Revealed truths become formally dogmas when defined or proposed by the Church. There is considerable hostility, in modern times, to dogmatic religion when considered as a body of truthsdefined by the Church, and still more when considered as defined by the pope. The theory of dogma which is here expounded depends for its acceptance on the doctrine of the infallible teaching office of the Church and of the Roman pontiff. It will be sufficient to notice the following points, (1) the reasonableness of the definition of dogma; (2) the immutability of dogma; (3) the necessity for Church unity of belief in dogma (4) the inconveniences which are alleged to be associated with the definition of dogma.
(1) Against the theory of interpretation of Scripture by private judgement, Catholics regard as absolutely unacceptable the view that God revealed a body of truths to the world and appointed no official teacher of revealedtruth, no authoritative judge of controversy; this view is as unreasonable as would be the notion that the civil legislature makes laws and then commits to individual private judgment the right and the duty of interpreting the laws and deciding controversies. The Church and the supreme pontiff are endowed by God with the privilege of infallibility in discharge of the duty of universal teacher in the sphere of faith and morals; hence we have an infallible testimony that the dogmas defined and delivered to us by the Church are the truths contained in Divine revelation.
(2) The dogmas of the Church are immutable. Modernists hold that religious dogmas, as such, have no intellectual meaning, that we are not bound to believe them mentally, that they may be all false, that it is sufficient if we use them a guides to action; and accordingly they teach that dogmas are not immutable, that they should be changed when the spirit of the age is opposed to them, when they lose their value as rules for a liberal religious life. But in the Catholic doctrine that Divine revelation is addressed to the humanmind and expresses real objective truth, dogmas are immutable Divine truths. It is an immutable truth for all time that Augustus was Emperor of Rome and George Washington first President of the United States. So according to Catholicbelief, these are and will be for all time immutable truths — that there are three Persons in God, that Christ died for us, that He arose from the dead, that He founded the Church, that He instituted the sacraments. We may distinguish between the truths themselves and the language in which they are expressed. The full meaning of certain revealedtruths has been only gradually brought out; the truths will always remain. Language may change or may receive a new meaning; but we can always learn what meaning was attached to particular words in the past.
(3) We are bound to believe revealedtruths irrespective of their definition by the Church, if we are satisfied that God has revealed them. When they are proposed or defined by the Church, and thus become dogmas, we are bound to believe them in order to maintain the bond of faith. (See HERESY).
(4) Finally, Catholics do not admit that, as is sometimes alleged, dogmas are the arbitrary creations of ecclesiastical authority, that they are multiplied at will, that they are devices for keeping the ignorant in subjection, that they are obstacles to conversions. Some of these are points of controversy which cannot be settled without reference to more fundamental questions. Dogmatic definitions would be arbitrary if there were no Divinely instituted infallible teaching office in the Church; but if, as Catholics maintain, God has established in His Church an infallible office, dogmatic definitions cannot be considered arbitrary. The same Divine Providence which preserves the Church from error will preserve her from inordinate multiplication of dogmas. She cannot define arbitrarily. We need only observe the life of the Church or of the Roman pontiffs to see that dogmas are not multiplied inordinately. And as dogmatic definitions are but the authentic interpretation and declaration of the meaning of Divine revelation, they cannot be considered devices for keeping the ignorant in subjection, or reasonable obstacles to conversions, on the contrary, the authoritative definition of truth and condemnation of error, are powerful arguments leading to the Church those who seek the truth earnestly.
Recently the PRC website has been blocked by google and other virus programs as a precaution against unwanted transmission of malware. So I have decided to place here all the instructions to register as a succesful examn taker, also included is a link to download the oath taking form in pdf format.
Initial Registration
Instructions
Initial registrants should come personally to the PRC Central Office or to the nearest Regional Office to file his/her application for registration and to affix his/her signature in the registry book.
All Registration Certificates and PRC ID shall be claimed by the licensee personally at the Central Office or the Regional Office where the application for the same has been filed. If there is an unavoidable need for a representative, he must present his/her identification paper with picture and a Special Power of Attorney.
