It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Who is behind the plain Biblical deceptions?
page: 6share:
Originally posted by orangetom1999
The only duality is the struggle between the two dogmas..the two priesthoods trying to do the work of thier god and God.
This is the struggle recorded from the first page of the Word to the Last.
The logic of men will try to shift this duality to the works of men...by mens logic and reason. The record of disobedience among the Children of Israel is always a variation of playing on this duality found in the "traditions of men"...not Gods singularness...Oneness.
By THE God of the Bible it will be shifted by Faith..for His purposes not ours.
The concept of not judging lest ye be judged...is often used to keep believers neutral and others to play through. This is part of the duality of men.
Believers are to judge everything by the word..to judge rightous judgement. If they are not diciplined in this they will follow the way of the world..to mix new wine with olde..leven with unleven. They will not know when to put the disobedient out of the church. They will fall into the duality of men and not the Oneness of God.
God is always One in this ..
Thanks,
Orangetom
LCKob:
... yes, that is one opinion, for which I provide another ....
If there is no god, then all rhetoric is entertaining at best, meaningless at worst ...
If there is a god or gods then I would like to think that such a diety/dieties would be above the pettiness and provincialism of mortal and fallible man as such expressed most eloquently by Francis Bacon elaborating on a precept by St. Paul 'On Unity in Religion':
"A man that is of judgment and understanding, shall sometimes hear ignorant men differ, and know well within himself, that those which so differ, mean one thing, and yet they themselves would never agree. And if it come so to pass, in that distance of judgment, which is between man and man, shall we not think that God above, that knows the heart, doth not discern that frail men, in some of their contradictions, intend the same thing; and accepteth of both? The nature of such controversies is excellently expressed, by St. Paul, in the warning and precept, that he giveth concerning the same, Devita profanas vocum novitates, et oppositiones falsi nominis scientiae. Men create oppositions, which are not; and put them into new terms, so fixed, as whereas the meaning ought to govern the term, the term in effect governeth the meaning."
LCKob
Originally posted by spamandham
Originally posted by think2much
I do not seek to only find that which will not disrupt my fundamental conclusion thus far-I seek that as much as anything else.
My misunderstanding then. Please accept my apologies.
No problemo...
"What we have here...is a failure to communicate"
Seriously though I think you perceive me as the stereotypical believer, and though in some ways I may be- as in some way I perceive you to be a stereotypical athiest...or non-believer-I promise in many ways I am not. Maybe if we put aside some accidental prejudice we'd understand one another better.
practicing tolerance is paramount to allow for possibilites....and thats what I seek most...possibilities and tolerance...you know?
Originally posted by think2much
I am sorry S&M, it just seems to me sometimes you are rationalizing how you believe "belivers" rationalize!
Originally posted by Spamandham
If I didn't have first hand experience with it, I'd have to agree with you.
Hmmm...I conceed you know yourself and your personal experiences better than I.
(And I appologize for referring to you as S&M! I SWEAR that was a typo for trying to shorten it to S&H!! )
...and propose the possibly in some ways we-and all people-do rationalize to some degree whatever it is we/they believe to a degree....thus we both have experience with those that oppose us rationalizing what they believe and/or can't prove... (even though I realize athiests know it all )
Or there would be no need for anyone to ever rationalize beliefs at all if truth could be so indisputably proven as such-with zero faith or 100% logic and ratrionale etc to me
if you don't agree, fine, but just give me the benefit of the doubt that I too, am aware of possibilities and know myself better than you know me too.
Originally posted by Spamandham
You seem to have the impression that strength of faith is a good thing. I'm curious why you believe that (assuming I haven't misread you once again).
No, you assume correctly to some degree... as in you don't misunderstand me...well, not entirely.
Yes- I do think strength of faith CAN be a good thing indeed.
But notice the qualifier of "CAN" there please.
Certainly strong faith that is blind, or without foundation, or strong faith that is based in error, can't be a good thing, can it?! Of course not. So no, to have strong faith in that which is in error is not a good thing...but equally weak faith in that which is true is not a good thing.
So I practice THINKING and TESTING and ALLOWING FOR POSSIBILITIES in my faith so where I am weak I can see if I need to be strong or if I am weak because it is in error and needs to be a belief cast aside.
Likewise where I am strongin faith, I practice questioning my very beliefs so as not to become complacently blind in such strong faith.
To know/seek what I believe, how, why, and to what end, and by what discernement, and in what knowledge... and expand those areas of knowledge, discernment, understanding, to know what I truly believe and how and why and have it enlarged and expounded...have it change and progress and grow...this is my practice and usually strengthens my faith...not by confirmation always but often through trial
So far, in doing such, even through doubt and disillusionment and anger and injustice and free-thinking, and alternate possibilites... my faith in what I believe at this time in my life is very strong. Refined by a road that has not been an easy one in life, I find that my faith is indeed strong.
Though I have failed it at times, it has not failed me...I have denied it, questioned it, lived contrary to it etc, but it has not failed me, and it is standing strong. So I believe I am correct and have seen my faith tested and even put through a wringer at times and find I am stronger for it, and that is why I say I don't think I'm likely to change my conclusion, that I believe in God, as I've not come by it served to me on a platter, nor merely adopted another's beliefs, or another's proposed proven truths nor have I abandoned it when many people in my place have...
and simply like I said, I'd be a weak believer if all I could say is "I think I am right but it's easily subject to change at any moment or when the wind blows..."
However I know the dangers of strong faith....so I still continue to challenge myself, my beliefs and my faith...
Originally posted by Spamandham
I'm glad I'm not the only one here capable of misreading others. I don't recall claiming nor even implying that my position can never change. I would think that going from Christain to atheist would be rather solid evidence to the contrary.
I didn't misread you-don't you know all Christians are perfect and never wrong.
Seriously, my sincere appologies for judging you.
However it is in my experience some of the strongest athiests are those of fallen faith, so your conversion from Christianity doesn't show a liklihood or a usual willingness for your position to change anymore over athiests that never believed in God to begin with-sometimes in my experience it is quite the contrary.
See, I am just as guilty as letting my prejudicies -albeit born of experienceas-with otehr athiests color my perception of you and your meanings, and I've yet met an athiest who felt they could or would ever EVER believe in God, or reclaim a lost belief/ faith. You could be the exception to this rule for me though.
I've met some agnostics hoping to find "truth" and make a decision, but athiests usually stay on their clear side of the fense (often throwing stones and taunting me) while agnostics perch atop waiting to see who prevails.
Aagin though, I appologize for my preconceived biases and meant no offense.
Originally posted by Spamandham
Originally posted by think2much
So to you, it seems to me, anyone who seeks...is only rationalizing and seeking to find what validates them...
Having witnessed many people (myself included) seek and subsequently change their positions, I don't consider seeking to be rationalization. I merely misunderstood the things you had said. It sounded like you were only willing to consider that which supported your position.
NO NO NO... and yes seeking is not rationalizing...and I seek, but I do so with a foundation that is in faith instead of in lost faith.
I seek (much to the chagrin of others at times) for all truth I can lay hold of...what I find I will admit...usually supports my belief...hense my belief! but not in all the ways you might think, but this is why I profess strong faith in it, when I find so much which confirms/supports my position, you know? Not because I rationalize and seek to confirm it, or it outright and obviously supports it, but because I do not find so far, anything that makes me doubt it for long...and that which doesn't kill me (or my faith) makes me and it stronger...and real truths others may see as contradicting my faith, aren't doing so at all...not in my eyes...even if I conceed it as truth! Or a possibility of truth!
Admittedly-this does aggravate people on both sides...for believers will say I can't believe that particular *truth* if I am of faith or believe in God...and others on the other side will say how can you ignorantly continue to believe in God of you believe *this* etc...thats just illogical or stupid! (indignant humpf!)
as orangetom says to really believe is a lonely walk...indeed it is.
it's like politics...and everything in the world that controls the masses...to divide is to concur...
believers and non-believers...
can't get more dividing than that...
talk about a conspiracy...what a bunch of lost souls subscribing to the laws of belief of man...this is done for believers and athiests...and the peer pressure on both sides makes it very difficult to search for real truth
Believers are chastized as hertics, and athiest as idiots if they doubt what is presented as a whole by their belief system and/or question it, the validity of it as a whole or believe contrary to any aspect of it usually.
For example...and I propose this to LCKob as well:
Are you an athiest? And if so, do you continue to seek truth, or only that which confirmss your belief so you can rationalize it?
Do you promote the possiblity there is a God (as you LCKob asked me of my free-thinking, if in it/through it I promoted the possibility there is no god.)
and if you are an athiest and do not seek truth, or do not promote or allow for the very possibility there is a god...why is that? What constrains you-your own mind, belief, rationalizations or that of others?
Is it because as an athiest you can not... or youd be a weak athiest by all defintions if you sought truth and allowed for the possibility it could lead you to believe in a god?
...or because it scares you to challenge your beliefs, or you feel hyppocritical in doings so, or feel only the small minded ignorant and stupid challenge the factual logical truthfulness of athiesm?
And where/how did you come to believe that?
I say everyone can kiss my___ (not you all, but you know what I mean-people in general-society-etc) because I will seek and believe any damn way I want and NO ONE...NO MORTAL MAN is going to tell me what and how to believe contrary to following my conscience and my heart and soul and mind in all things, and when God is gracious enough to confirm truths to me I wont dispute it/Him even if I do question it for further understanding
..admittedly even God probably wearies from my search at times!
Originally posted by Spamandham
Of course, you do admit you have faith. I'm curious what you think the word "faith" means.
Yes, I admit I have faith...LMAO...like it's such a dirty word...that I have to "admit" to it like some nasty addiction...
So, are you asking me for the many literal definitions of the english word? Or what I "think" it means...Or just how I define it, or what it defines for me?
Faith-TO ME-is living confirmation. A belief, a belief in God, yes, but more. An action to exercise, and exhortation to test for knowledge.
