Depends on the situation - as long as my patience can possibly still be rewarded I will remain patient - but if I realise that a situation is beyond the point of no return I will do whatever comes into my head immediately without hesitation and without bothering about the consequences.
This character trait got me out of some tight spots before but it also got me in trouble - but then again the trouble was unavoidable.
1)Great big smiles and hugs from some lovely kids from a childrens home and 2)another video production published (although this will be more like a very late christmas present since we are only starting the shooting in two weeks). This will be a series on hearing God's voice.
I have given you answers on everything you posted. You on the other hand will not even react to anything I have posted except to spew some more of your own unsubstantiated ideas. You will not change my mind or that of anybody who met Him. We all know that to belong to Him is the most precious thing we ever encountered.
Buster this is nothing new to me. I have done this on other sites and face to face with many people who wants God to go away at all cost. Their desperation shines through in their style of approaching the subject matter. They always use the same arguments, always use intellectual reasoning and the material world as their only allowable reference framework and always ignore the spiritual domain. They always put their cynism before the shared experience of millions of people worldwide and from every culture. And they always end with the same argument that they started with.
For me the fun in this type of debate is that it gives me a reason to think about why I belong to Him and to learn about the minds of those who refuse Him.
No Buster. Not this page. Go back a few and try again. While you are at it I suggest you drop the quasi-phylosophical approach and offer something worth reading. You have not made the spiritual domain go away - in fact you have not even recognised it as a factor in this debate.
Ok so now we know you learned nothing because we are right back to beginning of page one. I suggest that I just sit out for this round while you read the posts in the previous few pages.
I have yet to hear any factual information from any of you in reciprocation of what I offered you earlier.
Is there any reason why we should use the Buster definition of the word truth in this debate. After all the God that I met says He is the truth. I know He exists since I met Him personally and I am by no means alone in that position. It seems you and your definition is out in the cold
Who said anything about faith (meaning - to believe). To christians the word means "to trust unconditionally". We are human and to trust unconditionally does not come naturally to us - it is something we have to learn but once mastered it has profound implications for this relationship.
Who said anything about faith (meaning - to believe). To christians the word means "to trust unconditionally". We are human and to trust unconditionally does not come naturally to us - it is something we have to learn but once mastered it has profound implications for this relationship.
Who said anything about faith (meaning - to believe). To christians the word means "to trust unconditionally". We are human and to trust unconditionally does not come naturally to us - it is something we have to learn but once mastered it has profound implications for this relationship.
Who said anything about faith (meaning - to believe). To christians the word means "to trust unconditionally". We are human and to trust unconditionally does not come naturally to us - it is something we have to learn but once mastered it has profound implications for this relationship.
Who said anything about faith (meaning - to believe). To christians the word means "to trust unconditionally". We are human and to trust unconditionally does not come naturally to us - it is something we have to learn but once mastered it has profound implications for this relationship.
Maybe because a lesser creature chose to place himself outside of this script. Besides God does not sit in judgement of these lesser creatures - that is a Catholic misconception - God is offering them a way to align themselves with the script and with Himself.
Buster it is you using the word "belief" as a starting point for your argument. We said nothing about believe - we use the word "know" and we repeatedly told you why. If you keep on ignoring what we say then your logic have no merit. So for you to make any sense you will first have to find a good reason why a great number of peoples claim to have met God is false. For you to do this you will have to make the spiritual domain go away. Untill you have managed that you have absolutely nothing to add to this debate except your own belief which we are all quite sceptical about by now.
Dont worry Conrad - the thread is dead - has been pretty much from the very beginning since nobody wants to put some effort into offering facts or even reading what is offered.
The parts of the Gospels that was added afterwards (not written by the original author) can be found in the last part of both Mathew and Mark. It is actually very easy to spot both these parts because they differ in style and content from the rest of the respective documents. What they add to the message of the bible is the concept of "burning in Hell". I am sure there should be some general rejoicing now amongst the ranks of the "fiction" shouters.
Why dont you now reciprocate with some relevant factual information of your own and then we can spend some time to access the implications thereof.
Those who cry fiction! need to at least join this debate with some facts. You claim that because it is an old document which has been passed on for generations it has now become corrupted to the point where not even its basic message is of value. You claim that the church corrupted its content with additions that allowed them to control the masses through the spreading of guilt. Before we make unsubstantiated and wild sweeping statements that serves only to hurt and anger, let us debate these claims with real facts that has some merit.
I will start off with a statement that will make the fiction guys grin in truimph:
YES THE EARLY CATHOLIC CHURCH DID ADD PARTS TO THE BIBLE AND IT WAS PROBABLY AIMED AT SCARING PEOPLE INTO BELIEVING.
Now it is your turn. These additions are well known because of the exhaustive peer review that I spoke of. Tell us what they are and how it affects the message of God's gift to us.
This argument would put us back into the dark ages.
Lady I have to break it to you that most of what you accept as fact reached you in the form of words. You accept it as fact because it stood the test of exhaustive peer review. That is what we call the scientific process and without this process we would accept a lot of nonsense as truth (not even speaking about what the internet is doing to you database of "facts"). The biblical message has withstood more of this peer review than any other document ever written. Yet you still make it off as false with but a few sources of information which you will find only exist on the internet and visual media where no peer review is required to substantiate its claims. No wisdom to be found in that.
The object of this exercise is to meet people and get to know more about them - to find friends if you will. The commitment part comes later when you have found somebody whom you mutually like, know and trust. Don't get this mixed up because then online dating sites become a real nightmare.
What a loss for us menfolk - You are defnitely one of the most interesting, beautifull and classy ladies anywhere (yes this is meant as a no strings attached compliment).
For me it is not by choice. For as long as I can remember I was fiercely protective of my personal freedom yet I eagerly gave that up for a very special lady with the intention to love her for the rest of my life. Her life was however cut short by a stupid reckless person who did not have enough respect for the lives of other travellers. Untill somebody comes along who can, with her smile and quick wit, dissolve my need of personal freedom, I will remain single.
....Dang why does some people refuse to spend some time writing a dissertation on their views regarding the posted topic. Those of us who are not to lazy to read will appreciate this very much. It will allow us to get a good idea of what is going on in the minds of the writers. After all that is the objective of taking part in a forum or am I missing something.
Three of us went for a short shallow "fun" dive just of the beach - it involved swimming out approximately 500m past the rocks that protected the bay. To make a long story short - we got trapped in a freak current and washed some 4-5km up the coast. When we got out of the current we had to swim about a kilometer back to the beach. I, thinking that it was going to be a quick in and out, opted for one of the slimmer 300bar 7litre tanks and used it without any form of bouancy compensator. If I was not top fit that bit of foolishness would have cost me my life.
Diving always have to be approached with the necessary caution and respect for the environment that you are about to enter.
As you say - entering through the surf is a bit more taxing. Did that when I was young but I stick to entry from boats now a days. Have a friend who lives in Mauritius who owns a 40ft cat. I intend visiting and diving with them in the real near future.
omkeerpunt Forum Posts (268)
RE: How patient are you? are you impulsive?
Depends on the situation - as long as my patience can possibly still be rewarded I will remain patient - but if I realise that a situation is beyond the point of no return I will do whatever comes into my head immediately without hesitation and without bothering about the consequences.This character trait got me out of some tight spots before but it also got me in trouble - but then again the trouble was unavoidable.