Requirements
Duly accomplished Oath Form or Panunumpa ng Propesyonal
Two pcs. passport size pictures with name tag (for Oath Form and Certificate of Registration)
One pc. 1”x1” picture in plain background with complete name tag (for Registry of Professionals)
Two sets of metered documentary stamps (for Oath Form and Certificate of Registration)
One (1) short brown envelope with name and profession
Board Certificate & ID
Introduction
Welcome to PRC’s online Professional ID Application service. Our web service will help you fill in Professional ID application forms to be processed
NOTICE: The online facility is currently available to maritime professionals only . Since this is the first time the facility is being implemented, it has been decided to make it available initially to a select group of professionals to determine its reliability, stability and performance. As soon as this becomes stable then the same will be made available to the rest of the professions for which announcements will be made accordingly.
Procedures
Log In Are you a registered MyPRC user, if not, proceed to the MyPRC Registratin section and key in your personal information. Once registered and logged in the PRC system will recognize who you are and automatically fill in the relevant data in your profile to the service form so that you do not have to key in the same information multiple times.
Application After Logging in, you will be asked how many copies of this certification you want.
Confirmation A confirmation message will be shown, this includes all the order details including fees and next steps. At this point you can go back and change the number of copies or cancel your request.
Payment Based on the type of payment option chosen, users pay accordingly. Online payment users will get the temporary OR by printing out the payment confirmation page.
Pick Up or Delivery After the payment is confirmed, the pickup/delivery date will be announced in the transaction section of MyPRC. Pick Up details like ID requirements and the printout of the payment confirmation will be needed
Federer won Roland Garros, the French Open, his first title here,
his 14th overall to tie with all-time best Sampras, and completed his career Grand Slam (last one was Agassi in 1999),
Nothing else to add!!! He is GOAT! Greatest of All Time!!! Now if he could win another RG and get two career GS, he will definitely be hands down the best!
I need several things because lately I have been discontent with my computer. In the meantime, here is phase one of the upgrade:
All prices are based on Promo Price list of PCX (April 19, 2009).
Memory. I have a 64 bit OS but I'm not taking advantage of it. I need at least 4GB memory so I can take advantage of the memory address extensions. So I need 2 x Kingston 1GB 667 DDR2 at PHP 750 each = PHP 1,500.00
Hard Disk. I have 640 GB installed capacity, and it's just too small! I archive all the photos of the family, plus my horrendously large music collection... then there are the tv series I have - all for my PS3 or windows media center to access from the living room. It just doesn't fit anymore! It actually got cheaper, I need 1 x Seagate 500GB Barracuda SATA = PHP 2950.00
LCD Monitor. Ever since I bought my PS3/RB instead of my LCD Monitor, it's been great at the living room but terrible in my room! I need to reclaim my desk space! and my eyes hurt soooo much with this clunky CRT. A 22" will do in my room. I need 1 x Hanns-G HG216 HDMI (I can plug my PS3 too!) = PHP 8590.00
Uninterrupted Power Supply. My motherboard cost me well over PHP 9,000. So I don't want to see it fried. ever. I need 1 x Hanns-G HG216 HDMI = PHP 1580.00
Wifi Card. That RJ45 Cable is killing me. I hate them like a snake on my floor! I need 1 x Linksys WUSB54GC WiFi G USB Lan = PHP 1450.00
So for now thats what I need, or maybe want, although I do need them.
Total cost = PHP15,710.00
How am I going to raise that? Work, save money, and you can donate using PAYPAL to quicken things!!! Any kind soul there can donate any amount!
Well He should. Because his reason to lift the embryonic stem-cell policy change is being viewed in such a way as to "create life for the purpose of spare parts."
CURRENT ISSUE Columnists Books Screen Editorials Classifieds SEARCH COMMONWEAL
Advanced Search Browse past issues March 27, 2009 / Volume CXXXVI, Number 6 EDITORIAL Life & Science
The Editors
No one was shocked when President Barack Obama lifted the restrictions on federal funding for embryonic stem-cell research put in place by George W. Bush. Obama was, after all, fulfilling a campaign promise-albeit a misguided one—and his decision enjoys strong bipartisan support. What did surprise, however, was Obama’s explanation for this policy.
