Hi Mike,

>>You know the answer far better to that question than I Mike. Did you?
>
>I never said you were wrong, just that you're unfair.

But that is a judgement just like you're accusing me of making. In that case then you are also 'unfair', though I disagree with your analysis.

Perhaps it would help if you were able to provide your definition of the word 'fair'. That way I could possibly understand you a little better.

For me it's a kind of equality in the application of principles. I have also come to the conclusion that life seems to me to be very unfair at times. Usually later I see some good arising from what I initially thought 'unfair'.

>
>>I see.. But I do need to come clean to you? <g> That sounds like either hypocrisy, a double standard, confusion or denial.
>
>What the hell are you talking about.

Can't make you understand what you cannot understand Mike. Sorry. Perhaps a more careful reading would help?

>
>>However, I need to point out that you do have beliefs but you just don't want to admit it yet.
>
>Oh yeah, cause deep down I know you're right. You're awfully conceited aren't you.

I am confident in what I believe Mike, no doubt. How confidence automatically translates into conceit I'm at something of a loss as to understand. Well, actually, I remember when I was a teenager and I thought everyone around me was that way. But that's not true in your case, correct? <g>

>
>>Actually it's starting to sound like you just haven't figured out how to deal with your feelings.
>
>What the hell are you talking about.

Well, I stated exactly what I meant. Read it again..

>
>>I don't owe you an answer. What do you care - you don't have beliefs, right?
>
>Just wondering.
>
>>I'll take that as a compliment. Thank you very much. I do try to be myself.
>
>It was meant as a compliment, you're welcome.

Appreciated.. <g>

>
>>You do have standards whether you can admit it or not.
>
>Goddamnit, will you stop telling me to come clean, why are you picking at that? I have standards, I have values, I don't believe in God the same way you do. WAKE UP, IT IS POSSIBLE!

I'm picking at that for the very obvious reason that you're trying to hide behind a non-answer. And, from the tone of your reply it looks like I'm real close.. I'm not asking you to believe in God like I do (though Ido think that would be nice <g>), what I'm asking you to do is admit that your so-called 'non standard' is actually a standard in its own right. That's all..

>
>>If you think I'm wrong just tell me and then please tell me why.
>
>I told you why you are unfair, twice.

Your opinion.. You're not automatically 'right' just because you have one you know.. Neither am I. Or anyone else. I've seen a lot of folks that I consider sincere but sincerely incorrect or wrong.

>
>>You want to play in the deep end of the pool then yo'd better learn how to swim... <g>
>
>Never at a loss for pointless analogies, are ya'?

You know.. This is actually quite humerous Mike. You get all over my case about trying to somehow 'force' some idea on you when all I've done is explain my position. And yet, when I read your messages it sure looks like to me that you're the one tossing accusatory judgements around. Have I ever asserted that your illustrations are 'pointless'?

I have a whole cartload full of analogies Mike. I dare say that from my point of view they're not 'pointless' but I can certainly understand that you might think that way...

>
>>But please... At least have the guts and courtesy to admit to yourself what is obvious to all reading your messages. It's quite ok with me if you disagree with me. I'm certainly aware that I don't have all the 'angles' on life and I'd very much like to learn and grow.
>
>>What evidence have you provided to me to convince me that swearing, as a form of communication, is better or more 'enlightened'. I'm very interested in learning how this might be so...
>
>Its just a word, don't be a dick about it.

Words have meaning - unless you're unfamiliar with the word "dictionary." <g>

You still haven't given me any proof that coarse and base language is better or more enlightened...


>
>>Well, you cannot avoid having beliefs Mike
>
>Why not, because you don't? Your extreme closed-mindeness on this issue is pathetic.

Well, because every position is some form of a belief system. And, no offense, but it doesn't appear to me that I'm the one who's being 'close minded' here. I'm just asserting that you have a belief system just as much as anyone else does. Perhaps you just haven't connected those dots yet..


>
>>It really sounds like you're just trying to avoid the pain that comes from adopting some sort of belief system as you (rightly) deduce that they all contain inherent conflict with others.
>
>Thats wrong. My examples were not on why its bad to have beliefs, but why its so hard to show someone else a point of view that conflicts with there strongly helf beliefs. Because they blindly follow them and its EXTREMELY difficult to change your beliefes, and THAT is why I don't feel the need for them. Stop making lame assumptions at why I don't want what you have.

Mike, how in the world can you be so sure I'm just blindly following my beliefs?

Now, I know you haven't lived in my head for the last 43 years but at the age of 5, when I found out that I was adopted, I can guarantee you that at that point I started thinking about my place in the cosmos. It has at times been a horrible struggle and I wouldn't wish on anyone some of the periods of great self-doubt that I've dealt with.

What you are calling 'conceit' and 'arrogance' really should be more understood as a sort of quiet confidence that I have struggled mightily to arrive at. At one point earlier in my life - after taking mass quantities of assorted ..er.. narcotics <g> - I arrived at the point where I thought I'd lost the ability to thinkat all. No.. I've struggled in ways you'll most likely never understand - and that I'd not want you to understand - to get to where I'm sure of my thought process.

That you are interpreting my confidence as something else only tells me that you need to re-evaluate your presumptions and assumptions a little.

>
>>I guess I'd only say that this will not keep pain away from your life. What I am suggesting is that folks choose a belief system based on reason and reasonableness.
>
>How is believing in God reasonable? He's a superhuman character from a book. Its like basing your belief system on Wonder Woman, if you ask me. It doesn't make you wrong, I just don't see how it could be reasonable.

Well, depends on your definition of the word 'god' (lower case 'g'). For me god is a title, not a name. There are many many gods. The three most often mentioned in the 66 books that we call the Bible, other that the real God (YHVH), are:

1) Power
2) Pleasure
3) Intellect

Seems to me tha mankind still worships at those three alters to this very day.

Or should I say, "Ho Ho Ho.." <g> (that would be pleasure as found in materialism)

It's a great question Mike. Look at it this way; if God does exist it's better in terms of aligning your mind with reality to believe in Him rather than denying Him, don't you think?

Now, if He does not exist, as I've mentioned to Erik, it makes a lot more sense to simply not bother. But, for those in this 'camp' then I just have to wonder why they get so angry at those of us who do believe in God? That's not IMO a reality-based thought process...

Don't know if that makes sense or not.

>
>>HTH...
>
>Its helped me, it hasn't helped prove your point at all though.

Well, give it another shot. I really think you're a great guy and I have to confess that you've kind of puzzled me at the intensity of a few of your messages. Not your garden variety discussion... <g>

Please understand that all I'm trying to do is explain my position - not somehow 'twist' your thinking process. I would like to influence you and I'd ask what's wrong with that? I suspect you'd like to also influence my thinking and I appreciate that very much . I'm not threatened by it at all...