I know some argue faith in itself is stupid because in one defination "by very definition faith is 'to believe in something not proven' Thus illogically ignroant way to rationize believing something untherwise unbelivable logically!... blah blah blah"
but to me that's inacurrate...and merely a ruse for arguement and to further the conspiracy to divide and conquer within and without religion.
Faith by that definition, is belief in the unproven to non-believers, or those who believe on borrowed light...have their beliefs handed to them, etc
My faith is that which I believe that can not be proven BY MAN, but which is enlarged by confirmations from God, so that it is based in His fact not man's. This is a confirmation that can not come to those who can not exercise enough literal "faith" in the possibility of God to receive such confirmation, therefor, for them, there really is , and never will be "proof"
My proof comes in confirmation from God's spirit-so literally my faith-to believe in what canot be proven (by mnan) isn't faith at all is it... just belief...based in truth and confirmation...but it's easier to just call it my faith.
and I'd re-read this for errors but have no time, so excuse them! TTYL!!
[edit on 9-1-2006 by think2much] because though I don't have time I saw so many errors!
[edit on 9-1-2006 by think2much]
[edit on 9-1-2006 by think2much]
[edit on 9-1-2006 by think2much]
think2much:
For example...and I propose this to LCKob as well:
Are you an athiest? And if so, do you continue to seek truth, or only that which confirmss your belief so you can rationalize it?
Do you promote the possiblity there is a God (as you LCKob asked me of my free-thinking, if in it/through it I promoted the possibility there is no god.)
and if you are an athiest and do not seek truth, or do not promote or allow for the very possibility there is a god...why is that? What constrains you-your own mind, belief, rationalizations or that of others?
Why yes, I like yourself "allow for the possibility" of a diety and have said as much in related threads. Thus, by my open ended searching, I would qualify myself as Agnostic as in ...
Ag·nos·tic
Pronunciation: ag-'näs-tik
Function: noun
Etymology: Greek agnOstos unknown, unknowable, from a- + gnOstos
one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god
Thus, I would be considered an agnostic with a bias or leaning on the SM process for the gathering and assessment of more information.
think2much:
I've met some agnostics hoping to find "truth" and make a decision, but athiests usually stay on their clear side of the fense (often throwing stones and taunting me) while agnostics perch atop waiting to see who prevails.
LCKob:
While by defintion being "in the middle" ... I would say that agnostics (in general) merely profess the lack of knowledge or proof for the absolute adherence to a specific point of view ... now I say this within the context of favoring SM as my modus operandi ... so I don't wait as see as you imply ... I evaluate and conclude where reliable information is available and reserve judgement where it is not. Therefore, since I cannot prove nor disprove the presence of a diety ... I don't discount the possibility of one nor do I promote one either ...
think2much:
NO NO NO... and yes seeking is not rationalizing...and I seek, but I do so with a foundation that is in faith ...
LCKob:
"... with a foundation that is faith ..."
So once again we come back to the notion of seeking confirmation not knowledge ... because your context is faith or your belief not unmitigated truth.
think2much:
Faith-TO ME-is living confirmation. A belief, a belief in God, yes, but more. An action to exercise, and exhortation to test for knowledge.
My faith is that which I believe that can not be proven BY MAN, but which is enlarged by confirmations from God, so that it is based in His fact not man's. This is a confirmation that can not come to those who can not exercise enough literal "faith" in the possibility of God to receive such confirmation, therefor, for them, there really is , and never will be "proof"
LCKob:
... and yet you admit to the possibility that this god does not exist?
Okay granted that is your definition of the term "Faith", and I definitely won't begrudge you your interpretation ... but consider that your version is at odds with the accepted defintion of the secular and much of the religious community as well ...
faith
Pronunciation: 'fAth
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English feith, from Old French feid, foi, from Latin fides; akin to Latin fidere to trust -- more at BIDE
... a (1) : belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2) : belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion b (1) : firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2) : complete trust
... : something that is believed especially with strong conviction; especially : a system of religious beliefs
"So I practice THINKING and TESTING and ALLOWING FOR POSSIBILITIES in my faith ..."
... such as the lack of a god ... the presense of god ... the presense of mulltiple gods ... that I am wrong ... that I am partially right ...
???
... but as you say, your version of faith is just that ... your version ... which is fine so long as you realize that without a context, most individuals would default to the consensus or established meaning (see above example) and therefore think your reponses somewhat "schizophrenic".
Note that I don't use the therm Schizophrenic to offend ... merely to denote the paradox of your answer. ... as in ...
"I allow for the possibility of no god and yet I have strong faith in god."
... to go back to my previous metaphor, isn't that like the public school teacher extolling the virtues of Public Schools while covertly sending her children to a Private Institution?
You profess a strong faith, but can also question God's very existence?
As you say, Agnostics are in the middle (I am one such) , Athiests to one side and true believers the other ... now given the above scenario, where are you?
1. No God(s) exists 2. Don't Know 3. God Exists
1. You have strong faith in god or gods (#3)
2. You allow for the possibillity of no god (#1 & #2)
3. You allow for the possibility that you are wrong (#1 #2 & #3)
This is the reason I usually ask for clarrification.
LCKob
[edit on 9-1-2006 by LCKob]
For example...and I propose this to LCKob as well:
Are you an athiest? And if so, do you continue to seek truth, or only that which confirmss your belief so you can rationalize it?
Do you promote the possiblity there is a God (as you LCKob asked me of my free-thinking, if in it/through it I promoted the possibility there is no god.)
and if you are an athiest and do not seek truth, or do not promote or allow for the very possibility there is a god...why is that? What constrains you-your own mind, belief, rationalizations or that of others?
Why yes, I like yourself "allow for the possibility" of a diety and have said as much in related threads. Thus, by my open ended searching, I would qualify myself as Agnostic as in ...
Ag·nos·tic
Pronunciation: ag-'näs-tik
Function: noun
Etymology: Greek agnOstos unknown, unknowable, from a- + gnOstos
one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god
Thus, I would be considered an agnostic with a bias or leaning on the SM process for the gathering and assessment of more information.
think2much:
I've met some agnostics hoping to find "truth" and make a decision, but athiests usually stay on their clear side of the fense (often throwing stones and taunting me) while agnostics perch atop waiting to see who prevails.
LCKob:
While by defintion being "in the middle" ... I would say that agnostics (in general) merely profess the lack of knowledge or proof for the absolute adherence to a specific point of view ... now I say this within the context of favoring SM as my modus operandi ... so I don't wait as see as you imply ... I evaluate and conclude where reliable information is available and reserve judgement where it is not. Therefore, since I cannot prove nor disprove the presence of a diety ... I don't discount the possibility of one nor do I promote one either ...
think2much:
NO NO NO... and yes seeking is not rationalizing...and I seek, but I do so with a foundation that is in faith ...
LCKob:
"... with a foundation that is faith ..."
So once again we come back to the notion of seeking confirmation not knowledge ... because your context is faith or your belief not unmitigated truth.
think2much:
Faith-TO ME-is living confirmation. A belief, a belief in God, yes, but more. An action to exercise, and exhortation to test for knowledge.
My faith is that which I believe that can not be proven BY MAN, but which is enlarged by confirmations from God, so that it is based in His fact not man's. This is a confirmation that can not come to those who can not exercise enough literal "faith" in the possibility of God to receive such confirmation, therefor, for them, there really is , and never will be "proof"
LCKob:
... and yet you admit to the possibility that this god does not exist?
Okay granted that is your definition of the term "Faith", and I definitely won't begrudge you your interpretation ... but consider that your version is at odds with the accepted defintion of the secular and much of the religious community as well ...
faith
Pronunciation: 'fAth
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English feith, from Old French feid, foi, from Latin fides; akin to Latin fidere to trust -- more at BIDE
... a (1) : belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2) : belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion b (1) : firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2) : complete trust
... : something that is believed especially with strong conviction; especially : a system of religious beliefs
"So I practice THINKING and TESTING and ALLOWING FOR POSSIBILITIES in my faith ..."
... such as the lack of a god ... the presense of god ... the presense of mulltiple gods ... that I am wrong ... that I am partially right ...
???
... but as you say, your version of faith is just that ... your version ... which is fine so long as you realize that without a context, most individuals would default to the consensus or established meaning (see above example) and therefore think your reponses somewhat "schizophrenic".
Note that I don't use the therm Schizophrenic to offend ... merely to denote the paradox of your answer. ... as in ...
"I allow for the possibility of no god and yet I have strong faith in god."
... to go back to my previous metaphor, isn't that like the public school teacher extolling the virtues of Public Schools while covertly sending her children to a Private Institution?
You profess a strong faith, but can also question God's very existence?
As you say, Agnostics are in the middle (I am one such) , Athiests to one side and true believers the other ... now given the above scenario, where are you?
1. No God(s) exists 2. Don't Know 3. God Exists
1. You have strong faith in god or gods (#3)
2. You allow for the possibillity of no god (#1 & #2)
3. You allow for the possibility that you are wrong (#1 #2 & #3)
This is the reason I usually ask for clarrification.
LCKob
[edit on 9-1-2006 by LCKob]
Originally posted by think2much
Certainly strong faith that is blind, or without foundation, or strong faith that is based in error, can't be a good thing, can it?! Of course not. So no, to have strong faith in that which is in error is not a good thing...but equally weak faith in that which is true is not a good thing.
You and I seem to have a different idea of what faith is. From my perspective, faith is belief that is not commensurate with the evidence. All faith is blind from my perspective, and there is no way to know whether your faith is in error or not. If there were, it would knowledge rather than faith. Hence my question on why you would consider faith to be something good.
Originally posted by think2much
Seriously, my sincere appologies for judging you.
I suppose we're even then.
Originally posted by think2much
However it is in my experience some of the strongest athiests are those of fallen faith, so your conversion from Christianity doesn't show a liklihood or a usual willingness for your position to change anymore over athiests that never believed in God to begin with-sometimes in my experience it is quite the contrary.
Don't confuse degree of conviction with obstinance. To make the switch from Christian to atheist generally requires the scaling of a mountain. That mountain is still there after its over. But that doesn't mean there is an unwillingness to scale mountains, it just means another mountain would probably need to be scaled.
