lindyhopper

Steve!...hint...."So I Married an Axe Murderer" Rlady...but of course.

I think it was listed as a fruit because it is bitter at first and oh so sweet at the end and best when peeled. mmmmm MMMMm.

Well Chwebster, if there is a God, you could say that God did. In fact, not being able to prove one religion any better than another, we all do exactly that, chose the one that works for us or fits us best. You do it. I do it. Everybody does it. Unless of course you have studied every possible religion as much as you have Christianity and have coem to some sort of hidden truth and proof in the Bible...then maybe you don't. On the surface, all religions look equally wrong and right. In reality they are just that. But it takes the Believer to go and find the real truth within each religion. Am I wrong? Without believing (faith) in Christianity can I ever know its truth and power? The same is true for the rest of religion. You must believe that it is true in order to "see" that it is true. Quite the paradox. We would be idiots to choose the moldy tomatoes at the salad bar. Everyone must use thier head and not just believe the sign "fresh tomatoes". On the other hand, if you are French, maybe you prefer the mold. Yum! If there isn't a god...well you don't exactly need authority to use your brain. It's a package deal with most people.

I saw an amazing truth in the store the other day. Apparently, this woman bore her alien love-child. AMAZING! You know the old saying, "don't believe everything that you read". Well, as you know, it doesn't apply to the Bible....because it is the real truth. Didn't David Koresh (sp?) claim to be the returned Christ or something. Well, if he didn't there are at least a hand full or two or thousand that have claimed something similar. But, clearly they are wrong, because.....well because. Actually, we can't prove any of those people to be wrong anymore than we can prove that Jesus was right. There in lies the problem. Well, not my problem....yours. There was also another great guy, incredible seer, Joseph Smith. You see he actually found the original golden paged scrolls of the what we know today as the Book of Mormon. They were given to him by the angle Moroni. Yep that is "moron" with an "i". Moroni was also nice enough to give Joe a set of translatin' specticles, so he could write it in English and sell lots of books, er I mean spread the truth concerning the Latter Day Saints and the true history of North America. He actually had witnesses that saw the golden paged scrolls and specticles and saw him translate it. They even signed affidavits attesting to the veracity of the claims. That is pretty convincing. Before the book was published they needed to pay the printer. Joe couldn't afford the fee but thankfully God told one of Joes closest testifiers (by way of Joe)...."I command that thou shalt not covet thine own property, but part it freely to the printing.......And misery thou shalt recieve, if thou wilt slight these counsels; yea, even the destruction of thyself and property....Pay the printer's debt!" Well, God fearing as he was, he paid the printer and praise the Lord now the world has available to them, the greatest book since the Bible...The Book of Mormon. And because of this the LDS clan is the fastest growing religion in the world. That should tell you something as well, don't you think. It must be true. Well that is the closest thing we have to the Bible today. But we don't even have the original writings of the Bible. We don't know squat about the writers of the most holy book in the world. At least not like we know about Joseph Smith. Like the fact that before he was a bonafide spiritual supernova he was a fortune teller. He used his seein stone to help folks find burried Indian treasures and artifacts. Well he never actually helped anyone, but he sure told them where that treasure would be, they must not have been looking hard enough. Maybe they didn't "master" what Joe said. We do know that later he used that lucky stone to finish traslating the Book of Mormon after the magic specticles were broken. So at least with the Book of Mormon we have Joe Smith's outstanding credencials. We don't have that with the writers of the Bible, but I'm sure they were at least as qualified and bonafide as Joe. After all it is the truth.

Everyone else is evil and wrong and and and dummy-heads. :P-->

Perhaps I should have said Christian religions. But... Perhaps it is because the Bible was written (for the most part) to a captive people. No?

I think that those preaching salvation should perhaps take a little more thought in thier delivery. One should consider thier audiance before opening thier mouth. Anyone who has taken a public speaking course or a speach class will know that what people hear you say, how well they remember it (like remember what you said or that you were constantly picking your ear), whether or not they enjoyed it etc etc., are all contingent upon the presentation of your idea. TWI used to tout that it was our responsibility to speak, it was not our concern whether they believed. That was the witnessee's problem. We were told this over and over in reference to going door to door or putting ourselves in other socially aukward situations just so we could speak or "keep the adversary busy". ha. Lines like "hey babe, would you like to be clothed with righteousness" are no better than sleezy bar pick-up lines. The girl, or whoever, always sees through it. The condemning-guilt-lined-attemps at salvation. What sort of mind set is a person in where they need and allow someone to tell them how terrible they are before they get "saved"? It seems pretty obivious to me who the target audiance is. Why is it that many religions focus their marketing on this perticular population?

nicely put, C dubya.

You guys don't really want to see my "Oh" face. I'm not into public-fourm displays of affection.

