I know I shouldn't have texted her that. I was just so out of it that day and exposed my emotions.

Into the second day of talking she's calling me "baby" and we haven't met in person yet.

In that e-mail she referred to me as her boyfriend.

*sass* you've been on the boards long enough to know that atheism is the "lack of belief in the existence of any gods" which is not the same as "the belief that there are no gods."

Proof, in general, doesn't exist. Even in mathematics, since proofs first require us to assume ceratin unprovable axioms are true.

the claim that atheism is a belief is usually followed by an argument that all beliefs are created equal, and that Creationism should be taught in schools, laws should be passed that to restrict homosexuality, etc.

I can "believe" that 2 + 2 = 10 all I want, but when someone can demonstrate why that solution = false... which 'belief' has more value?

Faith by it's very definition holds less value than a system that has evidence to support it.

The lack of a belief is not a belief

learn to cut out the vanity and grow a personality, maybe then the guy that takes u out might appreciate the actual personality you achieved

as a man i would never post like this , i have trouble walking in stillettos and i don't like highlights or having my nails done

in your opinion, is it as ethically questionable as the violation of a living person?

Realative truths are always dependent on some kind of aboslute truth or truths. There is a truth called the law of non-contradiction. And there are real paradoxes. Where two or more seemingly contradictory things are all true. (As in the theory of relativity time paradox.)

Under the truth of the law of non-contadiction, if one things is true, then the opposite is always false. No exceptions. And the so-called exceptions would be cases of not being according to the law of non-contradiction (such as the time paradox, the speed of light being the constant, not time.)

Disclaimer: This is probably not the answer you want to hear.

If he was serious about dating you then work wouldn't have mattered no matter how busy he was. That is an excuse we use when we aren't looking for a relationship. We're busy.

As for getting back to being more than friends, there is nothing you can do. If he wants to be more, you will know.

Good luck!

The origin of the word derives from Latin. The word fornix means "an archway" or "vault" and it became a common euphemism for a brothel as prostitutes could be solicited in the vaults beneath Rome. More directly, fornicatio means "done in the archway"; thus it originally refered to prostitution

I think individual freedom and conscience have to be respected in matters of religious faith. I think it is fine to discuss or engage in religious apologetics, so long as human rights are respected. No-one should be forced to convert to a faith, or unfairly co-erced into belief. People should also not be punished civilly or criminally for renouncing faith or failing to discharge religious laws and customs.

By being accepting of them and their beliefs. By realizing that their beliefs are just as important and real to them as mine are to me.

Yes, I (now) draw a very definite line. I will respectfully listen and share ideas/opinions with anyone, but the minute that someone claims exclusivity of the "truth", or tells me they "know" what cannot possibly be known, or I find out their religion/belief system promotes or encourages division (or hatred), I'm out and my respect for them/their beliefs goes out the window as well. And while some people might be quick to label me close minded or intolerant, there is nothing open minded about tolerating ignorance in my opinion.

Who/what gets to decide whose beliefs should be tolerated or not? A president? A pope? A priest? A minister? My mother? My father?? A book? The general public? The majority? The experts? My neighbor? You? Him? Her? Them? WHO and WHAT gets to decide what should be tolerated or not?

In my opinion, the only "true" position that anyone can honestly justify (at this point in time) is the "I/we don't know" position. Anything else is just beliefs and beliefs are just that - beliefs - nothing more, nothing less.

No, she states it because the greatest theologians and philosophers have gone over this ground for the last two thousand years and the best conclusion that has been arrived at is that there is no way to prove or disprove the existence of deity but that whatever evidence you attempt to use to prove one works equally well for any of them (Russell's Celestial Teapot) which is why claims of exclusivity of truth are bound to fail.

Some of us believe that we don’t have to pick one.

I don’t understand why admiring Jesus should mean that I should have not respect for Buddha. And I don’t understand why admiration of either should mean I cannot believe that we are evolving.

Not to be critical, but the whole free will thing coulda been spelled out in the OP.

My big question, then, would be as to whether or not you think someone can (or feels they should) actually change the mind of another against their will. Whatcha think?

in order for someone to influence another's free will, that person would had to have given it up in the first place, no?

An author I read in the last year puts it in these terms. God is the only one with the ultimate understanding of truth. What we as people have is a dialogue in which, by speaking together we come closer to understanding that truth. Therefore, all that has been shared is now a part of the dialogue that is helping me to come to a better understanding of the truth that is of God. This understanding will shift, grow and change until the day I see God as God is. In this life, I am willing to just keep growing.

What does reconciliation mean to me? Being one with God again, as we were in the garden. Being able to walk and talk with God with out intermediarys or sacrifices. I llok at it like a divorce.

Now if you know something to be true, and some one else thinks just the opposite, would that opposite view be false?Yes. Of course it would.

breathing oxygen and eating food, and having water in some form, are truths which humans and animals all need. The choices of food may be different. But those truths are essentially absolute.

