It wasn't designed to.
All you are doing is twisting my words.

And I do not dictate what nonChristiand believe or do.

If you read the Scriptures you would know that death is not the end.

CLV John 11:25 Jesus said to her, "I am the Resurrection and the Life. He who is believing in Me, even if he should be dying, shall be living.
26 And everyone who is living and believing in Me, should by no means be dying for the eon. Are you believing this?"

This has to be one of the stupidest rebuttals for "hell" I have ever seen. The sad part is, I have seen it before.

I do not say that "hell" is not real. No one living can know that. But I do say it is not a Scriptural concept. There is no ancient term for "hell." Not one that describes how it is used today.

If there is no ancient term for "hell" then it stands to reason that the word "hell" is a substitute for something else.

However, no one will ever discover what that "something else" is as long as he/she indulges in stupid theologies.



So many Catholics had trouble with the concept that Dante's divine comedy is nothing more than a fictitious tale. It would be tantamount to reading a comic book.

Anyone truly interested in what the Scriptures say about death needs to stay away from such literature.

As there is no "hell" in the Scriptures, that would be impossible.

All souls go to sheol.

CLV Ezk. 18:4 Behold, all souls, they are Mine! as The soul of the father even as the soul of the son, they are Mine! The soul that is sinning, it shall die.

The soul is NOT immortal. Souls die.

I know what you mean. My problem of spelling how creating your own credit can be done is my life. Funny how truth on this site, one can loose posting privileges, and printing the truth on what I am going to call the Wall Street owned press is your life. It is not in my interest to end up dead like Kennedy for the very same reason. I have done this before and I got my head pounded on the blacktop road. The future is limited when you're dead. There is no bear in heaven that is why we drink it here. I was hoping here that some people reading my posts could figure it out, without me having to spell it out. I just have to figure out an easier way for people to figure it out. I understand that some people just can't get the nut on the screw.

Not really.
You aren't taking into account that who you had become and who you were also led to you choosing the things which you then went through and how you perceived them and to what degree they influenced you in ways you didn't really control.

Not to mention a lot of what you've "been through" has also been fought against, denied in order to try to protect who you thought you were, or rationalized in ways to validate who you think you are which really led to a change in yourself you don't perceive or would ever believe occurred.

I mean there are so many variables.
Things you can control. Things you could see. Things you can understand.
Things you could have controlled but thought you couldn't, feared you couldn't, thought you could have but really couldn't. The things you didn't see at the time but did later. The things that weren't really there but you later thought were. The things that were really there, you didn't see at the time, and later you saw them but they're mixed up with things that weren't. The things you didn't see or understand at the time and still don't but still influence you.
Among so many more things.



Ultimately everyone is the same person. They're still that whiny, crying, petulant, selfish baby that popped out of their mother that wants to be fed, changed, held, pleasured, and not scared.

All anyone has done is learned specific processes, and broken off chunks of personality to selfishly use, from those around them, to fulfill what they've come to understand they want and what is important in the goal of personal fulfillment because laying around crying stopped working or providing the same degree of fulfillment.


Life only becomes easier if you simply stick to the routines you've learned the processes and social rules for. IOW you create your little bubble and deny anything outside exists or matters, and the things that attack your bubble are attacked in turn.

There is no "stronger." There's only more experience in a routine.
I mean Stuart Smalley's daily affirmations will definitely lead to you believing them, as long as you also learn to control your life (or how you perceive it) to the point where anything that could contradict what you convince yourself is true is kept at bay and/or rationalized away and/or effectively killed.

If you want to understand how that is true, then study the phenomenon of expatriation. What people go through to cope with being forced into a new culture. For work, for money, for refuge. Whatever reason.
Kind of like the grief process, all people go through a mental, emotional, and social process to facilitate the change, so they can redetermine ways of fulfilling the same things.


I sort of agree but can see where it's wrong.
Kind of like a bodybuilder that went to the gym for the first time because they were beat up by a kid in the 6th grade.

Kinda pointless at 35 after 23 years of bodybuilding to hate on the 6th grader that originally sent them to the gym while paying little focus to their current peers that are bigger, stronger, and meaner, or simply smarter because they spent time studying and experiencing rather than bodybuilding.

But if you don't focus on hate or the past then you can easily lose your motivation and focus for what you've been spending your life doing.

That can easily lead to mid life crisis or questioning your life, insecurities and fear, and losing of your identity altogether.

It would be more appropriate to say something like "don't wallow in old hatreds and let them be all consuming. Remember the past, but be aware of your present and future."