I like the movie as well, even though saw the ending coming early on. It was interesting and entertaining and a little scary. Well done. But then, I'm easily entertained.

To be clear... It is able to be measured, thru experiments to find it's charge, mass, it's nature as a wavelength, its wavelength, etc. Note. Louis DeBroglie's hypothesis would have been tossed aside if the Davisson-Germer Experiment was never performed or did not confirm it. That is the way science works for the most part. The only reason that science as a whole accepts the idea of an electron or its particle/wave duality, is because it can be observed on some level. Another interesting fact. Before we new what air was or a sneeze was or wind was, they were thought to be spirits in many cultures including that of the Bible. Hence, "God Bless You" after a sneeze. Much later on, we found out what air consists of, why it moves, why it is cold at times and hot at others, what makes us sick, what an allergen is, how it all affects us, and on and on and on....all by hypothesising, experimenting, and observing, as well as the occasional "happy accident". Faith in the sneezing spirit, turned out to be false. So has the spirit of the wind and air and many other things that were once thought to be spirit. Our certainty of thier existence has pushed spirit our into the "super-natural" were it can not be disproved, or proved for that matter. How convenient. So we are at an impasse. That is unless Zix posts his formula. Actually, I just reread that post and realised that there is no need to post it. because... So I guess the whole "As evidenced by previous discussions of similar topics, math just makes some folks' heads hurt, and analogies just make their eyes cross" was not needed, since Zix doesn't totaly understand it himself. Which gives abi's point of... ...a little more weight. In other words, not knowing all the constants and variables or even knowing how many there are we can not claim that prayer is only ansered for Christians. Not only that but since we can not prove the existence of God (Christian or otherwise) then we can not prove any of its attributes and can not claim its religious affiliation, if you will. The fact that the concept of God is based on faith means that everything about that god is based on faith. Or as Zix and I both put it, "a guess". The more involved one gets in a religious belief system the more you build one guess upon another. I am not talking about a religious phylosophy, but its theology.

Don't stop, Abi, your doing just fine. Please, put it out there. Who cares if you think others won't understand you, that has never stopped you before. If we don't understand it or question it or dismiss it, that will help you clarify your stance, and the ability to comunicate it, hopefully. And dare I say, that at times one's comprehension of your ideas is in part due to your ability to expess them clearly, or lack there of. But, if there is a formula, I would like to know it. I'm sure everyone would.

After seeing the errors I made and apologised, I hoped that perhaps it would wear off on some of you. It doesn't appear that it has in some cases. So I would like to ask those of you who are still doubting challenging and disbelieving a question or two. Is being right so important that it is worth hurting someone? Someone who has already been abused? In the years after my experience of sexual abuse, I repressed those memories to the point that it almost felt like it wasn't real. It wasn't untill I was presured by my leadership that I finally told someone. Not the best case senario. Abuse takes on many forms and damages in many ways, but first and foremost it damages you in your head. Memories are a funny thing. But denying someones memories whether they are factual or otherwise can be a damaging thing in and of itself. Is that really what you want to do? Or do you just want to think you are right? In the end does it really matter? What would we have to loose if waysurvivor was a lurking lawyer? If you do have something to loose I would suggest keeping quite, but I doubt that most of us do. None of us know waysurvivor personally (that we know of). None of us are her therapist. I doubt that any of us are anyone's therapist (hopefully not). So, I don't feel that it is our place to question an unknown person's memories of abuse. I may be wrong. CW probably has much more experience in this than I do, but that is my opinion, and I hope we stop all this. From what others say, about the black robes, ws saying she stayed in a room w/ her father and sibling, all the other accounts of abuse we've read over the years, we should not be suprised at this point. All this doubting and denial sounds like someone who's name begins with an "O" and ends with a "ldiesman". You wouldn't want that would you. ;)-->

That seems a little inconsistent with the actual history of Christianity. From what I have read it's long lasting flavor seemed to to have to do with a generally appealing phylosophy and the power to back it up. That and the fact that one of its tenets is to proselytize....and the power to back that up. I have a hunch that if I would have prayed to Papa Smurf before the interview of my now, new job, that I would still have gotten it. This is my limited and short lived perspective on things. Good things happen to those that pray to the Christian god, Budda, Alla, the devil, those that don't pray, those that don't deserve it, agnostics, aetheists, dogs, Jewish folks, dictators, the ants in my kitchen, everyone I know and everyone I don't know. Bad things also happen to them all, especially those damn ants. Some receive a little more of one than the other, some a lot more, sometimes it makes sense and sometimes it doesn't.

