 | ||||||||
| ||||||||
| |||||||||||
06-18-2008, 10:11 PM
| |||||
| |||||
| Re: afterlife Quote:
Nicely done(A portrait of word's displaying both side's), with the poetical sense , I hope people dont take those word's litterly, but take it as self created philosophical art. Yet the choice of how we may waste the time, for the future is made from the present action's, with the future becoming the present just to become the past, as a second go'se past. My choice is to use my time, the only waste of time, is the time that you spend doing what you truly dont want to be doing, so if you see your self living in this existence bound by these rule's as somthing that you dont want to do, and you see your self with no choice in how your time is spent within this existence, would it be a grand way to spend life or would it not?
__________________ For it is what it is, for that is what I say it is, therefore making it what it is, and thats what I say it is, and therefore I made it what it is   |
|
06-18-2008, 10:24 PM
| |||||
| |||||
| Re: afterlife
Yes your correct about it's a matter of a lang barrier... Do you mean a contradiction as in--> a proposition, statement, or phrase that asserts or implies both the truth and falsity of somthing. Or do you mean a contradiction as in--> a situation in which inherent factors, actions, or propositions are inconcsistent. Please as I said before dont put word's into thing's that I Did not say... You have choice picked word's and left word's out of the sentence... As displayed in #2-B You typed " B:You say that there is a proof of a designer I typed in the passage that you pulled those word's from "So that very fact give's more proof that there was an intelectualy designed existence made for such thought's that I type and you type..." The key word is "That Very Fact Give's MORE" since there was not another person that gave any word's hinting there was not, therefore the fact of are limited thought's just as a computer OS, which would be the fact that impley's a hint of a designer, therefore #2 contradiction is not... contradiction in both way's that word is defined in... Now for contradiction #1 You typed A: You say there is no reason to question why *contradiction* B: You give reason to question why by preaching a designer Yet the word's " There is no reason to question why" is not found in the text that I typed in reply to a post made by raven, nor in the link that was placed within that post... Yet I cant see my self ever saying that there is no reason to question why, because that is all I have ever done to learn from nature... So it sound's like those would be your word's or interpation of other word's that I spoke of.. To fully resolve #1 Please post a link to the post where I have made such a statement Also when you call out a contradiction, it's un wise to add your own perception in, just state the two or more statement's (example "by preaching a designer" cant be a contradiction because I never typed those word's, you did...)-->(nor was or is my intent) #1-B void''s the contradiction A: You say there is no reason to question why *contradiction* B: You give reason to question why by preaching a designer Because you added word's that I did not say, such as the reason why "B" contradic's "A" is because I gave a reason to why "BY" preaching a designer, therefore you voided your contradiction by adding your perception to my word's and also by lacking the correct wording of how it was displayed in the text where I posted such, allso I still dont know what post you pulled those word fragment's from... PLease post a link to it >.< (also by what a contradiction is defined by, both of what you say are contradiction's are not contradiction's, and in the manner that you presented them, you made your contradiction's, contradiction's of them selve's) If you still disagree, by all mean's do so...It's your right to see thing's how you wish to see them, I strictly promote people to do so, therefore they kind find the form's of philosophy that suite's there own life and not the life another define's for them. Thank you for your time in reading this and my other post's. (I'll try to locate that post where con#1 was pulled from)x.X
__________________ For it is what it is, for that is what I say it is, therefore making it what it is, and thats what I say it is, and therefore I made it what it is |
|
06-18-2008, 10:29 PM
| ||||
| ||||
| Re: afterlife
I don't think this is about spelling corrections, buddy. I think there's a language barrier here.
|
|
06-19-2008, 06:02 AM
| ||||
| ||||
| Re: afterlife Khethil, I don’t think it revolves around the imagined forms of Afterlife defined in scripture. What I am implying is that we do not exist solely as humans, just as the ant will not only ever be that single form of life. It may be an ant ten million times, a fish thirteen times, a flower for three springs but a human it will be once. This goes in the reverse of course and my point is I would rather see some of this or whatever life I become from the senses of the being than to live the life without. It is not just a matter of carrying the soul into this life and not simply defining my life as a human throught the awarenesses I would encounter but also to see what life is as the being I am. I certainly do not consider for a moment I will be born again as another human and I do not belive I have been a human life before. I will or have been other life though. Of that I can assure you. Just so there can be awareness, I am not biding my time as a human to see these other life existances and nothing can prove to me better of the idea that God exist than this does. You can claim through the Bible that God exists and you can claim your belief in the lord Jesus proves there is God but I am not a part of a cult. If this comes out in large print I am sorry. |