A kid that burns his hand on the stove shouldn't forget to hate the pain of the burn, but should remember that hatred to prevent current burning, and be mindful of caution in using the stove and why they've started enjoying the microwave, and use the learned caution in approaching use of the deep fryer.

Hate is an emotion. Emotions are tools for learning and influencing behavior.
Unfortunately, a lot of people have learned (especially thanks to Disney, and the movie/tv industry and their approach to "love" and "happiness") that emotions are a reward system, like an inbuilt chemical dependency drip, where you can achieve one you like and it will be there to provide that pleasure forever, constantly.

And that's the kicker. If you believe in forever love, if you believe you can find a "soul" mate, the "right" one, or "true" (love), then you're simply training yourself (or others, if you push your beliefs, or have kids and they learn from who you are) to be susceptible to the phenomenon. Capable of wallowing in hatred, or greed, or envy, or joy, or whatever.
And since life simply doesn't work that way, it's just going to lead to problems.

So:

Perpetual feedback loop.
The person you are influences everything you go through in your life, and everything in life influences the person you are.

All that really means is that it really doesn't matter what person you are.
The only thing that matters is how consistent you can be with the type of person that society wants you to be in order to help you facilitate what you really want.
The more people cry about being accepted for who they are, wanting others to get to know them, the closer they are to being that little baby lying in their crib crying waiting for the world to hand them food and comfort and fulfillment.

Good luck with that.

Concentrated power and sacrificing financial freedom for so called security, always ends in a disaster. Learn to create your own credit, lend it to yourself, make the payments to yourself, to gain your own financial freedom. What we all need to do is make the economic pie bigger by sharing the economic pie in a more equitable way.

Perhaps?

The intent of my statement was that many people seek a legally binding endorsement in marriage. Kinda like an insurance policy.
Perhaps I did use the wrong nomenclature?

The marriage contract 'under law' is basically an insurance policy that someone needs to assure themselves of the dedication and commitment of the other is true.
However, if the dedication and commitment of the other is actually true and the same dedication and commitment is present within, no marriage 'contract' for security is needed.
So, marriage is not really necessary except for legal reasons.

You are either dedicated and committed to your partner or you're not.
Your partner is either dedicated and committed to you or they're not.
No legal declaration is going to change that.

When you look at that person thru the eyes that only you can see them and they look at you thru the eyes that they can only see you if there is not a binding force there, you'll know it.
You don't need a ring, a paper, a religion or a law to tell you.
Unless you're an idiot?

Y'know, marriage is a sticky wicket.
There are many people that think marriage is all about love but even if you marry for love, love is not the controlling factor.
Marriage is all about dedication and commitment.
Marriage is an 'institution' of dedication and commitment.
For many, in many ways, marriage is the "legal" acknowledgement of dedication and commitment but there are many that are not married that have dedication and commitment towards their partner.
I think this is a major point when trying to understand same-sex marriage.
The relationship may be based on dedication and commitment but to be a "legal Marriage" it needs legal justification.

When "Love" is expressed with dedication and commitment for another, marriage is merely the 'legal' binding of that social agreement.

Happiness is simply an emotion, nothing more, nothing less. We want it to be more because have a hard time accepting simple ideas and things. We have the need to over complicate things because we are an arrogant creature.

there is a difference in knowing little about a topic, and knowing nothing about a movie or a book. but yeah, everyone can have an uninformed opinion about a book they havent read or a movie they havent seen. Maybe I should have said it is more difficult to take that opinion into serious consideration.

Again, in honesty, it is a good point that its difficult to have an opinion on a book if you have not read it. Its like having an opinion on a movie that you havent seen.

I will never understand how anyone can comment on a book that he/she has not read.

And the solid truth is, women can be attracted to the smell of men's sweat.
Especially if they have been around men who do not work.

If you take a bullet for your loved one. That is selfless.

Just like Bruno Mars' song Grenade...

"I'd catch a grenade for you
Throw my hand on a blade for you
I'd jump in front of a train for you
You know I'd do anything for you
Oh, I would go through all this pain
Take a bullet straight through my brain
Yes, I would die for you, baby
But you won't do the same"

... ok ok that would be a tad too much :D

The OPs original post implies that this is already being done, I suggest an air show for anyone in question as far as that goes.

The people pulling the strings on this geotesting is what I really fear along with the potential.

The first couple lines into the article I knew what it was about.

Sure roll the dice with our atmosphere and see where it goes!

I know the history of effort to modify weather with cloud seeding but look at the OPs screen name!

I mean come on!