just as righteous, right?

Like a Democrat or Republican or a new school liberal globalist versus an old school 1960s liberal that preached and believed to be sacred the right of nations to be sovereign and have their own cultures and laws. Or like an old follower of Adolf Hitler, a follower of Stalin, and a follower of Churchill.

The more significant question is who is right?

My opinion about the divinity of Jesus or how truthful his warnings about the potential sufferings from sins after one dies from this world, ultimately are unimportant as it pertains to others. what is important as it pertains to others is if in fact the divine nature of Jesus is true and if there is truth in his warnings.

Kind of like I can have an opinion that embezzling from my employer is morally okay, even if criminal, and that I am smart and witty enough to never end up in prison. What the truth of the matter is is more important.

[Sy Borg]

Greta

A good scotch, or a cheap one for that matter, can remedy a number of things. I find it an effective mouthwash and gargle for mouth ulcers and it gives a wonderful shudder and spreading of warmth through your body on the way down.

Well said. I knew you couldn’t be all bad

No, you were right the first time, but thanks anyway :)

So Nick, why did you choose Christianity over other faiths? Also, I'm guessing that you hold a Bible-based belief that does not subscribe to any particular Christian denomination. Is that right?

Since I was very young I’ve always had the need to understand why everything is and continues as an obvious absurdity. What is the meaning and purpose of this great universe that makes me feel less than a gnat and my purpose within it having nothing to do with the preachings of all sorts of experts around me. Esoteric Christianity has allowed me to appreciate the intellectual, emotional, and physical reasons why everything is as it is including all the contradictions. Once I learned how to read the New Testament, it made perfect sense.

Thanks. I remember a similar feeling when I was young when any question about the purpose of life was seemingly always "to reproduce". I found that unsatisfactory because the next question "to what end" was never answered. Just turtles all the way down.

Unlike you, it took me decades to feel like less than a gnat by the universe because I was so busy being less of a gnat amongst humanity let alone all the incredible edifices that make humanity possible. It was probably only in my 40s that I truly looked at the sky rather than perceiving the 2D dome sky of the ancients (despite obviously intellectually knowing the situation). I started to get a sense of just how beyond comprehension the scale of space is, reflecting on it rather than dismissively knowing it as a fact and moving on.

I think it is this experiential aspect vs pragmatic abstract understanding that lies at the heart of many forum debates. It's one thing to know that the self is not a material thing, and it is something quite different to feel and explore the self within, to pay attention to what it seems to be. My guess is that spiritualists on forums struggle due to incautious use of language. We would probably all seem very much more similar to one another if:
1) spiritualists expressed their sensations of the subjective with more discipline and more acknowledgement of their suppositions, and
2) if secular people read between the lines rather than taking what's said so literally.

Ideally, we'd all meet in the middle.

How do you feel about this Dalai Lama quote?

All major religious traditions carry basically the same message, the message of love, compassion, forgiveness, tolerance, contentment, self-disciple - all religious traditions. So these are the common ground, the common practice. On that basis we can build genuine harmony on the basis of mutual respect, mutual learning, mutual admiration.

An authentic tradition initiated by a conscious source will have both an exoteric and esoteric teaching. The exoteric is designed to influence human personality or the outer man through morals. It is like a peacekeeper and concerned with what you wrote.

The esoteric part is designed for the inner man to grow consciously. It consists of practices including, physical, emotional, and intellectual exercises furthering this inner growth. The Dalai Lama is talking to the outer man. What he will say to the inner man will be said in private. The exoteric teaches what to DO. The esoteric teaching is concerned with what we ARE.

So you are saying the differences between religions pertain mostly to the esoteric? Isn't there some universality in what's being sought by all, what you call God and others call [whatever]?

When I was young I had a book called Many Paths, One Heaven. All I can remember of it is the title, which struck me as making a fair point. The point being that in the far east the tendency is to meditate, to explore and study the psyche's depths, like researchers studying the deep ocean floor. In western Asia and beyond the tendency was more to pray, with ideas generated, not through observation, analysis and strategising as in the far east, but via devotions aimed at exploring emotions at a deep level.