zix, I think that is the point. I can't deny that faith is not confined to religion. In fact, you might have noticed on Abigail's thread "Why Faith" that I admitted to having faith in people and in life. I know I could come up with many more things as well. For me personally, (Let me be clear in that) the legitamacy of that faith, is directly proportionate to what we know about the nature of the invisible thing/ concept in which it lies. For example, Def, told me that faith in humans is pointless, knowing how disapointing they can be. But my faith which is really coupled with hope takes that into account and hopes for the best. I know experiencially and thru history of the great things we can do. I don't know what someone's actions will be (not knowing the future, they are invisible) but I have faith in their ability and hope for the best. So in light of the teleporting electron, I don't think it is so "seemingly impossible" because we know a little about the duality of subatomic particles. We know that a photon has been "digitally" teleported. So knowing a little about the nature of the object in which faith is being placed, it seems more plausible...more like an educated guess. Not knowing the nature of God, for me, makes it less of an educated guess and more of just an unqualifiable and unfounded guess. At least for now. No more credible than to say something as outrageous as "Smurfs exist and Papa Smurf created the universe". You can't disprove that smurfs exist or that Papa created us, so it is a possibility, probably not a credible possibility for most but still a possibility. You may think they are three apples high, but have you seen one? And how do we not know that "apples" is not just "fruit", a metaphor for life. 3 apples = completeness. I could really get involved.

Hail King DMiller He just said Trefor and Bush/Cheney in the same post. You tho thilly.

Zix, I never would have thought that you would post something that I would intentionaly say. You think of it in a positive way, I think of it as not so positive. As the Church Lady would say, "How conveeeeenient." :)-->

Waysurvivor, I don't know, a moment of weekness, I suppose. I thought about what I wrote last night during the day today and I felt terrible about. You have my most sincere apologies. One for calling you a liar and two for being the one that started all this. Although around here, being that your story was what it was, I don't doubt that someone else would have been right behind me to try to discredit it. As I thought it over today, I felt bad knowing that even if the parts of your story that seemed uncredible, it shouldn't have mattered to me. Whether you were telling the truth, telling partial truth and partial exagerated memories, or whether it was a complete fabrication, the possibility of me calling a true victim a liar totally outweights the possibility of your story being untrue, whether you were an exwayfer or not. SO, again I am sorry. If you were 7 in 82, then we would be the same age. If you were there on a weekend in 84, maybe we crossed paths. I would like to know more about the parts of your story that I thought were questionable, not to try to qualify your story, but because if true they are some of the most outrageous things I have heard about the way or its members and I would be very interested in knowing a little more. Like being put in a box with spiders, the men chasing you in black robes. Other things that I thought were a little contrary to my memory were you having your own room and there being a TV room. But at the age of seven I realise that both of our memories could be off. Well, I guess I should speak for myself. Your interest, in creative writing, also thru me for a loop, this being your first post and it sounding so contrary to my experience. But my first post was a long descriptive one as well. So wht can I say. I fell for the "my experience being more true" trap. Agian, regardless of whether you were in twi or not or whether your story is true or not, I am sorry for assuming.

Waysurvivor, Just saw your profile. Creative writing is one of your intersts. Go figure.

Waysurvivor, Whatever happened to you, and I don't doubt that something did, you have posted one of the most elaborate and creative lies on this board that I have ever read. Congratulations. How's bout putting that creativity to some good use. This board is trying to do good by telling the truth. Things that are clearly untrue, don't help us. But I am sorry if something happened to you when you were young. Sounds like a classic case. To the T. If for some crazy reason I am wrong, which seems very unlikely, please forgive me. But this story doesn't match our bunch. A box with spiders? Men in black robes? Dunkings in water? TV room? Sounds spooky. I was one of those way kids and I was at Gunnison for a time around 84'. Things like this didn't happen. Nice try though, thank you for playing.

At the risk of beating a dead horse....(die horse die!) But hopefully being a little more clear. Zix, By "natural fact" I did not mean it occured in nature, so perhaps I mis-spoke. I was certainly misunderstood. Nor was my use of "jump" literal. In your example, "teleporting" does not guess at WHY an electron disappears in one orbit and reappears in another. The reasons are known, the perameters are set up by those setting up the experiment. Set up by people that have already "teleported" a photon (but not really in the sense that most trekies would think). It is all done by NATURAL means and is observable. Maybe not by the naked eye but at the very least is measurable. "Teleporting" is an eduacated guess at WHAT is happening. It is only plausible because we know a few things about electrons, like they exist as particles, as waves, as well as something like a haze of energy. It is a WHAT is happening claim. God is a not only a WHAT is happening but a WHY its happening, and a WHO is doing it claim. All of which are not educated guesses, because, as you pointed out, "natural deduction is null without a nature to work with". So it is just a guess. Not that there's anything wrong with that. :)--> At the point of your death if God is not true, so could your notion of God being de facto. So we are back to your best statement ever which was I like you much better when your honest. You may think you will be better off if you are right and I am wrong but if the Bible is true or at least one interpretation of the Bible is true, there will be a "second death" of which there is no return. Which is what I already believe happens after our first death, and I am totaly fine with that. If you are right, my first death will only be a sort of "near death experience" only to be followed by an actual death. That is of course if one version of Christianity is true. As SirG said there are so many different brands. So I ask you again, On your death bed would you plea for your life to all the other possible gods? There are a lot to consider and I doubt you know them all, so why not cover all your bases? If you don't you are no different than the rest of us clinging to one unverifiable belief in the face of infinite possiblilities. Only the agnostic assumes that that they could be wrong and that it is most likely not possible to know which is right. The question leads to Abigails other thread "Why Faith". We always end up here. It is Faith, no more no less. Why bother with all the attempts at verification of sudo-similarities. It all boils down to a belief in the invisible, unproovable, unverifiable. We all do it to some degree. No need to say mine is better than yours. Untill the cat is let out of the box we are all equally blind, equally right, and equally wrong.

