Open Minded Agnostic Atheist

[ding]

I loved it when people started attacking colin kaepernick for his protesting of how his people were being treated.

And how much did he get paid for playing American football?

If I were to protest, I’d do it for nothing.

He did. He didn't get paid anything additional for doing it.

 

[Meriweather]

If he’s a god he wouldn’t need to start out

Then you imagine God as a genii? Poof! And creation happens in an instant?

 

[zaangalewa]

If he’s a god he wouldn’t need to start out

Then you imagine God as a genii? Poof! And creation happens in an instant?

Oh by the way. It exists indeed a proof of god, which is still not falsified. It is Kurt Gödel's ontological proof. Christoph Benzmüller and Bruno Woltzenlogel-Paleo were able to transform this proof into a program. In 2014 they verified Gödel's poof with a computer. This is what Gödel said, why god exists inevitably:

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

. It exists indeed a proof of god, which is still not falsified.

No it doesn't. Proofs are for mathematics. Mathematics don't write proofs from dubious premises.

 

[Meriweather]

Even still, it amazes me a human can buy any holy book stories.

Let's say that you and all atheists see it as just a book of stories. Let's say that some people of faith regard it the same way--just a book of stories. Let's discuss for a minute how the rest of us see it. What is at the root of the stories, what do all of them have in common? Even from the perfection of the Garden of Eden, it has been about making things better, how to improve--both self and the world we all live in.

My entire life, the Bible has been a book that has been a guide of how to improve self and the few square miles that make up my life. What is wrong? How can it be improved? What can I do?

And yes, just like the Bible, every so often I am blessed (or shocked) by an event that has a supernatural element. God is closer than we think, and He cares more than we can fathom.

And that, my friend, is what religion and holy books are all about.

 

[Grumblenuts]

sealybobo

What exactly is the reason, why you call yourselve "agnostic"? YOUkw a liotiobf thgin - mostbof thenthgin younkow seem to be wrong - but what is your agnostic element? What exactly is the reason, why you call yourselve "agnostic"?

Because there very well could be a god. I don’t know for sure there is not a god.

Just like you don’t know for sure there is a god. You may believe but you’re doing it on faith Not factual knowledge

Same can be argued regarding the Tooth Fairy, Easter Bunny, Spaghetti Monster, Ghosts, the Boogie Man, Abdominal Snowman... anything one wants. Your version:

"I do not know there is not a god."

Double negative. Cancelling out the superfluous nots literally reduces the assertion to:

"I do know there is a god." Sure, because same premise - "FAITH"

I know that's not what you meant to say. But, whoomp, they it is!

he didn't say nothing

yep, he said a thing!

Just feel I should add that the intent here was certainly not to pick on you for using a double negative, sealybobo. I think we all do on occasion because we feel the result sounds better. Whatever. In this case though, I think that double negative preference has led many astray.

Because there very well could be a god. I don’t know for sure there is not a god.

That literally reduces to: there could be therefore there is.

Hope that helps explain how some of the many come to believe that a significant distinction exists between agnostics and atheists. There's actually none logically.

 

[Grumblenuts]

Just looks like Greek to me

 

[zaangalewa]

. It exists indeed a proof of god, which is still not falsified.

No it doesn't. Proofs are for mathematics. Mathematics don't write proofs from dubious premises.

One of the greatest mathematicians the world ever had seen says something - you say something. I understand what you say, little mind - I do not understand what Gödel says - but I guess he is right and you are wrong. And it is without any doubt clear, that his proof is formally correct.

 

[Grumblenuts]

And yes, just like the Bible, every so often I am blessed (or shocked) by an event that has a supernatural element. God is closer than we think, and He cares more than we can fathom.

And that, my friend, is what religion and holy books are all about.

Zzzz... You know what would really be shocking.

 

[BreezeWood]

Substance theory - .. Oh, Lord have mercy!!

