good article

Originally Posted by miss_believed

i nearly said that!
automatic ban in 500 more posts.
too sad for the forums even lol that would be low.

yeah than we'd see someone named "miss_believed2" with 1 post shortly after.

[miss_believed]

Originally Posted by BeautifulLife

yeah than we'd see someone named "miss_believed2" with 1 post shortly after.

or unbelievable next time!")
or near miss
ill be more creative than 2 thats for sure, well i got 450 odd posts to annoy ppl with under this name yet anyway.

[miss_believed]

thinking about it a fresh start could be good! lol,
it could well be a blessing tbh.

Who wrote this and where did you find this article?

It's a bit of a confusing article. I'd say my TF fit "karmic soul mate" initially, which is why I moved on to DH, who fits "kindred spirit mate" very much so. But now TF is back and yes I can see we fit the "mirror" definition. It says in there these relationships "eventually work out." Does that mean they evolve into twin flames?

Doesn't seem so... since the article says twin flames "break your heart." Then it goes on to ask, "Is this person really here for me?", "Am I REALLY in a real and practical relationship with this person?", "Is this really healthy?" ... and well... what IS reality?? LOL. Seriously, see Tinks' thread on this.... I dunno; seems to me that the article writer is asking questions one might ask when evaluating an earthly relationship. That's not what twin flames are, is it? While I agree "is this really healthy" is a critical question to be asking, the rest sounds... conditional. You shouldn't need anyone to "be there for you" -- you should be there for yourself. Though yeah, my TF is there for me in spirit, internally, whenever I need him... but the article writer is talking about practicalities and realities... I think he/she means "living under same roof" "caring and providing" .... quite earthly matters.

Example: it's pretty clear to me Xan has a "real" twin flame... they don't live together and share an earthly life. That doesn't make their relationship any less "real."

[miss_believed]

Originally Posted by SerpentQueen

It's a bit of a confusing article. I'd say my TF fit "karmic soul mate" initially, which is why I moved on to DH, who fits "kindred spirit mate" very much so. But now TF is back and yes I can see we fit the "mirror" definition. It says in there these relationships "eventually work out." Does that mean they evolve into twin flames?

Doesn't seem so... since the article says twin flames "break your heart." Then it goes on to ask, "Is this person really here for me?", "Am I REALLY in a real and practical relationship with this person?", "Is this really healthy?" ... and well... what IS reality?? LOL. Seriously, see Tinks' thread on this.... I dunno; seems to me that the article writer is asking questions one might ask when evaluating an earthly relationship. That's not what twin flames are, is it? While I agree "is this really healthy" is a critical question to be asking, the rest sounds... conditional. You shouldn't need anyone to "be there for you" -- you should be there for yourself. Though yeah, my TF is there for me in spirit, internally, whenever I need him... but the article writer is talking about practicalities and realities... I think he/she means "living under same roof" "caring and providing" .... quite earthly matters.

Example: it's pretty clear to me Xan has a "real" twin flame... they don't live together and share an earthly life. That doesn't make their relationship any less "real."

hm i don't agree with your last comment, no offense to xan but why the hell does xan have a real tf more than anyone else?
Just because one person writes good posts and is spiritually knowledgable does not make their connection more real than someone who's tf might be randy orton(sorry to bring that in again! lol)
but there is far too much of that on these boards thinking people who write well and know a bit more about spirit are having the 'real' connections and everyone else is just living in a dream world, im not saying some havn't reached better levels of acceptance in it, but lets face it noone knows whats right/wrong/real/unreal
and I definitely don't think xan's is anymore real than anyone else's at all.
Not saying it isn't and it's no personal attack on anyone i just think people need to stop judging connections on time spent on a forum and ability to write well and know your guides name.

[miss_believed]

Originally Posted by SerpentQueen

It's a bit of a confusing article. I'd say my TF fit "karmic soul mate" initially, which is why I moved on to DH, who fits "kindred spirit mate" very much so. But now TF is back and yes I can see we fit the "mirror" definition. It says in there these relationships "eventually work out." Does that mean they evolve into twin flames?

Doesn't seem so... since the article says twin flames "break your heart." Then it goes on to ask, "Is this person really here for me?", "Am I REALLY in a real and practical relationship with this person?", "Is this really healthy?" ... and well... what IS reality?? LOL. Seriously, see Tinks' thread on this.... I dunno; seems to me that the article writer is asking questions one might ask when evaluating an earthly relationship. That's not what twin flames are, is it? While I agree "is this really healthy" is a critical question to be asking, the rest sounds... conditional. You shouldn't need anyone to "be there for you" -- you should be there for yourself. Though yeah, my TF is there for me in spirit, internally, whenever I need him... but the article writer is talking about practicalities and realities... I think he/she means "living under same roof" "caring and providing" .... quite earthly matters.

Example: it's pretty clear to me Xan has a "real" twin flame... they don't live together and share an earthly life. That doesn't make their relationship any less "real."

i agree with the first nbit its a bit mixed up but there were interesting points, i cant remember the link i normally put it lemme go refind.

Originally Posted by miss_believed

does not make their connection more real than someone who's tf might be randy orton(sorry to bring that in again! lol)

oh you did NOT just go there...lol

[miss_believed]

Originally Posted by BeautifulLife

oh you did NOT just go there...lol

Originally Posted by miss_believed

hm i don't agree with your last comment, no offense to xan but why the hell does xan have a real tf more than anyone else?
Just because one person writes good posts and is spiritually knowledgable does not make their connection more real than someone who's tf might be randy orton(sorry to bring that in again! lol)
but there is far too much of that on these boards thinking people who write well and know a bit more about spirit are having the 'real' connections and everyone else is just living in a dream world, im not saying some havn't reached better levels of acceptance in it, but lets face it noone knows whats right/wrong/real/unreal
and I definitely don't think xan's is anymore real than anyone else's at all.
Not saying it isn't and it's no personal attack on anyone i just think people need to stop judging connections on time spent on a forum and ability to write well and know your guides name.

Just like to add that its not even about if the connection is real or not or if its even a real TF. Its the fact that those of us posting about our experiences ARE going through the same emotional struggle and seeking the same support be that through posting, reading or both. A child crying over the death of their dog is no less significant than someone crying over the loss of a good friend or even family memeber. Both are dealing with a significant loss to THEM and are therefore sharing the same experience of grief.