Originally posted by think2much
I've yet met an athiest who felt they could or would ever EVER believe in God, or reclaim a lost belief/ faith.
Just as few theists would think they could totally lose faith. All this proves is that we each think we have the right position. If we didn't, we would change it! Is it possible that I could become a believer again? I would have to say yes, but I can't imagine how. Do I think I will? No.
Originally posted by think2much
when I find so much which confirms/supports my position, you know?
What have you found that you think confirms your position?
Originally posted by think2much
this is done for believers and athiests...and the peer pressure on both sides makes it very difficult to search for real truth
Maybe there are places where there is such a thing as atheist peer pressure, but most I talk to are constantly battling the anti-atheist peer pressure (as do I). I think we're one rung higher than satanists in the minds of the masses.
Originally posted by think2much
Are you an athiest? And if so, do you continue to seek truth, or only that which confirmss your belief so you can rationalize it?
Yes to both.
Originally posted by think2much
Do you promote the possiblity there is a God
Before it makes sense to discuss the possibility of gods, you have to explain what you mean by the term 'god', then we can discuss whether or not that conception is possible.
Originally posted by think2much
Yes, I admit I have faith...LMAO...like it's such a dirty word...that I have to "admit" to it like some nasty addiction...
I guess I'm not hiding my cards well am I?
Originally posted by think2much
Faith by that definition, is belief in the unproven to non-believers, or those who believe on borrowed light...have their beliefs handed to them, etc
My faith is that which I believe that can not be proven BY MAN, but which is enlarged by confirmations from God...
This sounds somewhat like Paul's definition - belief in that which is hoped for but not seen. I take the term "seen" here to really mean "observed", such that it does not refer to merely visual information, but the ability to objectively verify. Is that a fair assessment?
As you say, Agnostics are in the middle (I am one such) , Athiests to one side and true believers the other ... now given the above scenario, where are you?
LOL I will have to get back to you-but yes, the very paradox you speak of is the fact I run from the imposing controling factor, that I MUST subscribe to ALL of one belief to claim ANY of it...otehrwise I can't claim it...NONSENSE!
That to me is conspiracy based in the ol' divide and conquer!
So yes... if I can not be considered a believer, nor agnostic nor an athiest because I can't (and wont) subscribe to every uniquely qualifying belief of each...then maybe people should stop asking me to pigeonhole myself into one of these man-made idealogies altogether and let me be me
I'll write more on this tomorrow!
I think we're one rung higher than satanists in the minds of the masses.
LMAO Spamandham!
Yeah well us heretics share that rung, so scoot over and we'll just have to get cozy... and you'll have to get used to me being there, but without all beliefs for us to share I don't mind if you don't mind and I wont try to convert you if you don't try the same
I will write more tomorrow-g'night
think2much
LOL I will have to get back to you-but yes, the very paradox you speak of is the fact I run from the imposing controling factor, that I MUST subscribe to ALL of one belief to claim ANY of it...otehrwise I can't claim it...NONSENSE!
LCKob:
I don't think it is so much that you have to subscribe to ALL of one belief ... but you must address the issue of fundmental irrconcilable differences in the form of mutually exlusive states... an example in the form of a question ...
... in this case Strong Faith integrated with seeking, testing and allowing for the possibility of non-existance (among other possibilites) "in the same breath" so to speak.
... as for pidgeonholing ... within the proscribed limits of basic semantics and present context ... if you are NOT an Athiest (does not believe in god at all) and you are NOT a True Believer (total absolute unquestioning faith in god) then you fall inbetween due to some level of doubt ... in the form of questioning and or conditional postulation ( reference to: seeking, testing and allowing for the possibility of non-existance (among other possibilites).
think2much:
So yes... if I can not be considered a believer, nor agnostic nor an athiest because I can't (and wont) subscribe to every uniquely qualifying belief of each..."
... well you do "qualify" for one category ...
**Word History:
An agnostic does not deny the existence of God and heaven but holds that one cannot know for certain whether or not they exist. The term agnostic was fittingly coined by the 19th-century British scientist Thomas H. Huxley, who believed that only material phenomena were objects of exact knowledge. He made up the word from the prefix a-, meaning “without, not,” as in amoral, and the noun Gnostic. Gnostic is related to the Greek word gnsis, “knowledge,” which was used by early Christian writers to mean “higher, esoteric knowledge of spiritual things” hence, Gnostic referred to those with such knowledge. In coining the term agnostic, Huxley was considering as “Gnostics” a group of his fellow intellectuals“ists,” as he called themwho had eagerly embraced various doctrines or theories that explained the world to their satisfaction. Because he was a “man without a rag of a label to cover himself with,” Huxley coined the term agnostic for himself, its first published use being in 1870.
Therefore by the definition above, and in relation to your professed definition of faith - which includes the possibility of no god (and therefore the lack of absolute certainty in the existence in god) ...
One could argue that you are Agnostic with a strong religious bias.
dictionary.reference.com...
[edit on 10-1-2006 by LCKob]
Mod Edit: Fixed Link.
[edit on 13/1/2006 by Mirthful Me]
LOL I will have to get back to you-but yes, the very paradox you speak of is the fact I run from the imposing controling factor, that I MUST subscribe to ALL of one belief to claim ANY of it...otehrwise I can't claim it...NONSENSE!
LCKob:
I don't think it is so much that you have to subscribe to ALL of one belief ... but you must address the issue of fundmental irrconcilable differences in the form of mutually exlusive states... an example in the form of a question ...
... in this case Strong Faith integrated with seeking, testing and allowing for the possibility of non-existance (among other possibilites) "in the same breath" so to speak.
... as for pidgeonholing ... within the proscribed limits of basic semantics and present context ... if you are NOT an Athiest (does not believe in god at all) and you are NOT a True Believer (total absolute unquestioning faith in god) then you fall inbetween due to some level of doubt ... in the form of questioning and or conditional postulation ( reference to: seeking, testing and allowing for the possibility of non-existance (among other possibilites).
think2much:
So yes... if I can not be considered a believer, nor agnostic nor an athiest because I can't (and wont) subscribe to every uniquely qualifying belief of each..."
... well you do "qualify" for one category ...
**Word History:
An agnostic does not deny the existence of God and heaven but holds that one cannot know for certain whether or not they exist. The term agnostic was fittingly coined by the 19th-century British scientist Thomas H. Huxley, who believed that only material phenomena were objects of exact knowledge. He made up the word from the prefix a-, meaning “without, not,” as in amoral, and the noun Gnostic. Gnostic is related to the Greek word gnsis, “knowledge,” which was used by early Christian writers to mean “higher, esoteric knowledge of spiritual things” hence, Gnostic referred to those with such knowledge. In coining the term agnostic, Huxley was considering as “Gnostics” a group of his fellow intellectuals“ists,” as he called themwho had eagerly embraced various doctrines or theories that explained the world to their satisfaction. Because he was a “man without a rag of a label to cover himself with,” Huxley coined the term agnostic for himself, its first published use being in 1870.
Therefore by the definition above, and in relation to your professed definition of faith - which includes the possibility of no god (and therefore the lack of absolute certainty in the existence in god) ...
One could argue that you are Agnostic with a strong religious bias.
dictionary.reference.com...
[edit on 10-1-2006 by LCKob]
Mod Edit: Fixed Link.
[edit on 13/1/2006 by Mirthful Me]
Originally posted by LCKob
you must address the issue of fundmental irrconcilable differences in the form of mutually exlusive states...
huh?
LMAO I know that was just a typo and I do get your gist and understand your confusion...BUT....you are still not really just not understanding me, partially due to my ineptness at communicating clearly I am sure and aware...
Originally posted by LCKob
... in this case Strong Faith integrated with seeking, testing and allowing for the possibility of non-existance (among other possibilites) "in the same breath" so to speak.
... as for pidgeonholing ... within the proscribed limits of basic semantics and present context ... if you are NOT an Athiest (does not believe in god at all) and you are NOT a True Believer (total absolute unquestioning faith in god) then you fall inbetween due to some level of doubt ...
OK, here is what you are not understanding. I believe unquestioningly in God. I have received confirmation that such a belief is correct-from GOD. I do NOT doubt this-I am a TRUE believer.
HOWEVER...I search...not for confirmation of the existance of God- for MORE KNOWLEDGE UNDERSTANDING of/in ALL THINGS
NOW>>>does that mean my conclusion has been made and I will rationalize everything to support my conclusion
ABSOLUTELY NOT and here is why:
BECAUSE I AM MORTAL and thus I KNOW I can:
A) Be WRONG about anything at anytime
B) BE DECIEVED about ANYTHING at anytime
Therefor I allow the possibility that I am wrong, or if not "wrong" per se, perhaps, not ENTIRELY CORRECT in ALL Of my thinking...
Since I view life, and likewise a relationship with God too, as progressive in knowledge and understanding...I have to leave room to EVOLVE with future knowledge, and thus I do not DISCOUNT possibilities that my knowledge and understanding, even of God, is not entirely correct...
in so doing, I allow for the possibility my conception of God could be wrong, or that God as I preceive him is wrong...and allow for future openmindedness which allows for the possibility there is no God...
Remember I allow for that possibility, but it is not part of my search right now. Agnostics have doubt...I have no doubt. I believe in God. I have faith in that belief and in God
I do not doubt God...
But I do understand there may come a time where I do doubt God...or my perceptions or beliefs-I am human and seeking knowledge-this is in fact then a possibility if I am as open minded as I claim and seek to be that there will come a time that something challenges my belief successfully.
So, while athiests know without a doubt there is no God, and Agnostics know that they simply do not know if there is or is not a God...and believers know there is a God-that would make me a believer.
TO say that I allow for the possibility I am wrong means I have not strong faith, I disagree. My faith is strong. I believe God knows me better than myself. I believe he speaks to me when I read the Bible, and when I read things in various posts. I belive he speaks to me through the words of different people at different times...I do not doubt God.
But I do doubt myself.