I submit that offering "metaphysical substance" as some sort of explanation of things is exactly the same as Einstein's offering of a "cosmological constant." It's just a fudge factor, revealing that you really have no fucking clue, but think you can just get away with shit by injecting enough razzle-dazzle to lose anyone. Well, sure worked for Einstein. Now physics is hopelessly lost, chasing its tail, while electrical science remains the sacrificed art we really need. No, substituting one fantastic theory for another will never get us anywhere (good) in the long run.

.. supply anything coherent meriting response. Unless you find, in essence, flinging mud back and forth worthwhile..
Cut the crap. Define your terms. Quote us defining ours. Really try to explain, reveal, illustrate, demonstrate.. the difference.

It's just a fudge factor, revealing that you really have no fucking clue, but think you can just get away with shit by injecting enough razzle-dazzle to lose anyone.

.
the tirades of an a-hole ...

Oh really? Where oh where then might this "substance" originate?
How does it arrive here?

.

flora does not have a CNS - irregardless its functioning properties physiology does not exist without a spiritual component and dissipates when that component is removed and is itself a metaphysical substance not native to planet Earth.

.
it is you who has provided no evidence for your atheistic being I have provided abundant proof of the metaphysical origins and the inseparable relationship between physiology and its spiritual content.

you are as guttural as the desert religions in response to the origin of life. on Earth.

 

[buttercup]

And why don’t jews believe Jesus was the messiah?

I'm glad you asked that. Interestingly, the Jewish bible itself prophesied that the Messiah would be rejected by His own people. ( Psalm 118:22–24, Isaiah 53, etc.)

But the scriptures also prophesy that at the end of this age, the Jewish people who rejected Jesus will see and believe, and mourn for what happened in the past. (Zechariah 12:10)

That said, there were many Jewish people at the time of Jesus who became followers of Christ (they became the earliest Christians) AND there are actually many Jewish people in this day and age who come to faith in Jesus... Messianic Jews.

I posted a thread that shared their truly amazing testimonies:

Jewish testimonies (I absolutely love these)

I always love hearing people’s testimonies on how they came to Jesus. But I think there’s something special about Jewish testimonies. There’s a reason for that, but instead of sharing my thoughts on it, for now I’ll just share these videos. I highly recommend you watch them, whether you’re a...

www.usmessageboard.com

 

[Grumblenuts]

it is you who has provided no evidence for your atheistic being I have provided abundant proof of the metaphysical origins and the inseparable relationship between physiology and its spiritual content.

you are as guttural as the desert religions in response to the origin of life. on Earth.

Thanks! I so love you too, dear. Nonetheless, positing

a metaphysical substance not native to planet Earth.

logically implies it's "native to" some place other than Earth. Your assertion, your mess to clean up. In the meantime.. Try keeping your trash off my lawn.

 

[BreezeWood]

You do realize that all the other Christian denominations think Catholicism is the worst right? There are even threads about it. Have you participated in those threads and seen what other Christians think of Catholics? It's not good.

They are usually funny, though, at least to some of us Catholics. Good for a chuckle because it immediately clear that they have no understanding of the teaching--although they are convinced theirs in the perfect understanding.

Such discussions (as we can see even in this one) it is comparable to someone who thinks they understand the rules of football insist the points are recorded by the number of pMorins knocked down when the Frisbee goes through the hoop. Usually easier to bypass such a discussion because it takes too much time and effort to explain the entire game of football to someone with such a mindset.

Unfortunately there are entire churches, some mega churches, and they teach that catholicism is not the way.

of course they are competing for members so of course that’s what they’re going to say.

Born agains for example have told me I’m not saved because I was baptized as a child. i have to do it as an adult on my own. I think Catholics are baptized as babies too right? So what do you say to them?

I'm just curious to know why you're asking that. Is that you genuinely want to know which idea is actually correct, or are you bringing up these differences for some other reason?

