dancing

I'll go along with that one Bramble. Not to count out external input though.

If it remains objective the connection will not be seen. It must me subjective also,not exclusively though. Cause when Spirit which is already within begins to Activate, because of subjective and objective reasoning from within, the connection is 'in the air', that space where there is nothing. If you will hear me out, or others, they can attest to and confirm that one must die to see God, not physically, though for most it will be. To die to your own self in order to see from a new eye. to pour old wine in a new bottle would burst the bottle. So it is with the spirit, the old must die for the new to be seen. Or felt or heard or sensed or any of these things to happen. Yes, faith, but faith in what lindy? In what we have figured out or have we let our heart guide us. In other words are we selfish with what we believe, meaning do we 'stand' on some type of theory or teaching or person-including ourself. Or are we to be fluid #2, and just see what is being shown to us. It's no joke or trick or anything like that when I said peace must be there. It has to be. Since it's already in you this is where the search is. And objectively the spirit will meet the spirit subjectively. So the words that are heard are to be heard subjectively in order to meet this Spirit. Objectivity can stop some from making it to the mark. Cause of variables in our minds. Fear of the unknown. Fear of loosing control or loosing what you already have. But if you already really have it you will never loose it. What you know Lindy will be expanded upon and better known, therefore killing off the old knowledge in light of the new and bringing with it that which brought you there.

i like number 2 lindy what is faith really unseen what does this mean if faith is not seen then how is it perceived can a presence be known by actual contact without seeing with the physical eye? no man can see God and live blessed are the pure in heart for they shall see God see any connection? pure...heart....seeing... is this with the physical eye? there is a belief and many beliefs about seeing God or Christ with the physical eye man wants to conquer it all see it all and say yes now i know not so with the spirit it is constantly progressing once 'seen' or it can be quenched....... it has to be spiritual that which is seen in the mind is not physical can one take a thought and see it physically? we are spiritual beings as a base of thinking thoughts sure you can see the trees, buildings and even parts of the air if you have a very powerful microscope but what is there that's making it work together

Circular-No that which can be conquered is not God yeah-got it all figured with definitions and correlations Not he comes AGAIN and sets the wisdom of on a tailspin

to know something is to be fluid in that knowledge to be able to grow in it and within it otherwise it is dead and unfruitful and will be pulled roots and all

Dear Bramble, You are not charged with interpreting the bible. God is. As well as that which is shown to you. Which is more then the scriptures offer. Then and only then will the scriptures have a word for you. It is not our job to interpret. We learn what it says. We learn what others say. God opens the eyes. There is no other that can. In the silence of peace. In the undistracted mind lies within it, the greatness of what is already in you.

Certainly Oakspear, it is practiced, that which God has not said. To faith in God, I would think one must know who God is. His speech, which is pouring out day and night. yet the voice is not heard, ears have closed, in favor of that which can be conquered.

can't find- "Believing that whatever happens is part of God's unfathomable will is not much different than believing in random chance."

10My defence is of God, which saveth the upright in heart. 11God judgeth the righteous, and God is angry with the wicked every day. 12If he turn not, he will whet his sword; he hath bent his bow, and made it ready. 13He hath also prepared for him the instruments of death; he ordaineth his arrows against the persecutors. 14Behold, he travaileth with iniquity, and hath conceived mischief, and brought forth falsehood. 15He made a pit, and digged it, and is fallen into the ditch which he made. 16His mischief shall return upon his own head, and his violent dealing shall come down upon his own pate. 11He made darkness his secret place; his pavilion round about him were dark waters and thick clouds of the skies. 12At the brightness that was before him his thick clouds passed, hail stones and coals of fire. 13The LORD also thundered in the heavens, and the Highest gave his voice; hail stones and coals of fire. 14Yea, he sent out his arrows, and scattered them; and he shot out lightnings, and discomfited them. 15Then the channels of waters were seen, and the foundations of the world were discovered at thy rebuke, O LORD, at the blast of the breath of thy nostrils. 16He sent from above, he took me, he drew me out of many waters. 17He delivered me from my strong enemy, and from them which hated me: for they were too strong for me. 18They prevented me in the day of my calamity: but the LORD was my stay. 19He brought me forth also into a large place; he delivered me, because he delighted in me.

sometimes what we think is not the case i've found that Mylanta (over the counter) helps with heartburn and pressure So does alkeselzer As we get older our body changes and we must help it at times. See a doctor if needed. If you have, follow the instructions. But be sure to tell the doctor exactly what is happening. They cannot see the unseen, but you know the symptoms. Live long in this present world. The new one will still be there. Love Always

Abi you rock, Now about those verses about 'quiverfull'. Does most people think it's talking about children being born from sexual interaction? Or could there be other perspectives to be seen?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical

There was no philosophical point which is a contradiction of terms. Philosophical and point. And there is plenty of statistical evidence. Not only proving that special interest groups do harm. But also the way in which the bible is being used to tell people what to do. And why is this automatically thought to be about one having a lot of offspring as in littlepeople of whom they are responsible for. Lack of spiritual sight and hearing. So if one doesn't have a lot of kids, then their is shame? And can't speak with the 'enemies' at the gate? Not happy? Ever even read what it says? Psalm 127 1 Except the LORD build the house, they labour in vain that build it: except the LORD keep the city, the watchman waketh but in vain. 2It is vain for you to rise up early, to sit up late, to eat the bread of sorrows: for so he giveth his beloved sleep. 3Lo, children are an heritage of the LORD: and the fruit of the womb is his reward. 4As arrows are in the hand of a mighty man; so are children of the youth. 5Happy is the man that hath his quiver full of them: they shall not be ashamed, but they shall speak with the enemies in the gate. Anecdotal- Anecdotal evidence is an informal account of evidence in the form of an anecdote, or hearsay. The term is often used in contrast to scientific evidence, as evidence that cannot be investigated using the scientific method. The problem with arguing based on anecdotal evidence is that anecdotal evidence is not necessarily typical; only statistical evidence can determine how typical something is. Misuse of anecdotal evidence is a logical fallacy. When used in advertising or promotion of a product, service, or idea, anecdotal evidence is often called a testimonial and is banned in some jurisdictions. The term is also sometimes used in a legal context to describe certain kinds of testimony. Psychologists have found that people are more likely to remember notable examples than the typical example. In all forms of anecdotal evidence, objective independent assessment may be in doubt. This is a consequence of the informal way the information is gathered, documented, presented, or any combination of the three. The term is often used to describe evidence for which there is an absence of documentation. This leaves verification dependent on the credibility of the party presenting the evidence. Thanks Excathedra.

excathedra said it well also hi ex...:)

So now you take this as a chance to attack me? Nice move slick. And what is wrong with being direct and to the point? Some call it whatever. I call it straight to the point. Bramble said it well also. You guys think I'm upset or whatever, I'm calling it like I see it. First Mark, you wanted a biblical argument, now you call it a philosophical point. And you think you are pushing buttons. I guess as you see it you are. But that isn't what's happening here.