SO I allow for human error and say...I conceed there is a possiblity I am in error and there is no good...do I BELIEVE I could be in error and there is no God? No, not right now, but I ALLOW for the possibility so that if I were wrong...
For instance, my father taught me that certain denominations were actually satantic cults etc...this was just a fact in his head...indisputable...I find him to be wrong now...I believed it at one time...I don't now...this "fact" changed...not because I simply doubted or wondered...just because in seeking knowledge I learned more about those religions and denominations to learn correct or not, they weren't secretly purposefully worshipping the devil etc...
I ALLOW for possibilities which don't affect my faith in anyway right now...but may with future knowledge...do you understand this?
in reading that myself I realize I still did not say what I mean and think...so you will likely still not understand. I don't think it can be put
into words to understand. I SEE and UNDERSTAND what you are saying and would be inclined to agree, especially seeing through your eyes, but it's not
understanding everything, and I don't know how to express it.
To me, I don't seek to know if there is a God or not-I already believe and have faith in that...my conceeding the possibility I am wrong is a statement not about my faith, but about human error, progressive understanding, and true openmindedness.
Just as I didn't seek to find the truth about those satanic religions and denominations, but as a by product of my allowing for possibilities, (not thinking of those facts as possibilites, but just allowing for all possibilities in openmindedness...) I did learn that was incorrect to view them as such as I was more educated down the line.
....not that I was ever even seeking to know anything about them to prove one way or another-just as I don't seek to confirm my belief in God, or seek to find if there truly is no god...it is often confirmed there is a god-even by the things that would challenge my basic belief...
because I rationalize to support my conclusion?
...no, by my very progressive and evolving changes in my beliefs on many things I can assure you I am progressively flexible in all things...but thus far, even things that raise a reasonable doubt for me to ponder, once pondered, studied, etc...so far it does validate my beliefs, not because I sought it too, but that so far is how it has turned out when I challenge myself and beliefs...
So do I believe there is no god? No, I believe in God...
but I believe this belief could be in error, not from lack of knowledge or lack of faith in God, but because I am mortal human...and must allow for the possible of error in all things-even understanding and belief....so I allow for the possiblity of true growth
I do not believe I am in error, and have faith that I am not, I have a testimony I am not in error in belieivng in God...but I am human, and I will allow for human frailties
and so I allow for the possiblity there is no god, thus that would mean the possiblity of being no god would then be more valid when such a time comes that I was provided with such knowledge to make me see my belief in god was in error....do I seek such? No because I have faith in God...
... but I never want to use that faith as an excuse for being closed minded
I allow for the possibility of anything, because I simply do not have knowledge of everything, but I am not on the fense believing I don't know if God exists, or saying I tend to believe there is a god...but allow there may not be...I am on the right side of the fense saying I do believe!
I believe in God
I allow that it may not be correct because I am human, but do I believe I am incorrect? NO
LOL fact is I KNOW I am right...but I've said that about things before and been wrong... so...
I conceed all possibilities of others understanding to be valid possibilites because the possibilites themselves exist ...and my faith, believe, knowledge and understanding are progressive...
Trust me I know this makes believers say I am weak in faith, but I guarantee I am not-and God knows this well enough so I don't have to prove it to man who says "I know nothing of my religion or beliefs but I know I am right and everyone who doesn't believe like me is wrong" and calls that faith
or to athiests/agnostics who say I must be agnostic at best if I allow for possiblies I am wrong in my belief...
But I simply say I believe in God, and in His son Jesus Christ and have strong faith in this and Know it to be true and right...
I just allow for all possibilites-including that I may be wrong, because I'd be hyppocritical I think, to say that faith in the wrong thing is a dangerous thing, if I didn't conceed that as a human I could possibly be wrong.
Theres just no way of explaining, it...I face this all the time. If you want to call me agnostic with a religious bias-you go right ahead...you pigeonhole me and lable me anyway that makes it easier for you to understand me
I know who and what I am and who God is.
To me, I don't seek to know if there is a God or not-I already believe and have faith in that...my conceeding the possibility I am wrong is a statement not about my faith, but about human error, progressive understanding, and true openmindedness.
Just as I didn't seek to find the truth about those satanic religions and denominations, but as a by product of my allowing for possibilities, (not thinking of those facts as possibilites, but just allowing for all possibilities in openmindedness...) I did learn that was incorrect to view them as such as I was more educated down the line.
....not that I was ever even seeking to know anything about them to prove one way or another-just as I don't seek to confirm my belief in God, or seek to find if there truly is no god...it is often confirmed there is a god-even by the things that would challenge my basic belief...
because I rationalize to support my conclusion?
...no, by my very progressive and evolving changes in my beliefs on many things I can assure you I am progressively flexible in all things...but thus far, even things that raise a reasonable doubt for me to ponder, once pondered, studied, etc...so far it does validate my beliefs, not because I sought it too, but that so far is how it has turned out when I challenge myself and beliefs...
So do I believe there is no god? No, I believe in God...
but I believe this belief could be in error, not from lack of knowledge or lack of faith in God, but because I am mortal human...and must allow for the possible of error in all things-even understanding and belief....so I allow for the possiblity of true growth
I do not believe I am in error, and have faith that I am not, I have a testimony I am not in error in belieivng in God...but I am human, and I will allow for human frailties
and so I allow for the possiblity there is no god, thus that would mean the possiblity of being no god would then be more valid when such a time comes that I was provided with such knowledge to make me see my belief in god was in error....do I seek such? No because I have faith in God...
... but I never want to use that faith as an excuse for being closed minded
I allow for the possibility of anything, because I simply do not have knowledge of everything, but I am not on the fense believing I don't know if God exists, or saying I tend to believe there is a god...but allow there may not be...I am on the right side of the fense saying I do believe!
I believe in God
I allow that it may not be correct because I am human, but do I believe I am incorrect? NO
LOL fact is I KNOW I am right...but I've said that about things before and been wrong... so...
I conceed all possibilities of others understanding to be valid possibilites because the possibilites themselves exist ...and my faith, believe, knowledge and understanding are progressive...
Trust me I know this makes believers say I am weak in faith, but I guarantee I am not-and God knows this well enough so I don't have to prove it to man who says "I know nothing of my religion or beliefs but I know I am right and everyone who doesn't believe like me is wrong" and calls that faith
or to athiests/agnostics who say I must be agnostic at best if I allow for possiblies I am wrong in my belief...
But I simply say I believe in God, and in His son Jesus Christ and have strong faith in this and Know it to be true and right...
I just allow for all possibilites-including that I may be wrong, because I'd be hyppocritical I think, to say that faith in the wrong thing is a dangerous thing, if I didn't conceed that as a human I could possibly be wrong.
Theres just no way of explaining, it...I face this all the time. If you want to call me agnostic with a religious bias-you go right ahead...you pigeonhole me and lable me anyway that makes it easier for you to understand me
I know who and what I am and who God is.
and I was going to post about things from yesterday to you LCKob and S&H but I don't know if I have time today...
or if I still even need to, now that I've said really all I can say on splitting hairs about how to pigeonhole me into a group!
But I'll check back with yesterdays posts to see if there was anything left uncovered.
or if I still even need to, now that I've said really all I can say on splitting hairs about how to pigeonhole me into a group!
But I'll check back with yesterdays posts to see if there was anything left uncovered.
think2much:
OK, here is what you are not understanding. I believe unquestioningly in God. I have received confirmation that such a belief is correct-from GOD. I do NOT doubt this-I am a TRUE believer.
LCKob:
Okay, let me get this straight ... you are a true believer as outlined in my post and yet you "seek knowledge" and allow for other possibilities including the concept of no god ...
I submit to you that by basic definition and rudimentary semantics (as in the basic meaning of words) that you cannot both be an unquestioning true believer and allow for the possibility of no god.
Keep in mind I am not making this up, nor am I using a "personal version" of any of the terms or concepts ... (or if you do find a proprietary usage show me) ... as self admitted ... you yourself are using subjective definitions for terms that have long standing and established meanings. My question to you is why don't you use conventional terms and meanings to TRULY express your point. In essence what you are doing is subjectively reassigning meaning on the fly to suit your needs ... irregardless of the fact that these terms already have meaning (at least to the vast majority in both the secular and religious community). Please keep in mind that in order for effective communication to occur, there MUST be an accord on words, terms, concepts and syntax ... or it is all really pointless ...
think2much:
HOWEVER...I search...not for confirmation of the existance of God- for MORE KNOWLEDGE UNDERSTANDING of/in ALL THINGS
LCKob:
Okay, if you seek knowledge in all things then this also includes questions about god ... which you should not have if you are a "true believer".
think2much:
NOW>>>does that mean my conclusion has been made and I will rationalize everything to support my conclusion
ABSOLUTELY NOT and here is why:
BECAUSE I AM MORTAL and thus I KNOW I can:
A) Be WRONG about anything at anytime
B) BE DECIEVED about ANYTHING at anytime
Therefor I allow the possibility that I am wrong, or if not "wrong" per se, perhaps, not ENTIRELY CORRECT in ALL Of my thinking...
LCKob:
Allowing for the possibility of being wrong or "not ENTIRELY CORRECT in ALL of (your) thinking ... is doubt ... in the form of "I AM A FIRM BELIEVER OF GOD ... but I may be wrong or not entirely correct ..."
A firm or true believer (and I ask for any third party to gainsay this) DOES NOT DOUBT the truth or veracity of their god ... yet you "allow for all possibilities"...
think2much:
Since I view life, and likewise a relationship with God too, as progressive in knowledge and understanding...I have to leave room to EVOLVE with future knowledge, and thus I do not DISCOUNT possibilities that my knowledge and understanding, even of God, is not entirely correct...
in so doing, I allow for the possibility my conception of God could be wrong, or that God as I preceive him is wrong...and allow for future openmindedness which allows for the possibility there is no God...