The president’s executive order authorizes the Department of Health and Human Services and the National Institutes of Health (NIH) to fund and conduct embryonic stem-cell research that entails the destruction of human embryos, something President Bush had banned eight years ago. Hundreds of thousands of embryos left over from infertility treatments exist, and nearly all of them will eventually be discarded. Some argue that using these embryos for scientific research that has the potential to develop cures for pathologies such as paralysis and Parkinson’s disease is morally justified. Those opposing such research counter that destroying nascent human life even for therapeutic purposes crosses a bright moral line. The logic used to justify the destruction of embryos can easily be extended to the exploitation of more fully developed human beings who are judged to be expendable, unwanted, or otherwise useless. (Some scientists already favor harvesting organs from aborted fetuses to meet the demand for kidney and liver transplants.)
In trying to balance these competing moral claims, Bush permitted research to go forward on stem-cell lines that had already been developed, but stopped further government funding of research that involved embryo destruction. In explaining his decision, Bush showed himself to be uncommonly sensitive to the moral issues involved, and especially to the divisive consequences of using taxpayers’ money to support scientific research that many Americans find morally abhorrent. He also strongly supported adult stem-cell research, which has subsequently shown extraordinary promise, and is ethically unproblematic.
Advertisement
Unfortunately, President Obama demonstrated little of that sensitivity in his recent remarks, choosing instead to obfuscate the moral dilemma by resorting to imprecise talk about the supposedly self-evident authority of scientific “facts” and the alleged ideological agenda of those opposed to embryonic stem-cell research. True, the president acknowledged that “thoughtful and decent people” disagree on the question, yet much of the political spin coming out of the administration implied that those opposed to embryonic stem-cell research are little different from those in the Bush administration who fudged data to contest the reality of global warming. “In recent years, when it comes to stem-cell research...our government has forced a false choice between sound science and moral values,” Obama declared. But he never explained why the choice was false in this instance. Instead, he handed off the problem to the NIH, which will soon issue new research guidelines. Yet any guidelines for the treatment of human embryos will require moral and political judgments, not merely scientific assessment. The president’s squishy rhetoric elided that fact. Of special concern is whether the new guidelines will allow the creation of embryos solely for research purposes. They should not. Many people not opposed to using discarded embryos to cure illness balk at the idea that human life will now be created only to be used for spare parts. The NIH guidelines should also ban the selling of embryos.
Bioethicist Daniel Callahan has written in these pages about the seduction and dangers of the “research imperative,” a set of unexamined assumptions about “progress” that distorts our understanding of the legitimate goals and proper uses of medical science. According to Callahan, the benefits of new discoveries and cures are routinely oversold. Meanwhile, the more basic health-care needs of millions go ignored. Moral reasoning and political deliberation, not the scientific community, should set health-care priorities and the conditions for research on human life. The United States, it is important to recall, has not always had a happy history when it comes to harnessing the power of science. In the first half of the twentieth century, the eugenics movement helped bring about the forced sterilization of sixty thousand “unfit” Americans, including the blind, the deaf, and the epileptic. The American Medical Association and the National Science Foundation endorsed those procedures. Eugenics was the cutting-edge biological science of its day.
Yes, the Bush administration sometimes twisted science to suit a political agenda-especially when it came to global warming. But in setting a different course, the new president must not allow scientific research to steer clear of ethical scrutiny. The choice in this case is not between “sound science” and “moral values,” but between genuine ethical reflection and empty rhetoric.
And for a scathing criticism of Obama's decision, read here. Particularly interesting is this article from the Washington Post, which drives a truck through the gap Obama's faulty reasoning.
Guest Writers Written by Martyn Drakard Thursday, 26 March 2009 12:12 On the first leg of Benedict XVI’s first trip to Africa as Pope, a French journalist not surprisingly asked him about the African AIDS epidemic.