A wrong belief can kill. A right belief can save lives in our real world.

You believe this. Because you don't know what that proof would be.

In spiritual matters, the odds are we all are going to be wrong. Consider that. That is just the odds of picking or not picking the right spiritual belief. Wouldn't it be nice if there was some way to narrow the odds?

OK, why would one choose to believe what one thought was not the correct view?

Let me put it another way: The only correct view would be according to God, not because I would merely think so.

To state it another way, something is not true because anyone believes something. Mere belief does not make what is believed true. Hopefully, what is believed is that which is really true.

Do you know why you believe what you believe?

And so then if I know something be be true, which you at this time can not accept, the best I can do is provide you information by which you can, at your choosing, take knowledge of. And then once you have that information, then you can decided whether you can accept that information as true. If for some reason you find you can not accept the information as true. That should mean there is other information which you have already accepted as true, which does not allow the new information to be accepted.

Consider, one cannot make a correct choice, if there is a correct choice to be made, if that choice is not correctly understood. Or we do not have the information we need to make that choice.

To start with, I do not think that people need to believe as I do. My own beliefs are fluid and ever changing. as I answer one question, I find 10 more pop up. At times I find I was wrong about what I thought was an absoloute belief previously.

I do want to make this point though. God gave us Free Will to accept or rejct that offer of reconciliation. Why would he do this? Because, he wants us to accpet it, not because we have to, but rather because we want to.

~simply sharing what God has done in your life to draw you to your belief pattern. Most importantly however, would be the power of prayer and intercession on the other's behalf.

For a Fundamentalist Christian believer, they should be sensitive and aware of the fact that salvation is ultimately a work and function of God's Holy Spirit (something not entirely within their own control).

Ahh, but karma is nothing more than the consequences OF our choices. Without choice there would be no karma

I believe our spirits lived (maybe in bodies, maybe not - depends on who you ask, and I don't feel it necessary to this discussion to give my opinion) before this body... we are where we're supposed to be in terms of our own spiritual growth.

IMO, karma and free will are not exclusive. Rather, they are forever intertwined within the universal law of cause and effect.

I wouldn't know to say "influence", so much as "affect", although that could just be a personal semantic issue. "Influence" seems to indicate a contribution

Define "greatest".

Seriously, if we're talking impact, I'd have to go with Scorpio with regard to contribution, and folks starting with the conclusion that they're right going in the other direction, if you get what I'm sayin'.

if I had a 'line' it would be between telling someone who they are and having them to ask themselves the question "who am I?"-- respect free will.

When you start questioning them or get into details they get mad and change the subject fast.

There is no "line", because a "line" implies a simplistic mechanism for determining if you are being "out of order". There is no such mechanism. You have to get to know each and every person, and find out what is touchy for them, and that is all about getting to know someone. The minute you start thinking about a "line", you aren't thinking about the other person, and the minute you do that, you stop being aware of what will offend them, and you'll cross their line.

When you write this, you show me that you forget about ME, and in so doing, you completely ignored what my "line" might be.

It's not the questions you asked that p*ss people off, it's the assumption that you can easily avoid offending people by keeping on one side of a "line". It makes people feel like they are simple one-dimensional beings, and they aren't. They're complex, and real, and you have to put them in mind as real people.

As a Christian, I want the other person or persons to know what joyous message it is that I have come to believe. The problem is getting the information heard and understood correctly.

Christianity has so many players that it makes it hard for others to know who has the correct view or views for its beliefs. Since it is so diverse, and there are now so many negative opinions, it is hard to comunicate what should have been easy.

So, my answer? Be open to sharing what faith is to you but allow God to be the one to move in the hearts of others.

There is no "line". "The line" is something you make up in your own head.

It doesn't matter what the other person's line is. Either you make the effort to figure out what other people's lines are, and make every effort to never cross them, and if you do, apologise profusely, and do everything you can to make it up to them, or you don't, and then you p*ss off everyone, because everyone has a line that you think is stupid about something or other, some about religion, some about questions about their past, some about not being told some stuff (I have no problem with discussing certain topics that make people feel ill to even mention them), all sorts. You WILL p*ss off everyone, given enough time with them. What matters, is do you respect THEIR line, and not yours?

There is no line. There is no point in answering what are mythical absolutist lines that differ from person to person, and even from issue to issue in the very same person.

The problem is, that you are pointing at the elephant footprints and asking where is the elephant, when we are in India, surrounded by elephants, and what's important is finding the mouse that scares the elephants.

if I didn't state this, then I would not be pointing out the real issue that underpins this, that ever time someone states that something is absolute, like a line, or an opinion, or a fact, they are usually trying to use the argument of exclusivity of truth, that "I'm right, so you have to accept my POV, or you're an idiot". It's impossible to have such a view, without p*ssing off everyone who thinks that you and he/she don't agree. Whether you and they agree or not is irrelevant. If they think you and they don't agree, you'll p*ss them off, even if you agree. If they think you and they agree, you won't p*ss them off, even if you don't agree at all.