Any true doctrine should be backed up biblically. Not by one verse in an unclear way, but backed up clearly by numerous scriptures and the overall message of the bible.

Infant baptism is blatantly unbiblical. Jesus Himself was baptized as a grown man, but it's not so much age that is the issue, but understanding what one is doing (which obviously babies or young children cannot) and Jesus is always our example.

Neither is right. Being baptized in the Christian Church is pointless if you are an atheist. but I want to know what you would say to a born again who says you have to be baptized again.

This btw is how born agains recruit new members from the Catholic and Greek Orthodox faith. They tell us our church has it all wrong.

I couldn’t be baptized right now because I don’t believe so I would be lying to the congregation when he asked do you renounce Satan? I’d have to say honestly I don’t believe in Satan or god. I would have to lie. I don’t think god will punish me for that. He should have written a more convincing book.

Obviously it's pointless (and wrong) if one doesn't believe. Did anyone argue otherwise?

Baptism is a beautiful thing, when it's done the way it's meant to be done. I grew up in the Catholic church and got baptized as a baby, but that meant nothing. It was just a religious ritual. Obviously when I was a baby I didn't understand what was going on, and even when I got a little older and had my "first communion" and all that stuff, none of it was meaningful to me because I wasn't a believer at that time, I was just there because my mom made me go.

But then many years later, when I actually became a believer, for the first time in my life, I never went back to Catholicism, but I did get baptized, about 4 years after coming to Christ, in a pool in Hawaii, during my DTS through YWAM in Kona.

So you agree with born agains? Are Catholics baptized as babies or adults? News to me if you guys do it twice. And I thought you did it to your bandaids. Archie took meatheads baby to a Catholic Church to get baptism didn’t he?

Yes, I'm a born-again Christian. Here is my baptism, near the beginning of this video.

meriweather and I were only baptized as babies. What will happen to us?

Salvation is not about baptism. I don't where you got the idea that it was. We are saved by grace, through FAITH. When you have a true, saving faith, you become a new creation, literally "born from above"... in other words, it's like a second birth. The first one is physical, the second one is spiritual. I can't explain it, but it's a very real thing. It's almost like your DNA changes.

But getting back to baptism, that it just an outward symbol of something that already took place inside. It is something we do to show the world that we made the decision to put our faith in Jesus and follow Him. So of course it must be done when a person is old enough to understand it all. But the act of water baptism itself does not save anyone. The thief on the cross did not get water baptized, but he was clearly saved. Jesus said so Himself, when He said, "Truly I tell you, today you will be with me in paradise."

Is that more clear now?

So what if someone never gets baptized again as an adult? My brother and his wife are good people. They go to church. But the Greek orthodox Church doesn’t require members to go through the ceremony again. They were baptized as kids. They show up to church. They believe in Jesus.

So what is their punishment for not being baptized again as adults?

Did you not read the post you were replying to? It seems to have gone in one ear and out the other. I'll say it again, in different words. It doesn't matter if you get baptized or do not get baptized. Water baptism doesn't save anyone, it is not a prerequisite for salvation.

I'll copy / paste part of what I said to you earlier, and I'll underline the important part.

Salvation is not about baptism. I don't where you got the idea that it was. We are saved by God's grace, through FAITH.​

So do we have that straight now? I get the feeling you are actually asking a different question, one that is answered very clearly in the bible, but if so I'll let you ask the real question you want to ask.

That’s what you believe but every born again I’ve ever met said different.

but I’m glad to hear you say it doesn’t matter. I agree

What? No born again Christian I've ever encountered (and I've known tons, as someone who was involved with world missions) says that water baptism is necessary for salvation, so I don't know where you're getting this from. It is not just my own personal belief, it is BIBLICAL.

Let's clear this up right now. Do you remember when the bible talks about the thief on the cross? Remember when Jesus was crucified, there were two other men who were crucified, two actual criminals. One of them was repentant and believed Jesus was who he claimed He was, and the other one was unrepentant and did not believe, in fact he blasphemed Jesus.