In the minds of most people from the West, among such things as corruption, child soldiers, famine and witchcraft, Africa = Aids, and AIDS = condoms. He replied: “The scourge cannot be resolved by distributing condoms; quite the contrary, we risk worsening the problem.” His brief answer provoked an international controversy and violent reactions in the Western press. “Impeach the Pope!” wrote the Washington Post. “The Pope is a disaster” reported the Daily Telegraph. The Seattle Times accused the Pope of living in an “alternate universe”. “Grievously wrong!” said the New York Times. “There is no evidence that condom use is aggravating the epidemic and considerable evidence that condoms, though no panacea, can be helpful in many circumstances.” Rather than basing the argument on emotions, business interests or ideology, the case for condoms must face scientific facts. A Harvard expert on AIDS prevention, Dr. Edward C. Green, said “the Pope is actually correct”. Dr. Green has written five books and over 250 peer-reviewed articles, and is an agnostic, not a Catholic. Last year, he wrote in the journal First Things that the never-enough-condoms explanation of the AIDS epidemic is driven “not by evidence, but by ideology, stereotypes and false assumptions.”
Dr. Green is not a lone voice. In an article in the leading British medical journal, The Lancet, James Shelton, of the US Agency for International Development, stated openly that one of the 10 damaging myths about the fight against AIDS is that condoms are the answer. “They have limited impact in generalised epidemics,” he wrote. In 2004, an article in the journal- “Studies in Family Planning” admitted that “no clear examples have emerged yet of a country that has turned back a generalised epidemic primarily by means of condom promotion.” In fact, in Cameroon, precisely where the Pope was flying to when he made his “infamous” remarks, between 1992 and 2001 condom sales increased from 6 to 15 million, while HIV prevalence tripled, from 3 to 9 per cent.
After years of racking their brains about the high prevalence rate of AIDS in Africa, the most affected region in the world, which accounted for 72% of deaths from the disease in 2007, researchers are concluding that the reason is the widespread practice of “multiple concurrent partnerships.” Something that we have already learned in Uganda, where most new cases crop up among married people who have a mistress or boy-friend on the side.
In a highly-acclaimed 2007 book, The Invisible Cure: Africa, the West, and the Fight against AIDS, the medical journalist Helen Epstein admits that she had always attributed the epidemic to prostitution, poverty, discrimination against women and low condom use. But after observing that HIV rates were increasing despite high condom use, she realised that “multiple long-term partnerships”, which she referred to as the “superhighway of infections”, was the problem. Her conclusion: “a collective shift in sexual norms, especially partner reduction, is crucial.”
Dr. Green also pointed out that condoms “may even exacerbate HIV infection levels due to a phenomenon called risk compensation, or behavioural disinhibition. People take more sexual risks because they feel safer than is actually justified when using condoms.” The experts are coming round to the conviction that the real, lasting solution is “partner reduction”, fidelity in marriage, something the Pope has been saying all along.
Dr. Green declared that the “faith-based communities have a comparative advantage in promoting the needed types of behaviour change, since these behaviours conform to their moral, ethical and scriptural teachings. What the churches are inclined to do anyway turns out to be what works best in AIDS prevention.” But back to the controversy. In France it was roughest of all. Yet two MPs braved the stormy weather on their Blogs. One, Christian Vanneste, called for responsibility in medical research, a proper distribution of therapies and care of the sick; and said the “popular pack of hounds of materialists and hedonists is very far from being able to understand the (Pope’s) message. The solid mass of faithful gathered around the Pope at this moment is giving a better answer.” The other, Jacques Remiller, accused the French political class of carrying out a “veritable witch-hunt against Benedict XVI”, and said the Western countries should stop considering the condom as the “only solution” to the problem of AIDS in Africa.
The short sentence of the Pope has flown much further than the French journalist expected and, despite its possibly mischievous intent, may eventually work against the pro-condom lobby. It will bring into the open a debate that must be argued with facts and scientific evidence and not with slogans, lazy thinking and prejudice, and an eye to big profits in the pharmaceutical industry.