The line I will not cross is when the insults start to fly. The most common reason I have walked away from a discussion is for having been called a satan worshiper. Then I know my opponent has come to a point where they are unable to continue in an intelligent manner.

I really enjoy pointing out the parallels and similarities to many other faiths

people are exactly where they're supposed to be (karmic) in regards to what faith they're following

Your friendship and your openness to reach people like me are the qualities required to influence in-betweens...

If you'd have asked what the 'easiest' way was, I'd have probably said indoctrination at an early age.
But 'greatest' implies 'best'...so from my perspective...the 'best' way to influence another spiritually is to not actively attempt to do so.

Lead by example and if the example is worthy it will attract people curious about what makes you tick, what makes you shine.
If they ask (keyword: IF), tell them what works for you - without presuming that because it does, it can also work for them.
Encourage them to shop around and try on all styles of spirituality and then decide on something that they feel comfortable in.
And remind them that One Size Fits All never does.

Ha, so here you are Sassy :)
As an outsider, it seems, forever looking in, the thing that struck me most was their sheer conviction of truth and determination to overwhelm you with it. How could they not be telling this truth it to people like me that needed t know it and in no uncertain terms... so what am I talking about? Door-to-door visits, handing out magazines, being overly engrossed with every question they fire. That is until they realize they're firing blanks.

So, the real question is, at what point do you distinguish between religious justifications for religious salvations, and secular justifications for secular salvation? At what point do youn consider that the secular ends do NOT justify the secular means? At what point do we tell those who are not speaking for a well-known religion, that they are being offensive, and oppressive?

Only when we know our own limits, can we even begin to understand when someone else should stop.

Maybe we ought to consider what we do, that is wrong, before we consider what others do, that is wrong. Maybe if we all started from that perspective, we all would be less keen to judge everyone else.

For me, you can guess that I'm incredibly critical. So don't take this too harshly.

I was told as a young teen, that according to my religion, the only way to influence people was by example. So far, I've found it's really the only one that works, whether it is to do with religion, education, or dating. People look at what you DO, and if it works for you, they copy it. If you don't do it, they don't either.

This in no way indicates that I "lead them on". We may chat, email one another or even enjoy phone chats but never will you find me encouraging a physical relationship with them.If anyone thinks that I do than they have sadly been mistaken.

I really loved them, but there was a secret loneliness.

You know, it is one thing to disagree with my interpretation of someone else's written word...but to report me to the mods and suggest to them that I be "spayed"? How ironic - isn't that the same kind of attitude Hitler had toward the Jews? Yeah, keep defending the swastika with pride - it fits...

"The other poster" has an issue with a swastika - regardless of what it symbolized BEFORE the nazis used it - but thanks for the history lessons...I, personally, think that the Holocaust was more than a "blip on the map of human history"...But what do I know...

The Phoenix is another symbol that is shared by more than one religion. It has deep meaning in both Hindu and Christian circles. Many, especially Catholics, believe it is the Phoenix that is referred to in Psalms and Job. How ever, many translators now say that those verses trefer to Palm, as in Palm tree.

In Christianity, the Phoenix, is believed by some to represent the death and resurection of Christ. There was a facinating myth about the Phoenix in one of the non cannonized books, Sas, I am pretty sure I read it in the Other Bible, which I know you mentioned having a copy of.

I lent my copy to a freind, but if I remember right, I think it was in the Summerian books?

Sass, does your tattoo mean eternal rebirth grown from a process of discrimination, dissolution, and re-unification.
I am just taking a guess. But I'm curious to know what it means to you.

Sass, I am not judging you but why would you choose to tattoo yourself with a sign that symbolizes nothing more than hate, discrimination, and death to millions of your fellow human beings?

The Oldest Known Symbol

The swastika is an ancient symbol that has been used for over 3,000 years. (That even predates the ancient Egyptian symbol, the Ankh!) Artifacts such as pottery and coins from ancient Troy show that the swastika was a commonly used symbol as far back as 1000 BCE.

During the following thousand years, the image of the swastika was used by many cultures around the world, including in China, Japan, India, and southern Europe. By the Middle Ages, the swastika was a well known, if not commonly used, symbol but was called by many different names:

China - wan
England - fylfot
Germany - Hakenkreuz
Greece - tetraskelion and gammadion
India - swastika

Though it is not known for exactly how long, Native Americans also have long used the symbol of the swastika.

The word "swastika" comes from the Sanskrit svastika - "su" meaning "good," "asti" meaning "to be," and "ka" as a suffix.

Until the Nazis used this symbol, the swastika was used by many cultures throughout the past 3,000 years to represent life, sun, power, strength, and good luck.

That is my truth, of course for others they will have a different truth, but who used it first is irrelevant in my opinion, for it does not change what it symbolises to me.