The repentant thief on the cross professed his faith and obviously there was no time for him to get dunked in water, but according to Jesus' own words he got saved, because Jesus said to him: “Assuredly, I say to you, today you will be with Me in Paradise.”

Also, many people get saved on their deathbed. Obviously again, no time for water baptism then. You seem to have many false ideas about Christianity that are based on false teachings or mere religion, which is not always biblical and true.

You do realize that all the other Christian denominations think Catholicism is the worst right? There are even threads about it. Have you participated in those threads and seen what other Christians think of Catholics? It's not good.

They are usually funny, though, at least to some of us Catholics. Good for a chuckle because it immediately clear that they have no understanding of the teaching--although they are convinced theirs in the perfect understanding.

Such discussions (as we can see even in this one) it is comparable to someone who thinks they understand the rules of football insist the points are recorded by the number of pMorins knocked down when the Frisbee goes through the hoop. Usually easier to bypass such a discussion because it takes too much time and effort to explain the entire game of football to someone with such a mindset.

Unfortunately there are entire churches, some mega churches, and they teach that catholicism is not the way.

of course they are competing for members so of course that’s what they’re going to say.

Born agains for example have told me I’m not saved because I was baptized as a child. i have to do it as an adult on my own. I think Catholics are baptized as babies too right? So what do you say to them?

I'm just curious to know why you're asking that. Is that you genuinely want to know which idea is actually correct, or are you bringing up these differences for some other reason?

Any true doctrine should be backed up biblically. Not by one verse in an unclear way, but backed up clearly by numerous scriptures and the overall message of the bible.

Infant baptism is blatantly unbiblical. Jesus Himself was baptized as a grown man, but it's not so much age that is the issue, but understanding what one is doing (which obviously babies or young children cannot) and Jesus is always our example.

Neither is right. Being baptized in the Christian Church is pointless if you are an atheist. but I want to know what you would say to a born again who says you have to be baptized again.

This btw is how born agains recruit new members from the Catholic and Greek Orthodox faith. They tell us our church has it all wrong.

I couldn’t be baptized right now because I don’t believe so I would be lying to the congregation when he asked do you renounce Satan? I’d have to say honestly I don’t believe in Satan or god. I would have to lie. I don’t think god will punish me for that. He should have written a more convincing book.

Obviously it's pointless (and wrong) if one doesn't believe. Did anyone argue otherwise?

Baptism is a beautiful thing, when it's done the way it's meant to be done. I grew up in the Catholic church and got baptized as a baby, but that meant nothing. It was just a religious ritual. Obviously when I was a baby I didn't understand what was going on, and even when I got a little older and had my "first communion" and all that stuff, none of it was meaningful to me because I wasn't a believer at that time, I was just there because my mom made me go.

But then many years later, when I actually became a believer, for the first time in my life, I never went back to Catholicism, but I did get baptized, about 4 years after coming to Christ, in a pool in Hawaii, during my DTS through YWAM in Kona.

So you agree with born agains? Are Catholics baptized as babies or adults? News to me if you guys do it twice. And I thought you did it to your bandaids. Archie took meatheads baby to a Catholic Church to get baptism didn’t he?

Yes, I'm a born-again Christian. Here is my baptism, near the beginning of this video.

meriweather and I were only baptized as babies. What will happen to us?

Salvation is not about baptism. I don't where you got the idea that it was. We are saved by grace, through FAITH. When you have a true, saving faith, you become a new creation, literally "born from above"... in other words, it's like a second birth. The first one is physical, the second one is spiritual. I can't explain it, but it's a very real thing. It's almost like your DNA changes.