Laleo, I second Oak's statement that your giving Zix too much credit. Though I see where you get that idea. It seems to me that many of his posts are contradictory. He makes statements like "They guess, but they have no good answer, because natural deduction is null without a nature to work with" but then pulls out his natural deduction and uses it as if it is his spiritual numbchucks. He comes true only after much proding and probing when he says, "The only difference is in the questions--our understanding of the answers is equally foggy, if we're honest." But prior to that statement and pretty much ever since he berates those of differing opinions, trying to justify his belief system and trying prove his superior logic. IMO This is his the only motive. He does it by using analogies or comparisons that many times people are unfamiliar with, all the while using language that is deceptive and disingenuous. Any points made by others are dismissed out of hand or are overshadowed by every minor mistake of which he decides to capitalised on.

continued... You mean like how you try to force reality as we all know it into your little narrow framework? Your right that is arrogant. How about how you don't consider all the other possible explanations of what you think is God working in your life. (statement based on experiences you've posted here, only.) You base your belief on the Bible and your experiences, then claim our beliefs are childish, arrogant,and self-centered. Yours are no different. I question it and try to understand it but I am not threatened by that. Why are you? Your teleporting electron story, while it makes you seem well read and scientific, is an inaccuate discription of the agnostic or even aetheist view. The fact that the electron makes an invisible jump from one orbit to another is not in question. The question is whether Scotty beamed it over or not. God is not a natural fact like a jumping electron is. God is an unverifieable claim for why things happen or have happened a certain way. All this reminds me of a great thread we had.... Here it is, Science and the Bible Here is a highlight. IMHO (lol) That last one is where we should be. Zix, deep down, you realise that we all have nothing more to accept than "foggy" answers. So, there is no reason to continue blowing smoke. We all already know it is just fog.

Zixy, Actually, it is more or less. I added a bit. I'm not being petty. I'm answering a petty question. Simply, those that believe Jesus is the Christ, believe in a god. I don't believe in a god. SO, I don't believe Jesus is the Christ. You know this. So the question is, why would you want someone to renouce JC? Not a straw man, man. Don't be so literal. In relation to your belief system, you don't except other possiblities outside of it, that may make your beliefs wrong. That seems unacceptable to you. This is based on our discussions in the past. An obsernvation. So, unless you are made of straw.... Ah, so YOU are the one being petty. And amusement isn't a form of pleasure for you? I feel sorry for you. I suspect it is. So which is it? Perhaps I am not the one needing the dicitonary. You might want to look up skepticand [/url]agnostic. They don't have to do with ruling anything out, but being doubtful and questioning the status quo. I not, and I don't think others are, being touchy. When it come to your deathbed, Yes. As Abigail pointed out, good fathers have the right to and should bend the rules at times. Your god sound more like a referee or a lawyer than a father. Plus you are assuming your god is the true god. Would you renounce JC on your deathbed just in case the real god hated Christians? I'm sure you think I'm being petty again. Actually, it is really silly, and my feathers arn't being ruffled. You are being rather amusing to me. I'm laughing and scratching my head, not yelling and cursing. I think your misunderstanding has a little to do with this bing the internet (you not seeing my face), bad reading comprehension, and mostly you just trying to make me look emotional and stupid....and therefore wrong. I'm neither. It does. Connect the dots. I said: you said: True, but you don't know that anymore than I do my statement. And I think this is at the core of most of our issues. By questioning and stating my point of view, I am NOT trying to threaten your intelligence or ability to reason. NONE of my posts have attacked your beliefs as they relate to you, only how they relate to me. (at least not untill I have been attacked) There is nothing inherently illogical in disbelief, questioning, and doubting. this has been long. to be continued.... (don't bother pointing out spelling mistakes. I am not checking, it is late, and I don't care. I hope you are able to get the gist. -->)

As to whether or not I ever truly believed... Good question, I have wondered that myself. hard to say. Got to go to work. I have a job now. Guess that means I can start eating again.