Each tradition appears to use stillness, though, the idea of becoming receptive and allowing God, or whatever, within us. It's a matter of being able to allow ourselves to relax enough, and drop our defensive ego shields enough to become sensitive to simply being in reality, as opposed to needing to influence it.

[Nick_A]

Greta

So you are saying the differences between religions pertain mostly to the esoteric? Isn't there some universality in what's being sought by all, what you call God and others call [whatever]?

No, it is the opposite. The greatest differences are at the exoteric level of reality. consider the following diagram:

https://integralscience.wordpress.com/1 ... religions/

Notice how far apart the traditions are at the exoteric level. As they move towards the esoteric they appear closer together. They are even closer at the esoteric level and merge at the transcendent level from which they originated. All these petty disputes take place at the exoteric level governed by imagination

-- Updated Sun May 07, 2017 9:34 pm to add the following --

Greta

So you are saying the differences between religions pertain mostly to the esoteric? Isn't there some universality in what's being sought by all, what you call God and others call [whatever]?

No, it is the opposite. The greatest differences are at the exoteric level of reality. consider the following diagram:

https://integralscience.wordpress.com/1 ... religions/

Notice how far apart the traditions are at the exoteric level. As they move towards the esoteric they appear closer together. They are even closer at the esoteric level and merge at the transcendent level from which they originated. All these petty disputes take place at the exoteric level governed by imagination

[Sy Borg]

Greta

So you are saying the differences between religions pertain mostly to the esoteric? Isn't there some universality in what's being sought by all, what you call God and others call [whatever]?

No, it is the opposite.

Okay, that makes more sense to me.

[Fooloso4]

Nick_A wrote:

Greta:

So you are saying the differences between religions pertain mostly to the esoteric? Isn't there some universality in what's being sought by all, what you call God and others call [whatever]?

No, it is the opposite.

What religions have in common is the worship of eros - the desire to complete one’s self through transcendence of human life. All too often at the center of this love is a hatred of the human. The imagination takes flight and creates a meaning and purpose with which it becomes beguiled. What it cannot find here and now it, by fiat, establishes from elsewhere - a source, a well-spring, a God before which it falls to its knees and worships. An authority to which all must bow. An image it calls “truth”. A truth that can only be seen through desiring eyes in search of the extraordinary that debases the ordinary. A retreat from life in pursuit of what is imagined to be worthy of love, and thus cannot be found in a world that is not clean and pure and simple. Something that is the answer to their questions. Rebirth, a new man born in a new world, a heaven on earth. Washed away are the sins of man, the sins the earth, the sin of life. An exodus to the promised land of milk and honey. Sucking at the teet of those who gush saccharin sweetness and sustenance that can only sustain those who believe but only for as long as they sustain belief.

What is love without a secret that only the beloved possesses? A secret that only the arduous lover will be allowed to know. A secret the lover cannot keep secret. For what good is a secret that remains a secret? What good is a secret that does not distinguish those who know the secret from the rest? What is required is an us that distinguishes itself from them, the few who know from all those many who do not.

In truth it is nothing more that a convoluted but shameful self-love. A worship of one’s own images placed out of reach of all but the few. A hidden source that belies its source. A willful self-deception that posits an otherness and tells itself that it cannot be that source because it is human, it is of this world, and only this transcendent otherness can be the source of goodness and light. A lover of darkness that calls the darkness light and sees it as the only good.

[Nick_A]

Nick_A wrote:


(Nested quote removed.)



No, it is the opposite.

What religions have in common is the worship of eros - the desire to complete one’s self through transcendence of human life. All too often at the center of this love is a hatred of the human. The imagination takes flight and creates a meaning and purpose with which it becomes beguiled. What it cannot find here and now it, by fiat, establishes from elsewhere - a source, a well-spring, a God before which it falls to its knees and worships. An authority to which all must bow. An image it calls “truth”. A truth that can only be seen through desiring eyes in search of the extraordinary that debases the ordinary. A retreat from life in pursuit of what is imagined to be worthy of love, and thus cannot be found in a world that is not clean and pure and simple. Something that is the answer to their questions. Rebirth, a new man born in a new world, a heaven on earth. Washed away are the sins of man, the sins the earth, the sin of life. An exodus to the promised land of milk and honey. Sucking at the teet of those who gush saccharin sweetness and sustenance that can only sustain those who believe but only for as long as they sustain belief.

