There're two main issues:
1) having the same references and understanding of them;
2) following a reasoning other than our own.
It helps is essential to first establish a common definition and understanding of terminology before using references, otherwise the result is each person talking to themselves and nobody else grasping wtf they on about, because their understanding of the meaning of words is different, or cannibalizing their reasoning to fit oneself's understanding and narrative.
And while the latter always happens, because 3) no telepathy exists, the core issue is having the same understanding of terminology to start with, while acceptance of the other party's reasoning is a separate challenge. They are often intertwined because of failure at 1), even if conscious effort is made, because 3).
Example: The understanding of
a) God vs Devil as Good vs Evil, as a reference to morality in human experience;
b) God as an all knowing entity - is different from a) but often these two are correlated in religion, like Christianity;
c) Extending the meaning of God as an entity that represents existence, as a consciousness, a form of awareness at the scale of the Cosmos, thus beyond the human grasp of consciousness of the self, is different from a) and b). Problem.
This in itself a big challenge for most of the population trapped in the daily dream of thought, Eastern philosophies advocate practices like meditation in order to bridge that disconnect.
I my previous post, my reference of God was aligned with c), and I didn't make that clear, thus a potential can of clusterfuck ensued.
Can you superimpose that on one of your dancing avatar DJ's?
