rynodigsmusic

What are you babbling about? I have, quite honestly, absolutely no clue what you are saying. The words are definitely english, but beyond that I have no idea what language you think you are speaking. Would it be possible, just once, to get a straightforward, intelligible sentance out of you? Ok. I never claimed to be intelligent, but what exactly would you like to hear. I am quite surprised that you got nothing out of that, oh well, at least you made me laugh a bit! Look at it mathematically. I am going to assume that you like your life and think life is good. So.. xlife=xgood therefore xgood=xlife. "We didn't start the fire"

What the hell are you talking about? "True" is a word we use to tag a piece of information that is correct, "False" is another word we use to tag a piece of information that is not correct. If you ask me the question "What is 2+2" I would give the answer "4" and that would be true. That does not mean that some sort of entity called truth has guided me to the correct answer, just that I know some basic addition. Honestly, you can't just pick words at random and then argue by definition and common usage that these words must represent supernatural forces that have an objective existence. What makes something true to us is called proof. Without proof there is nothing true to us. However, proof only expsoses truth, therefore truth is the foundation of proof. Before you knew what 2+2 even was, truth was there. Just because you havent found proof, doesnt mean that there is not the truth underneath. I mean, you use physics and mathematics all the time to prove truth. How do you not see that truth is greater? And if truth is greater then it must be universal, and if it is universal and we are in the universe, then truth would apply, beyond mathematics and physics to the very nature of our being, perhaps even in ways that havent been "proven" or even "seen" yet? Instead of looking at God as just some sort of random entity. Look at what truth is, and what wisdom is, look at the greater invisible qualities of the human spirit, those which inspire, and desire to share and be shared. Look at what is good and right, look at the power of fear. Look at life in all its beauty, creativity, and passion. Look at everything, then look inside yourself and see that you are not seperate of anything, but are a part of everything. On the surface, you feel as if you are in the sky, but in truth you are a part of it as the same power which bore the sky and set its limits is the same power which gave you life and desired you to connect with it. The ego is what gets in the way of us seeing that we are merely a drop in the ocean. The ocean isnt beautiful becasue of us, we are beautiful becasue of the ocean. The same with love. Love isnt beautiful becasue of us, we are beautiful becasue of love. "We didn't start the fire"

Only life can fill you with life? Ok, after you've printed that out and stuck it into your "My First Truism" book could you explain just what it is that is supposed to mean, and how it has any relevance at all to an argument in favour of the existence of god? What does that mean? What do you mean when you say wisdom? Wisdom, not in our traditionally defined sense of the word. When you look at instincts in nature, nature shows wisdom; when you see life evolve with its surroundings, life shows wisdom. Now humans have the greatest ability to recieve wisdom, and even with our greatest minds in collaboration, everything we learn through education and searching comes down to a foundation of truth. Like panning for gold...Wisdom is the foundation. Man will only prove wisdom, as wisdom was here first. But there is something greater than even wisdom, thanks to Jesus, I believe it is love. There is a common misconception that Jesus is a pansy because he is full of love, yet love takes more courage than anything. Nature shows us an extreme amount of care, beauty, reliablility, provision, even at the destruction and wrath it brings, it shows more care than anything. That connection shows the nature of wisdom to posess care, and therefore love. I didnt make that connection until Jesus, and when I did, my entire perception changed and indeed is changing still as love continues to soften my once calloused heart. The Gospel..."May they be ever seeing, but never percieving, ever hearing but never understanding becasue this peoples heart has become calloused" "We didn't start the fire"

Sigh. Power is defined as unit of work per unit of time. Can love do work? E.g. I love skydiving, but that love alone doesn't get the plane to altitude. So, yes, I can deny the power of love. I have that ability since I'm not Huey Lewis. I guess this is a good a place as any to stop. Good conversation. "We didn't start the fire"

Undeniable, huh? Let's test that theory. Let me go on record as saying your supernatural god does not exist. In other words, I just denied him. I guess he's not so undeniable after all. The immutable natural laws are true because they're immutable, not vice versa. Quote On this we disagree. "We didn't start the fire"

It's no trick. It's a fairly common writing technique to rewrite the introductory sentence to create the concluding sentence, or vice versa. Their respective purposes are different, but their content is often similar. Outside of gambling, I can't think of any reason. Since I've not proposed any wager, it's a safe bet, so to speak, that I'm not trying to trick you. Isn't that what Speakers Corner is about? I get to practice my typing skills. In my spare time, I destroy galaxy clusters and buy whiskey and cigarettes for preschoolers. That doesn't sound so bad, does it? It is funny to me that I was the one accused of being the deciever, but then you show me that your the one using deception. There is a difference is using persuasion with truth as the intent, and using persuasion with deception as the intent. Those who use truth will be used by truth, those who use deception will be used by deception. I wonder how many people you have led astray? I think your playing with fire personally and that your mind is your greatest adversary. "We didn't start the fire"