What is love without a secret that only the beloved possesses? A secret that only the arduous lover will be allowed to know. A secret the lover cannot keep secret. For what good is a secret that remains a secret? What good is a secret that does not distinguish those who know the secret from the rest? What is required is an us that distinguishes itself from them, the few who know from all those many who do not.

In truth it is nothing more that a convoluted but shameful self-love. A worship of one’s own images placed out of reach of all but the few. A hidden source that belies its source. A willful self-deception that posits an otherness and tells itself that it cannot be that source because it is human, it is of this world, and only this transcendent otherness can be the source of goodness and light. A lover of darkness that calls the darkness light and sees it as the only good.

The bottom line is that you vehemently deny the potential for man’s conscious evolution. Those who have felt the beginning of conscious evolution are considered deluded dreamers by secularists.

"Pity them my children, they are far from home and no one knows them. Let those in quest of God be careful lest appearances deceive them in these people who are peculiar and hard to place; no one rightly knows them but those in whom the same light shines" Meister Eckhart

You like many other secularists would believe these are misguided people in need of psychological help and the drugs they offer to kill the spirit. It would never dawn on you that perhaps they are awakening to something that seems the height of absurdity to a secularist..

[Fooloso4]

Nick_A:

The bottom line is that you vehemently deny the potential for man’s conscious evolution.

Do not tell me what I “vehemently” deny. Address what I have actually said.

Those who have felt the beginning of conscious evolution …

Those who desire transcendence may feel that they have begun to find what they seek. But self delusion feeds on it. Wherever it is you have convinced yourself you are going you cannot say where it is you will arrive at. Someone going in circles may very well believe he is moving in a direction outside the circle.

You like many other secularists would believe these are misguided people in need of psychological help and the drugs they offer to kill the spirit.

Do not tell me what I would believe. Address what I have actually said. I do not know whether you need psychological help. What I have described is not a psychological disorder. Pathos is not pathology. Love from a distance can be the source of comedy and tragedy, elation and despair, but in one form or another far too common for anyone to conclude the source is a psychological problem.

It would never dawn on you that perhaps they are awakening to something that seems the height of absurdity to a secularist..

If there is a transcendent reality I do not think it absurd. That you believe you have begun to experience that transcendent reality may be absurd, although perhaps just misguided self-deception. How can one know what it is the beginning of if one has just begun? Tell us about this transcendent reality when you have arrived. Until then it is all just the play of your imagination.

[Nick_A]

F4

Those who desire transcendence may feel that they have begun to find what they seek. But self delusion feeds on it. Wherever it is you have convinced yourself you are going you cannot say where it is you will arrive at. Someone going in circles may very well believe he is moving in a direction outside the circle.

If the transcendence of human being is illusory and must lead to self deception, then you vehemently deny its potential.

If there is a transcendent reality I do not think it absurd. That you believe you have begun to experience that transcendent reality may be absurd, although perhaps just misguided self-deception. How can one know what it is the beginning of if one has just begun? Tell us about this transcendent reality when you have arrived. Until then it is all just the play of your imagination.

Until a person has an orgasm, they won’t know what it is. No matter how many experts comment on it, the reality of an orgasm is still open to debate.

"The wisdom of Plato is not a philosophy, a search for God by means of human reason. . . . . Plato’s wisdom is nothing but an orientation of the soul toward grace.” La SourceGrecque

Years ago when I worked with bands a lot I was your typical alcoholic musician. I was always into philosophy and the question of meaning but could always find the fault in an argument so eventually turned to humor as the natural approach to philosophical inadequacy. Gradually as my need for meaning grew I discovered a line of thought unknown to me which answered my questions by introducing an additional vertical direction of thought. The effect was so profound that one night while contemplating these ideas I fell asleep. The next morning I had no desire to drink and since then, only have an occasional drink to celebrate something rather than escape. Something in me turned towards grace. I realized that I could not have invented what I discovered since like most I was earth oriented. I had to experience what it means to look from above rather than argue from below.

I cannot explain this to you. The greats who had lived and died with this reality are so much a threat to the World that they had to be killed. But yet any time a person experiences this vivid momentary awakening, the effects can last a life time and bring meaning to philosophy and the essence of religion a secularist sadly through emotional denial will not allow themselves to experience. This experience cannot be confused with imagination. The experience is totally different. However over time, it can devolve into egoistic imagination and then a person becomes an expert.