1:38 President Barack Hussein Obama BOWSwhile giving a handshake to the King of Saudi Arabia who's one of many titles but most important is the Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques.
Was it like he was going to kiss that ring or was I dreaming? Something like a Catholic would do when they meet the Pope. Or was he just thanking the Al-Sauds for paying for his Harvard Education care of Al-Mansour? Or is it because his slip about his "Muslim Faith" is something 27 years of being a Christian seemingly did not wipe out?
Hllary clinton forgets what the Our Lady of Guadalupe is all about while visiting the country which reveres it the most and its origin, plus in official capacity as the Secretary of State (lead diplomat). http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=15511
As I say, be wary of knights in shining armor saying he can fix everything in wink of an eye (I.E. OBAMA), it's all so enticing but it all so false too. Note: who is/was Obama's Financial Advisor? the CEO of the infamous Fannie Mae..
"On days of fasting, one eats only one full meal, but may eat two smaller meals as necessary to keep up one's strength. The two small meals together must sum to less than the one full meal. Parallel to the fasting laws are the laws of abstinence. These bind those over the age of fourteen. On days of abstinence, the person must not eat meat or poultry. According to canon law, all Fridays of the year, Ash Wednesday and several other days are days of abstinence, though in most countries, the strict requirements of abstinence have been limited by the bishops (in accordance with Canon 1253) to the Fridays of Lent and Ash Wednesday. On other abstinence days, the faithful are invited to perform some other act of penance."
So I have a huge dilemma, this morning when i used my Itouch oh no! Lo and behold! It was acting weird! it couldn't find my wireless network, it wasn't saving settings properly, and it was just plain acting up. Since the New York times app was asking to be connected to Itunes so it could work I said, maybe my Itouch needs a sync....
Then this message appears upon connecting my iPod touch's usb connector to my Vista PC:
"Itune could not connect to the iPod "Aaron's Ipod" because an unknown error occured (0xE800005E)"
I search the internet and I find this site fron ilounge forums, it tells me to do a forced reset, so here I go trying to following the instruction which sound so confusing....
draw back is i'll lose my information, thats what it says...
thinking back I remember reading from a forum before that low memory space does bad things to an iPod so I checked my memory and only 26MB of 8GB is left so that sounds bad right so I guess oh well maybe thats the culprit.
So I go ahead and press the power off button and the front button which i have no idea what it was so i just press the home button, trying to do a forced reset.
Instead a dialogue comes up to turn off or power down the itouch, I have to swipe to select this. So instead I do that.
I turn my device back on by holding the power button down for quite a while, and VOILA!
I can connect my Itouch again. So folks, if you have problems with your Itouch, maybe it just needs to be powered off and on again just like my PC when it has bad days it needs a reset to refresh and clear up its memory!
Hope someone out there gets this and finds it useful because honestly there were no entries on Google for Error (0xE800005E) at least now we have one solution to it!
I saw this website while reading news at yahoo. It's about GE's Smart Grid. I find it really amazing, not only the quality of the site but also the effort they are putting into making energy cleaner for the environment.
So today and for the past week I've been puzzled how to install my HPLIP on Ububtu 8.10. And finally after maybe a hundred web pages on the matter I finally found a ONE... as in ONE person who actually made sense!!
His name is SVEN and he commented as such (on this website: https://answers.launchpad.net/hplip/+question/45461):
"Ah, solution (for me)...
By looking into the logfile, I detected that one part of the make processes tried to find a file, which another part created before... while reading carefully, I detected that the file was present, but,.... *drums*... my path contained something like this "....http://aaronlecciones.multiply.com/HP Officejet J45....", yes, and the log file said something like ".... J45..."...
So, we have a simple "developer-forgot-to-escape-the-pathname-to-avoid-problems-with-spaces-error".
So, put your hplib in a path that does not contain any spaces, start the whole make/installation process and you feel well...
(Another helper to find it was the fact that I just installed the same software on another machine just 5 minutes earlier....)