Remember I allow for that possibility, but it is not part of my search right now. Agnostics have doubt...I have no doubt. I believe in God. I have faith in that belief and in God
LCKob:
The fact that it is not part of your search right now, is not relevant, what is pertinent is that your point PRESENTLY includes "the possibility" or "possibilities" ... the mere fact that you can concieve the possibility indicates
the notion of divine negation. Remember the True Believer has total trust and total faith in their god ... it would not occur to them as to the possibility that such a diety does not exist.
think2much:
I do not doubt God...
But I do understand there may come a time where I do doubt God...or my perceptions or beliefs-I am human and seeking knowledge-this is in fact then a possibility if I am as open minded as I claim and seek to be that there will come a time that something challenges my belief successfully.
LCKob:
So once again, you in your own way acknowledge the "possibility of..." as in ... I strongly believe in god ... but just in case, I have a plan B ...
Last I checked, faith is not supposed to work that way ... that really sounds like hedging bets to me.
think2much:
So, while athiests know without a doubt there is no God, and Agnostics know that they simply do not know if there is or is not a God...and believers know there is a God-that would make me a believer.
TO say that I allow for the possibility I am wrong means I have not strong faith, I disagree. My faith is strong. I believe God knows me better than myself. I believe he speaks to me when I read the Bible, and when I read things in various posts. I belive he speaks to me through the words of different people at different times...I do not doubt God.
But I do doubt myself.
SO I allow for human error and say...I conceed there is a possiblity I am in error and there is no good...do I BELIEVE I could be in error and there is no God? No, not right now, but I ALLOW for the possibility so that if I were wrong...
For instance, my father taught me that certain denominations were actually satantic cults etc...this was just a fact in his head...indisputable...I find him to be wrong now...I believed it at one time...I don't now...this "fact" changed...not because I simply doubted or wondered...just because in seeking knowledge I learned more about those religions and denominations to learn correct or not, they weren't secretly purposefully worshipping the devil etc...
LCKob:
The "fact" never changed for it was not a fact to begin with ... it was a perception or conviction ... or belief ... these can change ... facts do not.
think2much:
I ALLOW for possibilities which don't affect my faith in anyway right now...but may with future knowledge...do you understand this?
LCKob:
To allow for possibilities is in essence setting very fundemental ground rules for your world view ... whether they are part of your focus now is not the issue ... the fact that they are present in your equation is. What you say is like throwing a stone in a still pond and saying this stone will cause 1 ripple wave ... and that is all I will address. Whereas in reality your stone has caused multiple ripple waves that work inexorably outward to to reach the outlying shore ... these ripples do this irrespective of your "present focus".
OK, here is what you are not understanding. I believe unquestioningly in God. I have received confirmation that such a belief is correct-from GOD. I do NOT doubt this-I am a TRUE believer.
LCKob:
Okay, let me get this straight ... you are a true believer as outlined in my post and yet you "seek knowledge" and allow for other possibilities including the concept of no god ...
I submit to you that by basic definition and rudimentary semantics (as in the basic meaning of words) that you cannot both be an unquestioning true believer and allow for the possibility of no god.
Keep in mind I am not making this up, nor am I using a "personal version" of any of the terms or concepts ... (or if you do find a proprietary usage show me) ... as self admitted ... you yourself are using subjective definitions for terms that have long standing and established meanings. My question to you is why don't you use conventional terms and meanings to TRULY express your point. In essence what you are doing is subjectively reassigning meaning on the fly to suit your needs ... irregardless of the fact that these terms already have meaning (at least to the vast majority in both the secular and religious community). Please keep in mind that in order for effective communication to occur, there MUST be an accord on words, terms, concepts and syntax ... or it is all really pointless ...
think2much:
HOWEVER...I search...not for confirmation of the existance of God- for MORE KNOWLEDGE UNDERSTANDING of/in ALL THINGS
LCKob:
Okay, if you seek knowledge in all things then this also includes questions about god ... which you should not have if you are a "true believer".
think2much:
NOW>>>does that mean my conclusion has been made and I will rationalize everything to support my conclusion
ABSOLUTELY NOT and here is why:
BECAUSE I AM MORTAL and thus I KNOW I can:
A) Be WRONG about anything at anytime
B) BE DECIEVED about ANYTHING at anytime
Therefor I allow the possibility that I am wrong, or if not "wrong" per se, perhaps, not ENTIRELY CORRECT in ALL Of my thinking...
LCKob:
Allowing for the possibility of being wrong or "not ENTIRELY CORRECT in ALL of (your) thinking ... is doubt ... in the form of "I AM A FIRM BELIEVER OF GOD ... but I may be wrong or not entirely correct ..."
A firm or true believer (and I ask for any third party to gainsay this) DOES NOT DOUBT the truth or veracity of their god ... yet you "allow for all possibilities"...
think2much:
Since I view life, and likewise a relationship with God too, as progressive in knowledge and understanding...I have to leave room to EVOLVE with future knowledge, and thus I do not DISCOUNT possibilities that my knowledge and understanding, even of God, is not entirely correct...
in so doing, I allow for the possibility my conception of God could be wrong, or that God as I preceive him is wrong...and allow for future openmindedness which allows for the possibility there is no God...
Remember I allow for that possibility, but it is not part of my search right now. Agnostics have doubt...I have no doubt. I believe in God. I have faith in that belief and in God
LCKob:
The fact that it is not part of your search right now, is not relevant, what is pertinent is that your point PRESENTLY includes "the possibility" or "possibilities" ... the mere fact that you can concieve the possibility indicates
the notion of divine negation. Remember the True Believer has total trust and total faith in their god ... it would not occur to them as to the possibility that such a diety does not exist.
think2much:
I do not doubt God...
But I do understand there may come a time where I do doubt God...or my perceptions or beliefs-I am human and seeking knowledge-this is in fact then a possibility if I am as open minded as I claim and seek to be that there will come a time that something challenges my belief successfully.
LCKob:
So once again, you in your own way acknowledge the "possibility of..." as in ... I strongly believe in god ... but just in case, I have a plan B ...
Last I checked, faith is not supposed to work that way ... that really sounds like hedging bets to me.
think2much:
So, while athiests know without a doubt there is no God, and Agnostics know that they simply do not know if there is or is not a God...and believers know there is a God-that would make me a believer.
TO say that I allow for the possibility I am wrong means I have not strong faith, I disagree. My faith is strong. I believe God knows me better than myself. I believe he speaks to me when I read the Bible, and when I read things in various posts. I belive he speaks to me through the words of different people at different times...I do not doubt God.
But I do doubt myself.
SO I allow for human error and say...I conceed there is a possiblity I am in error and there is no good...do I BELIEVE I could be in error and there is no God? No, not right now, but I ALLOW for the possibility so that if I were wrong...
For instance, my father taught me that certain denominations were actually satantic cults etc...this was just a fact in his head...indisputable...I find him to be wrong now...I believed it at one time...I don't now...this "fact" changed...not because I simply doubted or wondered...just because in seeking knowledge I learned more about those religions and denominations to learn correct or not, they weren't secretly purposefully worshipping the devil etc...
LCKob:
The "fact" never changed for it was not a fact to begin with ... it was a perception or conviction ... or belief ... these can change ... facts do not.
think2much:
I ALLOW for possibilities which don't affect my faith in anyway right now...but may with future knowledge...do you understand this?
LCKob:
To allow for possibilities is in essence setting very fundemental ground rules for your world view ... whether they are part of your focus now is not the issue ... the fact that they are present in your equation is. What you say is like throwing a stone in a still pond and saying this stone will cause 1 ripple wave ... and that is all I will address. Whereas in reality your stone has caused multiple ripple waves that work inexorably outward to to reach the outlying shore ... these ripples do this irrespective of your "present focus".
think2much:
in reading that myself I realize I still did not say what I mean and think...so you will likely still not understand. I don't think it can be put into words to understand. I SEE and UNDERSTAND what you are saying and would be inclined to agree, especially seeing through your eyes, but it's not understanding everything, and I don't know how to express it.
LCKob:
You "see and understand" what I am saying and would be inclined to agree
... buuuuuuuuut ...
you are unable to express what is lacking or why it is not workable ...
Well then, you are left with a dilemna ... as in ... "How do I promote my point of view and or stance if I cannot put it into words ...."
hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm ... true to my nature, I weigh the possibilities ... one the one hand, you could be truly at a loss for words .. in which you have my sympathies ... yet on the other ... I must concede the possibility that you find the logic compelling (with no effective rebuttal) and thus claim "the lack of words to express ...".
... at the moment, the scales are even ...
think2much:
To me, I don't seek to know if there is a God or not-I already believe and have faith in that...my conceeding the possibility I am wrong is a statement not about my faith, but about human error, progressive understanding, and true openmindedness.
LCKob:
Last I looked, faith has nothing to do with personal fallibility and everything to do with belief and conviction. (see previous post)
think2much:
Just as I didn't seek to find the truth about those satanic religions and denominations, but as a by product of my allowing for possibilities, (not thinking of those facts as possibilites, but just allowing for all possibilities in openmindedness...) I did learn that was incorrect to view them as such as I was more educated down the line.
....not that I was ever even seeking to know anything about them to prove one way or another-just as I don't seek to confirm my belief in God, or seek to find if there truly is no god...it is often confirmed there is a god-even by the things that would challenge my basic belief...
because I rationalize to support my conclusion?
LCKob:
"because I rationalize to support my conclusion?"
In a word yes ... if you truly seek truth ... then there is no fixed conclusion ... if you seek to support A CONCLUSION then that is by definition "Rationalization'
as Spamandham indicated.
rationalize
Pronunciation: 'rash-n&-"lIz, 'ra-sh&-n&l-"Iz
Function: verb
transitive senses
1 : to free (a mathematical expression) from irrational parts
2 : to bring into accord with reason or cause something to seem reasonable: as a : to substitute a natural for a supernatural explanation of b : to attribute (one's actions) to rational and creditable motives without analysis of true and especially unconscious motives
3 : to apply the principles of scientific management to (as an industry or its operations) for a desired result (as increased efficiency)
intransitive senses : to provide plausible but untrue reasons for conduct
think2much
...no, by my very progressive and evolving changes in my beliefs on many things I can assure you I am progressively flexible in all things...but thus far, even things that raise a reasonable doubt for me to ponder, once pondered, studied, etc...so far it does validate my beliefs, not because I sought it too, but that so far is how it has turned out when I challenge myself and beliefs...