[Fooloso4]

Nick_A:

If the transcendence of human being is illusory and must lead to self deception, then you vehemently deny its potential.

You have got it backwards, it is self deception that leads to the illusion of transcendence of human being. There is nothing in your story of your great awakening in which you fell asleep to suggest that it involved anything like the transcendence of human being.

Until a person has an orgasm, they won’t know what it is.

That is correct. Whatever they imagine it to be is just something they imagine. Unless you have transcended human being you can only imagine what it is like.

Years ago …

Years ago when my son was young he had a habit of sucking his thumb. One night I sat with him and told him that it was becoming a problem and that he should try to stop. That night he fell asleep without his thumb in his mouth. He never sucked his thumb again. It was a remarkable transformation that surprised us. We did not, however, imagine that someone or something else was responsible for what he himself had done. Others, however, might have done exactly that, imbuing it with mystery and magic, hitching it to their beliefs and the world they imagine beyond our own.

Gradually as my need for meaning grew I discovered a line of thought …

This is just what I had described - the worship of eros. It could not be that you imagined it because that would not satisfy your desire. The snake handler knows he is protected from being bit by the power of the Lord, until he is bit. And how does he handle this? He knows from the story of Eve that the snake is deceptive and he refuses to be deceived. He was bit because his faith was not strong enough. He uses the evidence that stands against his belief that he is protected and discovers a line of thought that protects his belief. We are storytellers. Know thyself.

[LuckyR]

You guys do get that a follower of any religion (or nonreligion, for that matter), can substitute the name of their belief into your posts, and sound just as righteous, right?

Like a Democrat or Republican or a new school liberal globalist versus an old school 1960s liberal that preached and believed to be sacred the right of nations to be sovereign and have their own cultures and laws. Or like an old follower of Adolf Hitler, a follower of Stalin, and a follower of Churchill.

The more significant question is who is right?

My opinion about the divinity of Jesus or how truthful his warnings about the potential sufferings from sins after one dies from this world, ultimately are unimportant as it pertains to others. what is important as it pertains to others is if in fact the divine nature of Jesus is true and if there is truth in his warnings.

Kind of like I can have an opinion that embezzling from my employer is morally okay, even if criminal, and that I am smart and witty enough to never end up in prison. What the truth of the matter is is more important.

Well you do bring up a glaring weakness of the idea of using religiosity to control the rabble. namely that even if you take the dogma at face value (the idea of Eternal Paradise after you're dead in exchange for the misery here on planet Earth right now) that is: what of the believer who makes the calculation that it is truly worth it to steal, rape and pillage right here and now, in exchange for NOT getting Eternal Paradise in the afterlife? What do the other believers say to that? Other than: "well, I guess that's your decision..."

[Grotto19]

Warning this got long on its own. It is an interesting story I think but don’t bother with it if you don’t have time. This is to the original question and not a continuation of the righteousness debate.

I started out Catholic. But at a young age I became quite skeptical and over time lost any belief in God whatsoever. I went from a true believer at age 9 to a full atheist by age 13. Not the preachy type of atheist who feels the need to crap on the beliefs of the faithful at every opportunity. Just someone who knew religions were wrong. So why then am I posting in the why did you chose to be a Christian area? Because I did chose it later and still am.

The sheep returns to the Shepard: I remained an Atheist until I was 30. A chain of events occurred which compelled me seriously reflect on the human condition and morality. I say compelled because I had no choice it was irresistible. In 2005 while in Iraq I killed a man in a particularly horrible manner. I fired on his vehicle setting it ablaze and from fright of me he would not exit the vehicle despite me begging him to do so. We tried to extinguish the flames but could not, so I had to watch him die screaming. I can say honestly having experienced that I have probably already experienced what will be the worst moment of my life.

