@9165150
if truth is "truth" and false is un"truth" both are byproducts of truth therefore absolutely truthful. truth is a perspective. therefore it is mutable.
absolute truth is discerned and delimited by perspect therefore is mutable from the human mind.
do the logic.
use something less abstract to describe spirit/soul. if you have no concrete and constrained definition of what a soul or what a spirit is. it is hard for one to know what you are talking about. people have MANY definitions for what those abstract concepts are. without me knowing what you think they are i can't draw a rational assessment of what you are saying.
I the life of us is not our incarnation but we are a part of it therefore we are bound to the rules thereof.
when i spoke of selfpreservation i was speaking in the context of what vy was saying inreference to it. you are out of context therefore i will not respond to what you said.
how is a standard not a tool? that was an absolutely ludicrous statement that you need to re-evaluate.
sadly enough. I'm not looking for a religious indoctrination so all the religiofactual information you present i will not pay attention to. that information is not in context with the post or with the context of my conversation with vy therefore i will treat it all as non-sequitor. many of your assessments are illogical at there root. you should re-evaluate a lot of what you stated. it would take too many words to point out each flaw. therefore i WON'T.
but i will say to the greater part of the universe this conversation doesnt exist. in that your question is answered
skittles, ass? I have no lue of what you are talking about. that whole paragraph was retarded
the more i read your statements the more i lose interest. you are an ignorant person bound by an emotional interpretation of what you see. I am incapable of intelllectually reaching you because you views are totally NOT based on logic. but a personal and imaginary construct based on opinion and not verifiably logical fact.
in actuallity i find you to be much less interesting than heresy. i find him to be at least intelligent and educated. you are like a raving loon. I have no wish to be proselytized by one who is obviously devoid of any actual knowledge of anything he speaks about.
why would one need someone else to verify that they are themselves. if that was the case you are saying that god would need someone to verify that he is who he is meaning that he is laccing. deist and theist like yourself have much to learn about common sense. much of your conversation destroys or contradicts other aspects thereof. this is the problem with deists. your logic can not stand alone and it is not consistant. such is the path of lies deception and conjecture.
your logic is flawed man has used god as a tool in which to define the unknown or mysterious aspects of the universe. in short god never would need us we would need it. once we become educated that we are past the mystery of the universe the concept of god becomes smaller and smaller. why do you think theists and deists are fighting harder and harder to get their point across in an ever growing scientific community. because they can no longer substantiate their mysticism.
in the end logic and science will be the defacto standard for rationalizing the universe. the deist perspective is limited to conjecture and catechism.
use ya head.
@VK - if something created itself then it would have to have a beginning, also it would be laccing in the fact that it needed corporation. why would a god need to form itself when it already just is? thats not an attacc against you just something to think about.
I laugh gregariously at the intellectually miniscule torts you imbiciles throw at me. i believe you are scared of death and scared of life. this is very immature.
if truth is "truth" and false is un"truth" both are byproducts of truth therefore absolutely truthful. truth is a perspective. therefore it is mutable.
absolute truth is discerned and delimited by perspect therefore is mutable from the human mind.
do the logic.
use something less abstract to describe spirit/soul. if you have no concrete and constrained definition of what a soul or what a spirit is. it is hard for one to know what you are talking about. people have MANY definitions for what those abstract concepts are. without me knowing what you think they are i can't draw a rational assessment of what you are saying.
I the life of us is not our incarnation but we are a part of it therefore we are bound to the rules thereof.
when i spoke of selfpreservation i was speaking in the context of what vy was saying inreference to it. you are out of context therefore i will not respond to what you said.
how is a standard not a tool? that was an absolutely ludicrous statement that you need to re-evaluate.
sadly enough. I'm not looking for a religious indoctrination so all the religiofactual information you present i will not pay attention to. that information is not in context with the post or with the context of my conversation with vy therefore i will treat it all as non-sequitor. many of your assessments are illogical at there root. you should re-evaluate a lot of what you stated. it would take too many words to point out each flaw. therefore i WON'T.
but i will say to the greater part of the universe this conversation doesnt exist. in that your question is answered
skittles, ass? I have no lue of what you are talking about. that whole paragraph was retarded
the more i read your statements the more i lose interest. you are an ignorant person bound by an emotional interpretation of what you see. I am incapable of intelllectually reaching you because you views are totally NOT based on logic. but a personal and imaginary construct based on opinion and not verifiably logical fact.
in actuallity i find you to be much less interesting than heresy. i find him to be at least intelligent and educated. you are like a raving loon. I have no wish to be proselytized by one who is obviously devoid of any actual knowledge of anything he speaks about.
why would one need someone else to verify that they are themselves. if that was the case you are saying that god would need someone to verify that he is who he is meaning that he is laccing. deist and theist like yourself have much to learn about common sense. much of your conversation destroys or contradicts other aspects thereof. this is the problem with deists. your logic can not stand alone and it is not consistant. such is the path of lies deception and conjecture.
your logic is flawed man has used god as a tool in which to define the unknown or mysterious aspects of the universe. in short god never would need us we would need it. once we become educated that we are past the mystery of the universe the concept of god becomes smaller and smaller. why do you think theists and deists are fighting harder and harder to get their point across in an ever growing scientific community. because they can no longer substantiate their mysticism.
in the end logic and science will be the defacto standard for rationalizing the universe. the deist perspective is limited to conjecture and catechism.
use ya head.
@VK - if something created itself then it would have to have a beginning, also it would be laccing in the fact that it needed corporation. why would a god need to form itself when it already just is? thats not an attacc against you just something to think about.
I laugh gregariously at the intellectually miniscule torts you imbiciles throw at me. i believe you are scared of death and scared of life. this is very immature.