But getting back to baptism, that it just an outward symbol of something that already took place inside. It is something we do to show the world that we made the decision to put our faith in Jesus and follow Him. So of course it must be done when a person is old enough to understand it all. But the act of water baptism itself does not save anyone. The thief on the cross did not get water baptized, but he was clearly saved. Jesus said so Himself, when He said, "Truly I tell you, today you will be with me in paradise."

Is that more clear now?

So what if someone never gets baptized again as an adult? My brother and his wife are good people. They go to church. But the Greek orthodox Church doesn’t require members to go through the ceremony again. They were baptized as kids. They show up to church. They believe in Jesus.

So what is their punishment for not being baptized again as adults?

Did you not read the post you were replying to? It seems to have gone in one ear and out the other. I'll say it again, in different words. It doesn't matter if you get baptized or do not get baptized. Water baptism doesn't save anyone, it is not a prerequisite for salvation.

I'll copy / paste part of what I said to you earlier, and I'll underline the important part.

Salvation is not about baptism. I don't where you got the idea that it was. We are saved by God's grace, through FAITH.​

So do we have that straight now? I get the feeling you are actually asking a different question, one that is answered very clearly in the bible, but if so I'll let you ask the real question you want to ask.

That’s what you believe but every born again I’ve ever met said different.

but I’m glad to hear you say it doesn’t matter. I agree

What? No born again Christian I've ever encountered (and I've known tons, as someone who was involved with world missions) says that water baptism is necessary for salvation, so I don't know where you're getting this from. It is not just my own personal belief, it is BIBLICAL.

Let's clear this up right now. Do you remember when the bible talks about the thief on the cross? Remember when Jesus was crucified, there were two other men who were crucified, two actual criminals. One of them was repentant and believed Jesus was who he claimed He was, and the other one was unrepentant and did not believe, in fact he blasphemed Jesus.

The repentant thief on the cross professed his faith and obviously there was no time for him to get dunked in water, but according to Jesus' own words he got saved, because Jesus said to him: “Assuredly, I say to you, today you will be with Me in Paradise.”

Also, many people get saved on their deathbed. Obviously again, no time for water baptism then. You seem to have many false ideas about Christianity that are based on false teachings or mere religion, which is not always biblical and true.

Well I’ve met lots of born agains who ask me if I know where I’m going when I die. I’m sure you know this pitch right? After services your preacher tells you to all go out on Sunday and spread the word.

so these born agains ask me this question back when I was a Greek Orthodox. I explain to them I already belong to a Christian organization and they begin to tell me how they have it wrong. First, keep in mind the Greek Orthodox wrote the Bible. So it’s funny for these American born agains to tell us we have it wrong.

And they have all pointed out how it’s not good enough that I was baptized as a child. You have to do it again, and then they rope you in to their born again church.

i know a few people who were born Greek Orthodox but left it for a born again church. And a part of becoming a member, and in order to get into heaven, you got to be baptized.

I too remember being taught as a Catholic, that you can't go to heaven without being baptised . It is the reason babies will go to limbo and not heaven despite having committed no sin themselves. We are apparently all born with original sin - Eve's transgression in the garden of Eden and must be cleansed before entering heaven.

That’s what happens when you eat apples.

That’s what happens when you eat apples.

.
there is no proof the apple was not a thoughtful choice by eve or that the serpent would not rather they stay in a state of bliss or the Almighty was not pleased to send them on their way ... those forged desert books are fallacious from beginning to end and have no recipe for salvation that at the beginning was all that was sought and is still the basis for any religion to exist.

what exactly is a messiah or sharia law ... for certain you need your dead books to find that out.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Kurt Gödel's ontological proof

One of the greatest mathematicians the world ever had seen says something - you say something

Lets not pretend you understand the argument or the symbolized version.

If you care to look it up, the premises are dubious, because his axioms are inconsistent and contradictory.

And, basically, you just said a mathematician proved god exists, bevauee....hey, he is a brilliant mathematician. Absurd on every level possible.

Also, these esoteric argents are utter pap. Zeno "proved" that you could never move. Nobody has falsified this argument.