What concept are you incorrectly calling truth? Truth is that which in accordance with fact or reality. Also, notice I said "immutable natural laws" and gave laws of physics as examples. While I suspect that most, if not all, natural laws can be reduced to laws of physics, I'm not going to make that assertion in this discussion. How you possibly came to the conclusion that truth is greater than immutable natural laws with God defined as the universe is beyond me. No, it wouldn't and couldn't. Truth doesnt meddle in the affairs of man? Remember that next time you make a promise to someone or next time you answer a question with a yes or no. "We didn't start the fire"

Are you defining God as the universe (i.e. God = universe = God)? A self aware universe is a scientifically observable phenomenon. Defining God as that universe is certainly not unheard of. However, by that definition, God's laws are the laws of physics, etc., immutable natural laws, impossible to violate. Such a God would have no capacity to meddle with the affairs of man, except by those natural laws. What about truth? If there are immutable laws of physics, they surely operate under the truth right, yet it seems you can have truth without physics. So the law wouldnt necessarily be about physics, but about the greater truth in physics, making truth greater than even the laws of physics. Surely truth would meddle in even the affairs of man. "We didn't start the fire"

Because you disagreed with: Rational people do not intentionally do anything they consider to be wrong. but absolutely agreed with: Every intentional action is correct from the perspective from which it is made. despite them being substantially the same statement. Im telling you the truth, I am confused still...this sounds like a trick to me. Why would you trick me anyway? Are you possibly the one using persuasion? What exactly do you gain from this? Your mind is very powerful, but I would rather have power in the heart than in the mind, I just hope your using your mind for good. "We didn't start the fire"

What are you talking about? I never made any such claim. I said one does not have to believe in a god in order to be spiritual, not that people who believe in God are not spiritual. That doesn't make it any less reasonable. -Two different perceptions. What is completely unreasonable to one is reasonable to another. "We didn't start the fire"

That's exactly what I thought when you simultaneously disagreed and "absolutely agreed" with the same statement. I guess your gonna have to explain that. Try rereading the post with the paragraph in question. It should be blatantly obvious. I did, several times. Its not. I said a while back that evil works in deception, that the nazis loved one another and believed in their cause (true nazis). I agree that just because someone does something they think is right, doesnt mean that it is. But what you said first was something different. You said that a rational person does not intentionally do something he knows is wrong, and I said, that I have done many things I know was wrong, and if that makes me an irrational person then fine. The difference is that I am admitting that what I did was wrong, and the people you spoke of in the second part of your paragraph couldnt see their wrong. Therein lies the difference. So how is it that I agree and disagree at the same time? "We didn't start the fire"

Perception. Yes, we agree on this. We do actually agree on things you know. That shows similarities in our beliefs. I didn't make that claim; you did. I simply didn't bother to correct you immediately. I'll try to do better next time and point out every manner in which you're wrong, instead of just the highlights. Ok, so you dont believe life is a miracle. Now we know what one of our primary differences is, besides Gods existance...and I think you do quite well in pointing out all the ways in which I am wrong in your eyes. I told you, if I am wrong, I will admit it, but you and I are looking through two almost completely different lenses...our perceptions are very different. "We didn't start the fire"

What does that even mean? Seriously - what concept is it you are trying to convey here? In every post you make it seems like you take so much trouble to compose everything in lovely flowery language that you completely forget to check whether it is at all comprehensible or logical. Look up "Sophistry" in the dictionary, then take a look in the mirror. The same thing which gave you life in your mothers womb also gave you desires which only it can fill. That is, only life can fill you with life. What I mean as far as the earth being self sustaining is just that. I never said it wasnt vulnerable to destruction, I said it is self sustainable...it doesnt need us. Just look at nature, life has wisdom. I was using sarcasm in my initial post, I am sorry about that. I had only 5 minutes to reply and I should have waited and given it more thought. I find that I am becoming quite addicted to you all. "We didn't start the fire"

The three examples I gave were Buddhism, Taoism, and (to a lesser extent than the other two) Confucianism. Right, you call them spiritual, but not those who believe in God, who is called spirit by the same Gospel that you know so much about. That's probably the most reasonable thing you've said lately. It was sarcasm, something you should be quite familiar with. "We didn't start the fire"

How can a post contain as many words as this and yet remain completely devoid of all meaning? Seriously, this is a fantastic demonstration of why I'm an atheist. Anything that motivates people write stuff as incomprehensible as this and yet still maintain the belief that they're talking sense, really cannot be a good thing. Okay, I got it, your an atheist, the giver of your own life and creater of your own destiny...I got it. But how is it again that you can completely deny Gods existance? "We didn't start the fire"