So, bye Sven"
So Thank you so much Sven for such a enlightening solution to the problem since I saved by HPLIP installer in a folder aptly named "System Installers" and oops there's the culprit!!!! The space in between System and Installers!!!!
HAHAHAH DARN YOU HPLIP not even fixing that stupid ultimately dumb installer bug!
I read ekangkarot's tag entry so i obliged and here goes:
[ NOW ] Current mood: vampire weekend Current music: ottoman. Current hair: lethario. Current clothes: pjs..... Current windows open: internet explorer, windows media player. Current desktop picture: me at Balanan Lake. Current favorite band: the jerk-offs. Current book: Bridges of New York City by Sutherland Current cd in stereo: stereo huh. I have a bd in PS3 if that counts and none in my pc. Current crush: beefy Current favorite celeb: Jonathan Bradford Wright.
[ DO YOU.. ] Have a dream that keeps coming back? well i dream a lot, everyday, I don't keep track. Remember your first love? yes. Still love him/her? naaaaa. Read the newspaper? yes. Have any gay or lesbian friends? yes. Believe in miracles? yes. Consider love a mistake? nope.. Like the taste of alcohol? depends on my mood. Have a favorite candy? yes. Believe in magic? sometimes. Believe in god? of course. Have any pets? hmmm... Go to or plan to go to college? done with that. Have any piercings? my heart? haha! none. Have any tattoos? none. Hate yourself? i tend to discourage myself but not hate myself. Have an obsession? plenty. Have a secret crush? of course. Have a best friend? yes.
[ LOVE LIFE ] Ever been in love? yes. Do you believe in love at first sight? yes. Do you believe in "the one"? yes.
[ETC] Have you ever played a game that required removal of clothing? yeah, longest line!
[ APPEARANCE ] Hair: lethario. Eyes: two, last time i checked. Height: I can't argue with what God gave.
[ LAST THING.. ] Ate & Drank: Chicken in tomato sauce and rice and water. Read: uhm.... my notebook. Watched on TV: hmmm.... Nick and Norah's Infinite Playlist streamed through my PS3 from my computer.
[ EITHER OR.. ] cats or dogs: dogs. single or taken: single. pen or pencil: pen, inky solid and black.. food or candy: food. cassette or cd: hmmmm good one.... coke or pepsi: pepsi.
[ WHO DO YOU WANT TO.. ] kill: the killers? joke .... look like: julian casablancas avoid: fistful a-holes.
[ LAST PERSON YOU.. ] saw: my mom, I said goodnight talked to on the phone: an old friend.... hugged: my mom, hugged her goodnight..... instant messaged: joseph. kissed: i can't remember.
[ HAVE YOU EVER.. ] Drank alcohol? yes. Done drugs? no. Broken the law? yes. Run away from home? no. Broken a bone? yes. Played Truth Or Dare? yes. Kissed someone you didn't know? yes. Been in a fight? yes. Come close to dying? no.
[ WHAT IS.. ] Your favorite thing for breakfast? either Jollibee longganisa meal, Mcdonalds Sausage and Egg Mc Muffin, Tuyo and fried rice with egg or pusit with fried rice and egg with vinegar, or egg omelette (with bell pepper and mushrooms), or french toast.... Your favorite restaurant? hmmmm..... a lot. What do you eat when you raid the fridge late at night? peanut butter and jelly, orange juice, bread, chocolates. What is your biggest fear? rejection. How do you drive? now slow, sometimes freaking crazy. Are you happy with your given name? yes. What color is your bedroom? a very light light blue. Have you ever been in a play? yes. Do you consider yourself to be a nice person? yes. Would you repost this survey? Did I just do that?
I usually don't write here, because I supposedly have a blog at http://supertransatlantic.blogspot.com. Admittedly though, that blog doesn't work as I expect it to be.
In any case, I was thinking... (and there already I have my two favourite phrases).... after having watched this video on my sister's multiply - well, I knew the song from long ago, who from our generation wasn't bitten by that trance bug, and I'm still a hardcore fan of the 1998-1999-2000-ish or what single releases and albums, and so I was thinking about that video by Chicane....