But that wasn’t the que which drove my return just a part. Weeks later on patrol there was an explosion a few miles from us, we raced towards the smoke to support whomever got hit. Word came over the radio that we have no patrols at those coordinates. And we Shure didn’t. When we arrived we saw 3 bodies on the ground covered with blankets. As the medic my first task if to confirm these people are dead, and if one is not to immediately start trying to resuscitate them. My first task however is called scene size up, so while walking up I am doing that and I notice something is odd. The bodies are small, too small to be….OH GOD their kids. I dropped my rifle so it was only hanging from the sling and raced to the first one. I am sorry to be so specific but I am crying just typing this and shaking so it needs to just flow.

I I lift the blanket and see the most horrifying indictment of human villainy. The top half of this approximately 8 year old boy’s head is no longer present. Most of his brain destroyed, clear view into the top of his nasal cavity. Like a cross section of a cat scan only in living color. I am not even repulsed at the gore, I had already grown accustomed to that. I did developing a growing sensation I had never experienced in my life, well one first then in a short span the other. The first was true rage/ wrath. Not anger, anger is only a cousin to rage. As I went from body to body it grew more intense. I could feel every cell in my body and they began bursting into flame. My pulse and BP had shot up, everything was in slow motion, words became still comprehensible but distorted.

I am going to find the monster who did this and I am going to end him. Unlike my first kill for which I felt terrible this one is going to be fantastic. I wish to consume him with the flame now coursing through my veins. That is what wraith feels like. See I wasn’t angry simply because he deliberately murdered children, or that it was a terror attack. I did not hate him for being my enemy. In fact I never hated the enemy up until that point. I hated him because he didn’t even have a good honest human hatred. I hated him for attacking his own instead of us. And he had slain the only amongst our wretched human race who can be called worthy to let live, the not yet tarnished children. Ah and there it is! Despair and existential angst aimed at my entire species.

Over time I grow darker still. We are all villains, scum, terrible. No creature on earth more deplorable nor repugnant. We are all evil….all sinners. Wait I have heard this rant before. Yes it is terribly familiar. It is good that this occurred to me as I was no longer interested in saving lives nor sparring suffering. If humans are the worst then let them suffer and perish. Does this mean I too should suffer? Absolutely I had lost interest in eating or self-maintenance. I didn’t care. Even towards myself I would think I too deserved nothing but pain and mortality.

Perhaps I should read that book by that guy who said we are all sinners. And so I did. Again and again. And I thought long and hard about what it contained. I analyzed every passage regarding the testament of Christ with a is it ******** lens. I realized the Buddha and Mohamed had also analyzed the human condition while in a starved state of despair. Tumblers started to fall into place. I began eating again, and showering, and didn’t want to see people suffering was painful for me to witness again.

We are all terrible, we are born that way, but it is O.K. We have been given guidance on why it is this way, why we are what we are, and what we should do about it. But is it just an opiate to sooth my pain? I reflect on this for years. 12 years and still counting actually I am now 42. And my conclusion is I don’t think so.

I have now studied most of the world’s major faiths in depth. And they generally come to the same conclusions via different means. Many times these conclusions emerge in areas not acquainted with the other faiths. This is one colossal coincidence if not inspired from a source which transcends actual contact to spread ideas. Is that conclusive…NO But one hell of a coincidence. This also means that though I am Christian I do not think my book is the true one and the others are wrong. They are different paths up the same mountain one wise man said. I agree with him.

My being Christian does not preclude me from believing other faiths ideas, nor those of an atheist. I simply believe what Christ taught was from God and that God is a real thing. I don’t believe everything in the bible is factual truth, in fact I am certain much of it is not. I would say the same of all the other holy texts as well.

But humans trying to understand God is like my dog trying to understand capitalism. It is not necessary for my Dog to get why I leave him lonely when I go to work each day. All that he needs to understand in order to be a good dog is to accept what I train him. He does not need to pass on the teachings aggressively to other dogs. He does not need to flawlessly obey what I taught him to be a good dog. And believe me he does not he is nearly as willful as a human. Despite that will which defies me he is a good dog because he tries. I love my dog because he wants to be good and he tries, and in the same way I do believe that God loves us in the same way. He loves us for trying to be good not for actually being good, which we generally speaking are not. So there you have it, the not so short story of why I chose Christianity. Hope it was interesting enough for you to have read these 1300 words.

[Dolphin42]

It was indeed interesting enough and I read it all. May I ask: why did you choose to share such an intense personal story on this particular website?