So you need to understand that these arguments are not proof of anything. But your claiming they are is proof of your bias, itself due to magical thinking.

 

[buttercup]

Even still, it amazes me a human can buy any holy book stories.

Let's say that you and all atheists see it as just a book of stories. Let's say that some people of faith regard it the same way--just a book of stories. Let's discuss for a minute how the rest of us see it. What is at the root of the stories, what do all of them have in common? Even from the perfection of the Garden of Eden, it has been about making things better, how to improve--both self and the world we all live in.

My entire life, the Bible has been a book that has been a guide of how to improve self and the few square miles that make up my life. What is wrong? How can it be improved? What can I do?

And yes, just like the Bible, every so often I am blessed (or shocked) by an event that has a supernatural element. God is closer than we think, and He cares more than we can fathom.

And that, my friend, is what religion and holy books are all about.

I agree that there's a lot of wisdom and teachings on how to improve, as you said, both ourselves and the world. However (and maybe this isn't what you actually meant) I respectfully disagree that that's what the holy books are all about. Or at least the bible, I don't know about other holy books.

A lot of atheists have the wrong idea that the bible is just a bunch of rules or outdated ideas. But as I'm sure you would agree, that's not at all what it's about.

The overarching story, from beginning to end is about God and his relation to us, how that initial relationship was broken, then the promise of redemption which of course is through Jesus. And what's cool is that throughout the OLD Testament, hundreds of years before Jesus was even born, it foreshadows the future Messiah, who was fulfilled to a tee in the life of Jesus.

So the whole bible, even though it is a compilation of 66 books, by many different people, from all walks of life, over a period of over 1000 years, amazingly tells ONE cohesive story, from beginning to end. I think in a nutshell it's about God's love for us, and how He made a way for us to get back to the way things were always supposed to be, from the very beginning.

 

[BreezeWood]

it is you who has provided no evidence for your atheistic being I have provided abundant proof of the metaphysical origins and the inseparable relationship between physiology and its spiritual content.

you are as guttural as the desert religions in response to the origin of life. on Earth.

Thanks! I so love you too, dear. Nonetheless, positing

a metaphysical substance not native to planet Earth.

logically implies it's "native to" some place other than Earth. Your assertion, your mess to clean up. In the meantime.. Try keeping your trash off my lawn.

logically implies it's "native to" some place other than Earth. Your assertion, your mess to clean up. In the meantime.. Try keeping your trash off my law

.
life is native to the universe as physiology proves by its abundance when the conditions for its development are available - and the metaphysical properties required for its existence are adhered to, the viability for physiology's spiritual component.

Try keeping your trash off my lawn.

you replied a-hole, there are plenty more just the same as you.

 

[Meriweather]

I agree that there's a lot of wisdom and teachings on how to improve, as you said, both ourselves and the world. However (and maybe this isn't what you actually meant) I respectfully disagree that that's what the holy books are all about. Or at least the bible, I don't know about other holy books.

What is improvement of self and our world if not redemption? Where does this redemption and our salvation have its source? It is God, God in our midst, God among us.

The point I am trying to make, Buttercup, the story of the flood is not about believing that two of every kind of animal on the planet was on the ark--or that the flood covered the entire planet. The story is about renewal and how that renewal is no easy thing. How close was Noah to God after the flood? What mistakes did Noah make with his chance of renewal? How close to God did Adam and Eve remain after they left the garden?

The Bible is not simply the story of Adam and Eve or of Noah, Abraham, and Moses. It our story, the story of mankind. It is a story of renewal and redemption...and of mankind once again slipping away from God. If we are not completely blind, we should be able to note this at least with our atheist brothers and sister. But what we should also see--and we are bigger failures at seeing this--that people of faith, you and I, are also slipping away from God, because you and I are just as much a part of mankind as any non-believer.