So do I believe there is no god? No, I believe in God...
but I believe this belief could be in error, not from lack of knowledge or lack of faith in God, but because I am mortal human...and must allow for the possible of error in all things-even understanding and belief....so I allow for the possiblity of true growth
LCKob:
As stated in the previous post on "the hedge of a bet".
think2much:
I do not believe I am in error, and have faith that I am not, I have a testimony I am not in error in belieivng in God...but I am human, and I will allow for human frailties
and so I allow for the possiblity there is no god, thus that would mean the possiblity of being no god would then be more valid when such a time comes that I was provided with such knowledge to make me see my belief in god was in error....do I seek such? No because I have faith in God...
... but I never want to use that faith as an excuse for being closed minded
LCKob:
Once again, I refer to faith BY DEFINITION ... as such, this view like any other will be at odds for any such views to its contrary ... therefore "closed minded" in that way. If such "doors" are closed in your mind concering "such views to its contrary" then likewise BY DEFINITION you do not have a totally open mind.
Remember Abraham Maslow ... and you REALLY REALLY like that hammer.
think2much:
I allow for the possibility of anything, because I simply do not have knowledge of everything, but I am not on the fense believing I don't know if God exists, or saying I tend to believe there is a god...but allow there may not be...I am on the right side of the fense saying I do believe!
I believe in God
I allow that it may not be correct because I am human, but do I believe I am incorrect? NO
LOL fact is I KNOW I am right...but I've said that about things before and been wrong... so...
I conceed all possibilities of others understanding to be valid possibilites because the possibilites themselves exist ...and my faith, believe, knowledge and understanding are progressive...
Trust me I know this makes believers say I am weak in faith, but I guarantee I am not-and God knows this well enough so I don't have to prove it to man who says "I know nothing of my religion or beliefs but I know I am right and everyone who doesn't believe like me is wrong" and calls that faith
LCKob:
With all due respect, I cannot subscribe to "trust" for the sake of argument ... your point stands on its merits or it does not by method ... not magic ...
think2much:
or to athiests/agnostics who say I must be agnostic at best if I allow for possiblies I am wrong in my belief...
LCKob:
Actually just fitting how you describe yourself with accepted terminology and not "proprietary discriptors" which you seem fond of ... and which by the way act to obscure your meaning and stance (conscious or not).
think2much:
But I simply say I believe in God, and in His son Jesus Christ and have strong faith in this and Know it to be true and right...
I just allow for all possibilites-including that I may be wrong, because I'd be hyppocritical I think, to say that faith in the wrong thing is a dangerous thing, if I didn't conceed that as a human I could possibly be wrong.
Theres just no way of explaining, it...I face this all the time. If you want to call me agnostic with a religious bias-you go right ahead...you pigeonhole me and lable me anyway that makes it easier for you to understand me
I know who and what I am and who God is.
LCKob:
Pidgeonholing is the negative description of clarrifying and or establishing basic communication ... nothing more ... If I seem insistent on "clarifying" your posts, it has much to do with the proprietary nature of how you post ... "personalized terminology" and dualistic implications for exclusive states makes for a less than effective promotion of your stance.
In essence for much of what you say ... amounts to "my answer is a RESOUNDING "YESNO" ... and when asked about any such "discrepancies" the reply is ...
"I can't put it into words ...."
Please keep in mind that this forum ... or for that matter any such internet forum is just that ... typed words ...
So I leave to you the implications .... of "I can't put it into words ...."
LCKob
[edit on 10-1-2006 by LCKob]
in reading that myself I realize I still did not say what I mean and think...so you will likely still not understand. I don't think it can be put into words to understand. I SEE and UNDERSTAND what you are saying and would be inclined to agree, especially seeing through your eyes, but it's not understanding everything, and I don't know how to express it.
LCKob:
You "see and understand" what I am saying and would be inclined to agree
... buuuuuuuuut ...
you are unable to express what is lacking or why it is not workable ...
Well then, you are left with a dilemna ... as in ... "How do I promote my point of view and or stance if I cannot put it into words ...."
hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm ... true to my nature, I weigh the possibilities ... one the one hand, you could be truly at a loss for words .. in which you have my sympathies ... yet on the other ... I must concede the possibility that you find the logic compelling (with no effective rebuttal) and thus claim "the lack of words to express ...".
... at the moment, the scales are even ...
think2much:
To me, I don't seek to know if there is a God or not-I already believe and have faith in that...my conceeding the possibility I am wrong is a statement not about my faith, but about human error, progressive understanding, and true openmindedness.
LCKob:
Last I looked, faith has nothing to do with personal fallibility and everything to do with belief and conviction. (see previous post)
think2much:
Just as I didn't seek to find the truth about those satanic religions and denominations, but as a by product of my allowing for possibilities, (not thinking of those facts as possibilites, but just allowing for all possibilities in openmindedness...) I did learn that was incorrect to view them as such as I was more educated down the line.
....not that I was ever even seeking to know anything about them to prove one way or another-just as I don't seek to confirm my belief in God, or seek to find if there truly is no god...it is often confirmed there is a god-even by the things that would challenge my basic belief...
because I rationalize to support my conclusion?
LCKob:
"because I rationalize to support my conclusion?"
In a word yes ... if you truly seek truth ... then there is no fixed conclusion ... if you seek to support A CONCLUSION then that is by definition "Rationalization'
as Spamandham indicated.
rationalize
Pronunciation: 'rash-n&-"lIz, 'ra-sh&-n&l-"Iz
Function: verb
transitive senses
1 : to free (a mathematical expression) from irrational parts
2 : to bring into accord with reason or cause something to seem reasonable: as a : to substitute a natural for a supernatural explanation of b : to attribute (one's actions) to rational and creditable motives without analysis of true and especially unconscious motives
3 : to apply the principles of scientific management to (as an industry or its operations) for a desired result (as increased efficiency)
intransitive senses : to provide plausible but untrue reasons for conduct
think2much
...no, by my very progressive and evolving changes in my beliefs on many things I can assure you I am progressively flexible in all things...but thus far, even things that raise a reasonable doubt for me to ponder, once pondered, studied, etc...so far it does validate my beliefs, not because I sought it too, but that so far is how it has turned out when I challenge myself and beliefs...
So do I believe there is no god? No, I believe in God...
but I believe this belief could be in error, not from lack of knowledge or lack of faith in God, but because I am mortal human...and must allow for the possible of error in all things-even understanding and belief....so I allow for the possiblity of true growth
LCKob:
As stated in the previous post on "the hedge of a bet".
think2much:
I do not believe I am in error, and have faith that I am not, I have a testimony I am not in error in belieivng in God...but I am human, and I will allow for human frailties
and so I allow for the possiblity there is no god, thus that would mean the possiblity of being no god would then be more valid when such a time comes that I was provided with such knowledge to make me see my belief in god was in error....do I seek such? No because I have faith in God...
... but I never want to use that faith as an excuse for being closed minded
LCKob:
Once again, I refer to faith BY DEFINITION ... as such, this view like any other will be at odds for any such views to its contrary ... therefore "closed minded" in that way. If such "doors" are closed in your mind concering "such views to its contrary" then likewise BY DEFINITION you do not have a totally open mind.
Remember Abraham Maslow ... and you REALLY REALLY like that hammer.
think2much:
I allow for the possibility of anything, because I simply do not have knowledge of everything, but I am not on the fense believing I don't know if God exists, or saying I tend to believe there is a god...but allow there may not be...I am on the right side of the fense saying I do believe!
I believe in God
I allow that it may not be correct because I am human, but do I believe I am incorrect? NO
LOL fact is I KNOW I am right...but I've said that about things before and been wrong... so...
I conceed all possibilities of others understanding to be valid possibilites because the possibilites themselves exist ...and my faith, believe, knowledge and understanding are progressive...
Trust me I know this makes believers say I am weak in faith, but I guarantee I am not-and God knows this well enough so I don't have to prove it to man who says "I know nothing of my religion or beliefs but I know I am right and everyone who doesn't believe like me is wrong" and calls that faith
LCKob:
With all due respect, I cannot subscribe to "trust" for the sake of argument ... your point stands on its merits or it does not by method ... not magic ...
think2much:
or to athiests/agnostics who say I must be agnostic at best if I allow for possiblies I am wrong in my belief...
LCKob:
Actually just fitting how you describe yourself with accepted terminology and not "proprietary discriptors" which you seem fond of ... and which by the way act to obscure your meaning and stance (conscious or not).
think2much:
But I simply say I believe in God, and in His son Jesus Christ and have strong faith in this and Know it to be true and right...
I just allow for all possibilites-including that I may be wrong, because I'd be hyppocritical I think, to say that faith in the wrong thing is a dangerous thing, if I didn't conceed that as a human I could possibly be wrong.
Theres just no way of explaining, it...I face this all the time. If you want to call me agnostic with a religious bias-you go right ahead...you pigeonhole me and lable me anyway that makes it easier for you to understand me
I know who and what I am and who God is.
LCKob:
Pidgeonholing is the negative description of clarrifying and or establishing basic communication ... nothing more ... If I seem insistent on "clarifying" your posts, it has much to do with the proprietary nature of how you post ... "personalized terminology" and dualistic implications for exclusive states makes for a less than effective promotion of your stance.
In essence for much of what you say ... amounts to "my answer is a RESOUNDING "YESNO" ... and when asked about any such "discrepancies" the reply is ...
"I can't put it into words ...."
Please keep in mind that this forum ... or for that matter any such internet forum is just that ... typed words ...
So I leave to you the implications .... of "I can't put it into words ...."
LCKob
[edit on 10-1-2006 by LCKob]
Originally posted by LCKob
Well then, you are left with a dilemna ... as in ... "How do I promote my point of view and or stance if I cannot put it into words ...."
hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm ... true to my nature, I weigh the possibilities ... one the one hand, you could be truly at a loss for words .. in which you have my sympathies ... yet on the other ... I must concede the possibility that you find the logic compelling (with no effective rebuttal) and thus claim "the lack of words to express ...".