A chicane, according to wikipedia, is actually a sequence of tight serpentine curves (usually an S-shape curve or a bus stop) in a roadway, used in motor racing and on city streets to slow cars. But in the case of this Chicane, it is Nick Bracegirdle's electronic dance music act, something God gave us so that in moments exactly like these you can find recluse in the melody and lyrics of such songs.
If there was nothing that I could say Turned your back and you just walked away Leaves me numb inside I think of you Together is all I knew
We moved too fast but I had no signs I would try to turn the hands of time I look to you for the reason why The love we had passed me by
And as the sun would set you would rise Fall from the sky into paradise Is there no light in your heart for me You've closed your eyes you don't longer see
There were no lies between me and you You said nothing of what you knew But there was still something in your eyes Left me helpless and paralysed
You could give a million reasons change the world and change the time Could not give me the secrets of your heart and of your mind In the darkness that surrounds me now there is no piece of mind Your careless words undo me, leave the thought of us behind You could give a million reasons change the world and change the time Could not give me the secrets of your heart and of your mind In the darkness that surrounds you now there is no piece of mind Your careless words undo me, leave the thought of us behind
And I was intending this blog to be something long and deep (I guess it did turn out to be long after all) but those lyrics say everything I need to say. But in any case I never watched the video, or if I had it was lost in my imperfect memory and now that I've seen it again, I feel it so differently.
Like what my sister said, wouldn't you love to run over people you hate? I don't think i should be driving cars for quite a while..
But on the other hand people you hate fiercely after a long time you'd rather forget - you become apathetic. Why do the effort and the hassle to run over a person, and in the music video allover and allover again. It has to be because the that person was important to you, or is still important to you which is worse.
Why doesn't that person die though? It's because you don't want that person to die, but just to feel the pain that you've felt, over and over and over again and to live with it the rest of their lives, or maybe till that person finally truly understands, which I think we can say is 50/50.
Then in the video they toast and are dressed well, but what does the girl do, she still wants to kill that guy. The wounds are so deep already. But hey gladly there's an airbag and they live since obviously the guy is indestructible but you see she has someone else and that indestructible guy walks away into a door.
How could it be that that person is indestructible? Is it because you feel that that person could leave you and not care? The hurt that destroys you doesn't destroy that person? He's impervious, oblivious!
I think when things are withheld that necessarily does not mean you are lying, because there is nothing to lie about because the other party doesn't know that you know a certain information nor is it pertinent to give away such information. But in a close relationship even without speaking, emotionally we can feel when some significant other is hiding something, it's something you can see in that persons eyes. But since you don't know whats the problem, or what particular category that information being withheld is in, you wouldn't know where or how to ask it, nor do you want to acknowledge the fact that that person might be withholding information from you - it leaves you paralysed, and of course helpless. Unless you go head on and confront the person with what your feeling, which most people I think reach a screeching halt after the first few sentences..... what do you say next after blurting out what you just did?
There's something you want from that person, but that person can give you a million reasons and you accept it knowing that they are all but half truths. And that that person would never give you what you really want, knowing that you might not be asking directly, you might be asking figuratively, buts its implicit and explicit, your request is undeniably mutually understood, and yet that person might feign confusion, misunderstanding, or incapacity to give an answer. That person either doesn't know what to give, cannot commit to the idea, or doesn't know what to do. It's anyones guess. You can't pry open that persons brain, that would be forcing them, coercion, something that does not belong in the process of getting the answer, because the answer cannot be coerced, cannot be forced, lest it become empty and meaningless. So many times you've asked the question, whatever particular question it is that will shift things to the next level, the reason is the same no matter the situation or the time.
You begin to doubt, but there is hope because there is no handbook for this, no set parameters for this to flourish, unlike what some movie would suggest, the rules are not concrete.
Maybe a little space can help, besides when that person turns away, you might see something else in that person's eyes, and you won't have to say anything because you'll finally, hopefully have your answer.