When atheists tell me I cannot really believe, I cannot truly know--they are very wrong on both counts. Instead what they should iterate, where they would be spot on, is that even with knowledge, belief, and faith I am slipping away from God at the same rate as they because, like them, I am human. I cannot stop knowing, I cannot stop believing--that would be a lie--but at least I can and should acknowledge, believer and non-believer, our connection and that we are drifting.

This is why, as a Catholic, I have such deep reverence for the Eucharist. It is literally a life-line as I drift away.

What the Bible also assures us is that we will be gathered back. May we all see that day.

 

[buttercup]

What is improvement of self and our world if not redemption? Where does this redemption and our salvation have its source? It is God, God in our midst, God among us.

I don't disagree with you on that. Maybe it's just the way you worded your post earlier that made me think you were saying something else. But if you're talking about redemption and the reconciliation of our relationship with God, then we're on the same page.

The point I am trying to make, Buttercup, the story of the flood is not about believing that two of every kind of animal on the planet was on the ark--or that the flood covered the entire planet. The story is about renewal and how that renewal is no easy thing. How close was Noah to God after the flood? What mistakes did Noah make with his chance of renewal? How close to God did Adam and Eve remain after they left the garden?

The Bible is not simply the story of Adam and Eve or of Noah, Abraham, and Moses. It our story, the story of mankind. It is a story of renewal and redemption...and of mankind once again slipping away from God. If we are not completely blind, we should be able to note this at least with our atheist brothers and sister. But what we should also see--and we are bigger failures at seeing this--that people of faith, you and I, are also slipping away from God, because you and I are just as much a part of mankind as any non-believer.

Yes, of course the stories in the bible have a bigger meaning, and they all tie in with the overarching story. However, I wouldn't say it's the story of mankind. I would say it's about God and us, how He made a way for us, for the world to be redeemed. When people think of the Gospel they usually think only of the New Testament. But really, the entire bible, both old and new testaments, is basically the Gospel message.

I don't understand what you meant by people of faith are also slipping away from God. I disagree with that. If one is in Christ, born from above by the washing of regeneration and renewal of the Holy Spirit, then we can never fully slip away from God. We might have times of straying, yes... but God will always bring us back, and we will always have God with us, there are tons and tons of scriptures that make that clear.

When atheists tell me I cannot really believe, I cannot truly know--they are very wrong on both counts. Instead what they should iterate, where they would be spot on, is that even with knowledge, belief, and faith I am slipping away from God at the same rate as they because, like them, I am human. I cannot stop knowing, I cannot stop believing--that would be a lie--but at least I can and should acknowledge, believer and non-believer, our connection and that we are drifting.

I might be misunderstanding you, but if not, we'll have to agree to disagree. Yes, of course we're all human, and we all miss the mark. And again, yes, even as believers we sometimes stray from God. However, if we have received the gift of salvation, if we are born from above, you can NEVER lose God. You can NEVER go from being spiritually born to being unborn. That is just as impossible as a newborn baby going back into his mother's womb. Also, once we're justified and born spiritually, we (ideally) should be growing spiritually and getting closer to God, slowly over time, not drifting away. But I don't want to take this thread too off topic. lol

This is why, as a Catholic, I have such deep reverence for the Eucharist. It is literally a life-line as I drift away.

As a nondenominational Christian, I see it a little differently, but I do agree that it is something important that reminds us of what Jesus did for us... and would have done for us even if we were literally the only person in the world.

What the Bible also assures us is that we will be gathered back. May we all see that day.

I'm not sure exactly what you're referring to... are you talking about heaven? Again, I don't want to get too off topic here, but I know that as a non-Catholic (I would say ex-Catholic but even though I went to Catholic church off and on growing up, I wasn't even a believer at that time) you and I have some differing views.

I always appreciate your posts though even when we disagree, and it's always good to hear different insights on certain things. I think all of us (regardless of our views) can always learn from others.