... at the moment, the scales are even ...
LCKob- I love you man! (Or woman whatever the case may be)
BUT truly I think what the problem is A) I'm not trying to really promote anything...
but question what believers and non-believers can tell me about the Bible, it's origins, it's scripture's possible meanings, and all sorts of non-traditional possibilities that may come from reading tradtional scriptures when not contrested or covered up...and why people contest meanings or cover them up
so in that-I'm not debating anything
however, I am sypmpathetic to you wanting to establish a basic understanding of how I view things (Still don't know to what end as it has no bearing on if you have ANY comment for that topic on hand besides the universal "Who's behind it? We all are" etc...
but in it all, perhaps it isn't a loss for words, but a loss for arguement. I don't have to or seek to be correct-in your eyes or anyones. I do seek to promote tolerance...which I try to show in my replies to you
Basically I believe in God cut and dry. My faith sustains me and this and doesn't waiver. However I find this strength of faith and hard core belief in god can seem intolerant of other's beliefs or feelings, so when proposed with the possibility of "Are you sure?" I say yes and proposed with Could you be wrong?" I say yes, not because of my faith lacking causing me to doubt my conviction, but because one is asking me "could" I be wrong and as a human I "could" be wrong...I don't think so, don't believe so, and don't doubt what I do believe...
however as a human I will answer that it is a possibility I could be wrong...or that there is a possibility there is no god...and I accept that possibility. I don't believe it, but I believe beliefs can change, and I do believe in the possibility of everything...even my own error in perceptions.
I don't think I will ever be able to explain to you understanding, or satisfaction, and I am actually wearying of it.
So, though I was going to wait for more time to talk about each point again-I don't think it matters...I don't think you will ever understand. Is it my own understanding I can't convey, or words or whatever-I don't know...do you want to prove me agnostic, or point out that by having a problem with semantics-which I repeatedly admittedly do as I do asign personal definaitions to words...to what end do you question everything? Or is it for your interest in debate? Or is it truly a hard on for splitting any hairs you can find...I don't know...but you...like Christians...will not understand-so ...stop trying...
if this makes you feel better to think you are gright or win or that I need to conceed to something whatever, consider it done...this was kind of fun...but I've had a bad day...so now I just don't have a sense of humor...I don't know...maybe I'll come back tomorrow refreshed and we can continue this till the cows come home or someone comes out of the woodwork and brings the thread back on topic...
Until then...
I have enjoyed this (for the most part)
oh last but not least... as far as your logic being compelling...sure most logic is compelling...but it doesn't mean it's correct
and just because I can't find the way or words for "rebuttal" ...
...again-I don't have to defend what I beleive, I was just trying to explain it...
and just because I can't find the way or words for "rebuttal" ...
...again-I don't have to defend what I beleive, I was just trying to explain it...
Who is behind this conspircay of perception that interprets the Bible beyond contestation?
The simple answer is of course, the same people who always usurp religious doctrine into political power....the respective clergy.
Even in ancient societies, we see that clerical rule or theocracies, are the norm, not the exception. From the godlike Pharoahs to the ancient rulers in South America, etc., by maintaining the stranglehold of religion over the masses, the clergy could direct and shape the beliefs and behaviors of their followers, to their own ends. It is a classic tool of control. This was even fairly blatant until recently....but even the church has tried to correct such "in your face" examples. One example is the "Tree of Knowledge" story, showing that those who seek knowledge outside the church will be damned....now changed to the more PC version of "the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil"....slick, huh? But then, when one has done this for centuries as the churches have, you'd expect them to have a little practice at this....
think2much:
BUT truly I think what the problem is A) I'm not trying to really promote anything...
LCKob:
Fair enough, actually what I am at odds with is trying to decypher what your message is despite the use of "proprietary language" ... its not for debate perse in the sense of being at odds with your beliefs so much as it is just trying to understand WHAT IS YOUR BELIEF from your writings.
think2much:
but question what believers and non-believers can tell me about the Bible, it's origins, it's scripture's possible meanings, and all sorts of non-traditional possibilities that may come from reading tradtional scriptures when not contrested or covered up...and why people contest meanings or cover them up
so in that-I'm not debating anything
LCKob:
Actually that is a valid point. I suppose the point of contention for me is how you explain your "YESNO" stance as the background to some of the elaborations you put in this thread.
think2much;
however, I am sypmpathetic to you wanting to establish a basic understanding of how I view things (Still don't know to what end as it has no bearing on if you have ANY comment for that topic on hand besides the universal "Who's behind it? We all are" etc...
but in it all, perhaps it isn't a loss for words, but a loss for arguement. I don't have to or seek to be correct-in your eyes or anyones. I do seek to promote tolerance...which I try to show in my replies to you
LCKob:
Fair enough, in regards to your belief (that is indisputably yours no question) Although, I would say that my initial impression from earlier in the thread was one of a more active "seeking of truth' with the consequent debate element as the motive device. ... where as you put it ... seek or allow for all possibilities" .
think2much:
Basically I believe in God cut and dry. My faith sustains me and this and doesn't waiver. However I find this strength of faith and hard core belief in god can seem intolerant of other's beliefs or feelings, so when proposed with the possibility of "Are you sure?" I say yes and proposed with Could you be wrong?" I say yes, not because of my faith lacking causing me to doubt my conviction, but because one is asking me "could" I be wrong and as a human I "could" be wrong...I don't think so, don't believe so, and don't doubt what I do believe...
however as a human I will answer that it is a possibility I could be wrong...or that there is a possibility there is no god...and I accept that possibility. I don't believe it, but I believe beliefs can change, and I do believe in the possibility of everything...even my own error in perceptions.
I don't think I will ever be able to explain to you understanding, or satisfaction, and I am actually wearying of it.
LCKob:
Well, as I see it, I am not the only one (merely the one asking now ...) Spamandham asked this very question ... which has lead to this point ...
think2much:
So, though I was going to wait for more time to talk about each point again-I don't think it matters...I don't think you will ever understand. Is it my own understanding I can't convey, or words or whatever-I don't know...do you want to prove me agnostic, or point out that by having a problem with semantics-which I repeatedly admittedly do as I do asign personal definaitions to words...to what end do you question everything? Or is it for your interest in debate? Or is it truly a hard on for splitting any hairs you can find...I don't know...but you...like Christians...will not understand-so ...stop trying...
LCKob:
Actually I don't want to prove anything at this point ... as far as I am concerned I am trying to get a concrete grip on your view and stance ... and thus the repeated points for the (hoped for ) clarification to procede further ...
... really, IMO it had not progressed beyond the "YESNO" issue. I keep thinking to myself, what would happen if you (think2much) were to talk to 100 people about various topics ... with your ultimate response being ... "YESNO". ... or to put it another way, if you intend to (are motivated) to communicate with others ... the intrinsic consession here is the mutual usage of basic comprehensible words and syntax ... barring that ... what is the point.
think2much;
if this makes you feel better to think you are gright or win or that I need to conceed to something whatever, consider it done...this was kind of fun...but I've had a bad day...so now I just don't have a sense of humor...I don't know...maybe I'll come back tomorrow refreshed and we can continue this till the cows come home or someone comes out of the woodwork and brings the thread back on topic...
LCKob:
... or term meanings and usages are agreed upon ...
[edit on 10-1-2006 by LCKob]
BUT truly I think what the problem is A) I'm not trying to really promote anything...
LCKob:
Fair enough, actually what I am at odds with is trying to decypher what your message is despite the use of "proprietary language" ... its not for debate perse in the sense of being at odds with your beliefs so much as it is just trying to understand WHAT IS YOUR BELIEF from your writings.
think2much:
but question what believers and non-believers can tell me about the Bible, it's origins, it's scripture's possible meanings, and all sorts of non-traditional possibilities that may come from reading tradtional scriptures when not contrested or covered up...and why people contest meanings or cover them up
so in that-I'm not debating anything
LCKob:
Actually that is a valid point. I suppose the point of contention for me is how you explain your "YESNO" stance as the background to some of the elaborations you put in this thread.
think2much;
however, I am sypmpathetic to you wanting to establish a basic understanding of how I view things (Still don't know to what end as it has no bearing on if you have ANY comment for that topic on hand besides the universal "Who's behind it? We all are" etc...
but in it all, perhaps it isn't a loss for words, but a loss for arguement. I don't have to or seek to be correct-in your eyes or anyones. I do seek to promote tolerance...which I try to show in my replies to you
LCKob:
Fair enough, in regards to your belief (that is indisputably yours no question) Although, I would say that my initial impression from earlier in the thread was one of a more active "seeking of truth' with the consequent debate element as the motive device. ... where as you put it ... seek or allow for all possibilities" .
think2much:
Basically I believe in God cut and dry. My faith sustains me and this and doesn't waiver. However I find this strength of faith and hard core belief in god can seem intolerant of other's beliefs or feelings, so when proposed with the possibility of "Are you sure?" I say yes and proposed with Could you be wrong?" I say yes, not because of my faith lacking causing me to doubt my conviction, but because one is asking me "could" I be wrong and as a human I "could" be wrong...I don't think so, don't believe so, and don't doubt what I do believe...
however as a human I will answer that it is a possibility I could be wrong...or that there is a possibility there is no god...and I accept that possibility. I don't believe it, but I believe beliefs can change, and I do believe in the possibility of everything...even my own error in perceptions.
I don't think I will ever be able to explain to you understanding, or satisfaction, and I am actually wearying of it.
LCKob:
Well, as I see it, I am not the only one (merely the one asking now ...) Spamandham asked this very question ... which has lead to this point ...
think2much:
So, though I was going to wait for more time to talk about each point again-I don't think it matters...I don't think you will ever understand. Is it my own understanding I can't convey, or words or whatever-I don't know...do you want to prove me agnostic, or point out that by having a problem with semantics-which I repeatedly admittedly do as I do asign personal definaitions to words...to what end do you question everything? Or is it for your interest in debate? Or is it truly a hard on for splitting any hairs you can find...I don't know...but you...like Christians...will not understand-so ...stop trying...