You clearly no little to nothing about any of the three religions I mentioned (as well as other religions that don't require a supernatural being). In other words, you're talking out of your ass. I don't know that there is a single defining characteristic. There is certainly no need to believe in a god. Your right, the earth is only perfectly self sustaining in so many ways, there is no way that wisdom could be responsible for that, and there is certainly no way that wisdom is love and care nor could it be a provider of the deepest needs and wants of that which it creates "We didn't start the fire"

That's exactly what I thought when you simultaneously disagreed and "absolutely agreed" with the same statement. I guess your gonna have to explain that. "We didn't start the fire"

Uh, no they haven't. Recognizing the fact that there is zero evidence to support an Intelligent Designer or Creator is not the same as claiming to have life all figured out. There are lots of unanswered questions remaining in Biology. I think you'll have a difficult time finding any biologists who claim otherwise. Ok, im a little confused now. You do believe that life is a miracle? Zero evidence, my goodness, What do you think the beauty on the earth is all about? You can claim there is no evidence of something greater all you want, but you cant claim that life is a miracle and that there is nothing greater at the same time. "We didn't start the fire"

Are you claiming that Taoists, Buddhists, and Confucianists lack spirituality? The Tao is not a god. The Buddha was not a god, nor did he worship one. Confucius was not a god, nor is Confucianism based on worshiping a god. God is spirit. The creator of even you...he is life...and he is invisible. What makes a man spiritual is that he finds power in what is invisible...oneness, whatever you want to call it. Not admitting that it is God, means that you submit that there is something greater than yourself, but you dont admit it. People want to be spiritual, but do not want to call thier "higher being", or "balancer", God, even though, they gladly call him the "higher being" or "balancer". What do you think makes a man spiritual? "We didn't start the fire"

Excellent strawman. Who has claimed to "have the miracle of life all figured out"? Uh. Those who believe it is not a miracle. "We didn't start the fire"

Fortunately for me, since I think the whole sin concept is a load of crap, then I can't be guilty of sin. Thus, the proverbial Christ didn't die for my sins, since my non belief in sin eliminates the possibility of me being a sinner. I consider myself a rational person and I have done many things I considered to be wrong. Even still, if saying that makes me irrational, then so be it, I would rather be a man of truth, than a man of rationale. I absolutely agree with you on this. Do you find it odd that you disagree with that paragraph's introductory sentence, but you "absolutely agree" with the same sentence, reworded, as the concluding sentence of the paragraph? what???? "We didn't start the fire"

I dunno, fear I guess. That and the fact that you kinda need a woman for that. I think Ive always been afraid of commitment. My brother gave me a little puppy for Christmas a couple of years ago, he spent a fortune on it...I sold it to a freind about 3 mos later. The truth sucks sometimes. "We didn't start the fire"

And most adults can use their ability to reason and find those things. Many realize that those things are unrelated to invisible spirits and mythological creatures. I personally find it ridiculous because it establishes linkage between those things and a spirit. You can live a good and moral life without worrying about the opinion of Santa Claus or the adult religious flavor of that. Many people desire belief because it is a desperate attempt. They can't cope without an emotional crutch. And now we are at the threshold of a non beliver and a believer. I believe that "those things" are founded in love and goodness. God dying for me is an endless ocean of beauty, and connects me to the earth and life in ways that living without God could never do. "We didn't start the fire"

Its much deeper than that. Understanding why we are here isnt the pursuit of my spiritual path, its getting the most out of life that is. I also find it a bit funny that one is not considered a free thinker if hes found to be a spiritual man, it is actually quite the opposite. I read his words a little differently: that free thinkers may not find their need(s) for spirituality satisified through organized, dogmatic, traditional religious institutions and structures.Quote I had to re-read this, and I agree with you. Spirituality is much deeper than mans definition of it, just as God is much deeper than mans definition. Now if your saying that spirituality can be found without God, then I disagree. "We didn't start the fire"

Right. This from the patron saint of thread hijacking. Your right. I have noticed that I do this. Its really not intentional, im trying to just go with the flow of the conversation. I believe I was a little frustrated with your reply, very sorry. Now that we know I do this, we'll consider it a problem of mine, just like typing too much and not answering questions directly...I am relitively new to the forums, and I am trying to work on all of this. Whatever, you don't think you're judging us non-believers by constantly preaching to us and trying to get us to believe in your point of view? Enjoy your delusion. Im giving you the truth of the Gospel, so that you will at least have it (I am fully open to rebuke from those who know the Gospel as well, and I am always open to spiritual wisdom on any front). In my opinion, I believe it is more delusional to believe that we to have the miracle of life all figured out. But that is only my opinion. "We didn't start the fire"