 

[Grumblenuts]

Try keeping your trash off my lawn.

you replied a-hole, there are plenty more just the same as you.

Yes, honey, you addressed me so I replied as usual. Not those "plenty more just the same" thank goodness. That would just be weird. You're most welcome.
Oh, and thanks for finally addressing my question. So, reviewing and parsing,

flora does not have a CNS - irregardless its functioning properties physiology does not exist without a spiritual component and dissipates when that component is removed and is itself a metaphysical substance not native to planet Earth.

English version: (plants don't have nerves)(no life does) "without a spirit"(all die.) "spirit" (is magical like life, however is a) "substance not native to planet Earth."
Fair enough.. Now, adding this fresh news!,

life is native to the universe as physiology proves by its abundance when the conditions for its development are available - and the metaphysical properties required for its existence are adhered to, the viability for physiology's spiritual component.

English attempt: (actually neither life nor spirit are) "native to planet Earth." (instead??? - both are) "native to the universe" (really??? are there any more options??? being native to Earth somehow excludes being from the universe and vice versa??? one requires the other along with some other locally acquired stuff and the existence of life) "proves by its abundance" (that all it well and) "spirit" (rules!)

Yeah, as incoherent and nonsensical as ever, but whatever floats your dinghy. To each their own. Whatever you need to believe to satisfy your personal mental requirements without harming others. I do have an alternative though. All you appear to think of as "spiritual" I just see as small facets of electrical activity that we have yet to flesh out because we've long abandoned consideration of the Aether, dielectrics, and related experimentation, replacing it all with stuff like "warped space" fantasy instead, mainly because Einstein. (was such a brilliant idiot). Peace. Cuppy-cake gumdrop snookum snookum sweetie-pie!

 

[BreezeWood]

Try keeping your trash off my lawn.

you replied a-hole, there are plenty more just the same as you.

Yes, honey, you addressed me so I replied as usual. Not those "plenty more just the same" thank goodness. That would just be weird. You're most welcome.
Oh, and thanks for finally addressing my question. So, reviewing and parsing,

flora does not have a CNS - irregardless its functioning properties physiology does not exist without a spiritual component and dissipates when that component is removed and is itself a metaphysical substance not native to planet Earth.

English version: (plants don't have nerves)(no life does) "without a spirit"(all die.) "spirit" (is magical like life, however is a) "substance not native to planet Earth."
Fair enough.. Now, adding this fresh news!,

life is native to the universe as physiology proves by its abundance when the conditions for its development are available - and the metaphysical properties required for its existence are adhered to, the viability for physiology's spiritual component.

English attempt: (actually neither life nor spirit are) "native to planet Earth." (instead??? - both are) "native to the universe" (really??? are there any more options??? being native to Earth somehow excludes being from the universe and vice versa??? one requires the other along with some other locally acquired stuff and the existence of life) "proves by its abundance" (that all it well and) "spirit" (rules!)

Yeah, as incoherent and nonsensical as ever, but whatever floats your dinghy. To each their own. Whatever you need to believe to satisfy your personal mental requirements without harming others. I do have an alternative though. All you appear to think of as "spiritual" I just see as small facets of electrical activity that we have yet to flesh out because we've long abandoned consideration of the Aether, dielectrics, and related experimentation, replacing it all with stuff like "warped space" fantasy instead, mainly because Einstein. (was such a brilliant idiot). Peace. Cuppy-cake gumdrop snookum snookum sweetie-pie!

All you appear to think of as "spiritual" I just see as small facets of electrical activity that we have yet to flesh out because we've long abandoned consideration of ...

.
your problem g-nuts is your comprehension problem is global -

Flora has no electrical activity as pointed out earlier nor would its chemical composition correspond to Fauna leaving only a spiritual content for its physiological properties and its resilient identity the same as Fauna from its earliest cellular form.

evolution is the direct expression of the spiritual content of the associated physiology.