LCKob:
Actually I don't want to prove anything at this point ... as far as I am concerned I am trying to get a concrete grip on your view and stance ... and thus the repeated points for the (hoped for ) clarification to procede further ...
... really, IMO it had not progressed beyond the "YESNO" issue. I keep thinking to myself, what would happen if you (think2much) were to talk to 100 people about various topics ... with your ultimate response being ... "YESNO". ... or to put it another way, if you intend to (are motivated) to communicate with others ... the intrinsic consession here is the mutual usage of basic comprehensible words and syntax ... barring that ... what is the point.
think2much;
if this makes you feel better to think you are gright or win or that I need to conceed to something whatever, consider it done...this was kind of fun...but I've had a bad day...so now I just don't have a sense of humor...I don't know...maybe I'll come back tomorrow refreshed and we can continue this till the cows come home or someone comes out of the woodwork and brings the thread back on topic...
LCKob:
... or term meanings and usages are agreed upon ...
[edit on 10-1-2006 by LCKob]
think2much:
oh last but not least... as far as your logic being compelling...sure most logic is compelling...but it doesn't mean it's correct
LCKob:
You are right, it means that it is hard to refute if not impossible ... and remains so until someone does refute it.
think2much:
and just because I can't find the way or words for "rebuttal" ...
LCKob:
... means that you have not found a way to refute it.
think2much:
...again-I don't have to defend what I beleive, I was just trying to explain it...
LCkob:
Try harder (joke)
... but seriously, IMO if you stick to the conventional meaning of words and acknowledge the untenable nature of "mutually exclusive states i.e. "YESNO" ... then I think you would have little problem communicating with the rest of the world.
Personalize words/terminology/concepts for you new language "Flibbertigibbetese" ... and well you see the results.
[edit on 10-1-2006 by LCKob]
oh last but not least... as far as your logic being compelling...sure most logic is compelling...but it doesn't mean it's correct
LCKob:
You are right, it means that it is hard to refute if not impossible ... and remains so until someone does refute it.
think2much:
and just because I can't find the way or words for "rebuttal" ...
LCKob:
... means that you have not found a way to refute it.
think2much:
...again-I don't have to defend what I beleive, I was just trying to explain it...
LCkob:
Try harder (joke)
... but seriously, IMO if you stick to the conventional meaning of words and acknowledge the untenable nature of "mutually exclusive states i.e. "YESNO" ... then I think you would have little problem communicating with the rest of the world.
Personalize words/terminology/concepts for you new language "Flibbertigibbetese" ... and well you see the results.
[edit on 10-1-2006 by LCKob]
Originally posted by LCKob
Try harder (joke)
bite me
quote]Originally posted by LCKob
... but seriously, IMO if you stick to the conventional meaning of words...(snip)
I have to stop you here a sec...and while I do understand you wanting to clarify for mutual agreed upon understandings of words and terminology for enhanced communication...blah blah blah ...and agree it's a good route for communication...
I just have to stop and say I am also told I have to stick to conventional thoughts of beliefs and subscribe to certain understandings of what/who God is means etc... too...and for the same reasons...so everything can be understood and agreed upon mutually...and it is just very hard to me, because it serves me not...and it has yet to serve anyone in understanding more than my words...which are only words...not me
Yes, it serves me well to be speaking the same language with someone, but still when the pardoxes can not be understood-no words will ever help and people grasp for the meanings I try to convey in words and there are no words to convey how life and my beliefs can be pardox by our understanding...and thus words will only help perpetuate the fact that pardoxes exist, without understanding the sheer beauty of paradox.
if that even makes sense to you
Consider me if you will,
paradox incarnate
I think maybe I'll change my user name now...
(and believe me, I'm not joking! )
recently, a year ago- on another subject entirely, my life without religion and lived contrary to faith I found myself thus so as well...always caught in perpetual pardoxes in life and a friend of mine and I did Joke that he was evil incarnate and I was simply...paradox incarnate.
Thats just me
and since paradox is hard enough for people to wrap their mind around, certainly words fail exceedlingly so to help something so intangible
Originally posted by LCKob
..and acknowledge the untenable nature of "mutually exclusive states i.e. "YESNO" ... then I think you would have little problem communicating with the rest of the world.
well duh
it's not that I don't understand your conventional logic or literal reason-- but here is the problem...there are NO words to convey some of the things I feel and believe which are pardoxical by nature (YES/NO) to the understanding of men in language.
like faith...when put into words that it is simply "firm belief in something for which there is no proof " (which is really only one definition, another would be "Absolute trust" etc...) then...it becomes inacurrate to a degree for me and becomes subjective through semantics...
and ugh... I have to admit...I'm still having a "bad day" and probably am not going to get into things more today because I've gtg now anyway!
So it's not that I'm not interested in more of this, LCKob or S&H I'm just...well...overcoming an addiction...on day 11 and it's kickin' my arse (can we say arse?) quite frankly!
..."and I'm steady but I'm startin to shake...and I don't know how much more I can take..." ("This is How a Heart Breaks" RT)
think2much:
"So it's not that I'm not interested in more of this, LCKob or S&H I'm just...well...overcoming an addiction...on day 11 and it's kickin' my arse (can we say arse?) quite frankly!
..."and I'm steady but I'm startin to shake...and I don't know how much more I can take..." ("This is How a Heart Breaks" RT)
LCKob:
No problem T2M ... (despite superficial appearances, I do honestly wish you well) ... any dalliance with philosophical discussions can wait for better times (if you are so inclined).
Take care and best of luck.
LCKob
"So it's not that I'm not interested in more of this, LCKob or S&H I'm just...well...overcoming an addiction...on day 11 and it's kickin' my arse (can we say arse?) quite frankly!
..."and I'm steady but I'm startin to shake...and I don't know how much more I can take..." ("This is How a Heart Breaks" RT)
LCKob:
No problem T2M ... (despite superficial appearances, I do honestly wish you well) ... any dalliance with philosophical discussions can wait for better times (if you are so inclined).
Take care and best of luck.
LCKob
Originally posted by LCKob
think2much:
..."and I'm steady but I'm startin to shake...and I don't know how much more I can take..." ("This is How a Heart Breaks" RT)
LCKob:
No problem T2M ... (despite superficial appearances, I do honestly wish you well)
well, I wouldn't think you'd wish me harm
Originally posted by LCKob
... any dalliance with philosophical discussions can wait for better times (if you are so inclined).
and I am so inclined...just not very dedicated or enthusiastic... and actually it's a good distraction...or at least it's good to be distracted.. this distraction just doesn't seem to go anywhere for me anymore...and I'm just...easily frustrated right now and in some pays, though not incarnate, you would be my major problem with perceptions and semantics personified and I don't have the energy to be dealing with what aggravates me about the world in one person
I'm sure I'll "snap out of it" soon enough and bounce back to being me
"...on my own here we go" ("Brain Stew" Green Day)
new topics
-
RIP Merrily Harpur British Big Cat Realist
Cryptozoology: 18 minutes ago -
Australian mercenary caught and crying as he is a prisoner of war.
Other Current Events: 5 hours ago -
JILL BIDEN Wants JOE to Punish Democrats Who Forced Him to Leave Office in Disgrace on 1.20.2025.
2024 Elections: 6 hours ago -
Panamanian President-“every square meter” of the Panama Canal belongs to Panama.
New World Order: 7 hours ago -
NYPD arrests migrant who allegedly set woman on fire on subway train, watched her burn to death
Breaking Alternative News: 9 hours ago
top topics
-
California Business Owners Blindsided by Surprise Payroll Taxes
US Political Madness: 14 hours ago, 20 flags -
The clotting is not going away latest
Medical Issues & Conspiracies: 12 hours ago, 10 flags -
F-18 shot down over Red Sea....by our own Destroyer?
Other Current Events: 14 hours ago, 7 flags -
NYPD arrests migrant who allegedly set woman on fire on subway train, watched her burn to death
Breaking Alternative News: 9 hours ago, 6 flags -
Panamanian President-“every square meter” of the Panama Canal belongs to Panama.
New World Order: 7 hours ago, 6 flags -
Australian mercenary caught and crying as he is a prisoner of war.
Other Current Events: 5 hours ago, 6 flags -
JILL BIDEN Wants JOE to Punish Democrats Who Forced Him to Leave Office in Disgrace on 1.20.2025.
2024 Elections: 6 hours ago, 5 flags -
Chef Gerald R. Ford
Food and Cooking: 12 hours ago, 2 flags -
RIP Merrily Harpur British Big Cat Realist
Cryptozoology: 18 minutes ago, 1 flags
active topics
-
F-18 shot down over Red Sea....by our own Destroyer?
Other Current Events • 10 • : EyeoftheHurricane -
RIP Merrily Harpur British Big Cat Realist
Cryptozoology • 0 • : TimBurr -
‘Something horrible’: Somerset pit reveals bronze age cannibalism
Ancient & Lost Civilizations • 17 • : BrucellaOrchitis -
Australian mercenary caught and crying as he is a prisoner of war.
Other Current Events • 4 • : AdultMaleHumanUK -
Why isn't Psychiatry involved?
Social Issues and Civil Unrest • 30 • : BrucellaOrchitis -
The Daily Mail trying to imply “it’s aliens”
Dissecting Disinformation • 12 • : KrustyKrab -
The Effects of Electric Fields and Plasma on Plant Growth
Science & Technology • 8 • : ChaoticOrder -
Post A Funny (T&C Friendly) Pic Part IV: The LOL awakens!
General Chit Chat • 7945 • : KrustyKrab -
JILL BIDEN Wants JOE to Punish Democrats Who Forced Him to Leave Office in Disgrace on 1.20.2025.
2024 Elections • 5 • : KrustyKrab -
Panamanian President-“every square meter” of the Panama Canal belongs to Panama.
New World Order • 6 • : BeyondKnowledge3