A relationship without intimacy is preeetty difficult to manage. And once you do meet up you may be surprised at who you meet, projections have a tendency of failing to accurately mirror reality, even when it's honest people projecting.

Moreover, there's so much that can't be done with ldr's. When I date someone I know I can help them every way I possibly can because I'm within reach. If someone's depressed, I can put my arm around them and listen. If there's an emergency I can intervene in a timely manner, in a way that's profoundly meaningful, much more so than an e-hug sent across a vast cyber-ocean. When my uncle was murdered it was the people I saw, felt, heard, and touched that filled me with love and understanding, no one else.

There's just so much lacking in a long distance relationship. Certainly, anyone can stay in contact with someone far away. Of course, it's easy to maintain good feelings with a person you haven't really seen or talked to for who knows how long. But to have a relationship 'work out'? That's a different story.

If by 'working out' we mean the two things just mentioned then sure. But if you want a relationship to work in the sense that you enjoy the full benefits and bliss that a powerful bond between two people in love enjoy when they work hard together, then you'll never have it.

A relationship that is full and unyielding is one where the unity between the two is palpable, they are unified in what matters most to both of them, they are unified emotionally, and ultimately they are unified physically. The love they feel radiates from them, you can see it in their eyes, warming your soul as you see them.

Perhaps in a vague sense the first two can be achieved in along distance relationship. But the third one, even the last one? Certainly not.

We live in a time where access is so abundant in so many different places not far from home. I've met incredible people everywhere I've lived, from one coast to the other. Why not try for high hanging fruit in your own orchard, instead of sending hand signals to the exotic looking thing on the opposite side of the farm? =p I promise, in the long haul it's far more rewarding for you, and equally important- the people around you.

I want more socks. I always seem to be losing the damn things.

All these things hinge on -choice-. The devil doesn't make anyone do anything, he presents more choices. Sin is a choice a person makes, not a disease we're circumstantially afflicted by but a way of describing choices God does not approve of in a moral sense. While some circumstances play major roles in the ultimate destiny of every individual, it is largely choice that determines the trouble we run into, it is choice that causes interpersonal conflict or peace, it is choice that leads to personal freedom or bondage, and choice that will be the ultimate determinant in our lives. Not God, not the devil, not anyone else, but US. We choose how we live and who we are.

I'm a male and my name is Mark.

Since you already think it's a myth, why are you asking a question you believe you know the answer to? Sounds to me like you just want to stir up a hornet's nest.

If you have a genuine question, mingle2 probably isn't going to present you with the best answers. For example, when I was researching for a presentation on the need for piracy to exist as a counter-balance to sheer corporate power I went to sites like LexisNexis, JSTOR and other research sites that house millions of scholarly articles. That's where I'd start.

If you want to try something particularly novel, there's always local libraries too.

OH my goodness, let's take the pragmatist's approach and end this shall we? Let's first define 'religion' and apply it to this particular debate. Hopefully when this is over, we'll have one more thing to be thankful for today: the end of this dumb thread.

'Religion is an organized collection of beliefs, cultural systems, and world views that relate humanity to an order of existence.[note 1] Many religions have narratives, symbols, and sacred histories that are intended to explain the meaning of life and/or to explain the origin of life or the Universe. From their beliefs about the cosmos and human nature, people derive morality, ethics, religious laws or a preferred lifestyle. According to some estimates, there are roughly 4,200 religions in the world.'

This is the most commonly accepted basic definition of religion and the characteristics that define it as such.

First, for Uchea's sake, let's grant to him that Christianity is nothing more than a relationship with their God. We can give him that and still prove he's part of a religion. Because, as you can see, having a relationship with Christ first requires that one accept a collection of beliefs, namely that 1. Christ was resurrected and is still able to communicate. 2. That indeed there is some way he communicates that is inexplicable without faith. 3. that he is immortal, and so on. Your relationship with Him cannot exist without first accepting these premises.

Now here Uchea might say, "In the Bible it is written thus, therefore my beliefs are not beliefs, but certifiable facts that demand acceptance and your premises are false." Which is, we've seen, what Uchea has been doing to respond to arguments he has no way of defending against.

Which now brings us to the unpleasant task of proving to Uchea that the Bible is not an infallible source of knowledge, despite the historical value portions of it present to modern researchers.

Let's start with authorship- To this day it is a certifiable fact that among Biblical scholars not a *single* Bible author is known. In fact, all that the scholars have found thus far is that the writers of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, as well as others, were not in fact- Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John. To delve into the matter further, we know that at least two of these authors borrow heavily from a hypothetical document known today as 'document Q' AS WELL as the gospel known as Mark since Matthew and Luke both have words borrowed from Mark and matching words clearly from another unknown document, so the linguists tell us. The point being, these are not original documents, the one nearest to originality being Mark, as far as we know (not to subtly pat myself on the back here).

Continuing on the subject of books of the bible, did you know that there are -17- relevant or related scriptural sources mentioned throughout the old and new testaments that are NOT in the Bible? Where is the book of the generations of Adam? The rest of the the records of the kings? Where the hell are the rest of Paul's letters? Your belief is based on an incomplete and chronologically bungled up record. Why should anyone, I mean ANYONE just up and accept that because of your words? And I'm speaking as a believing mormon here.

I'm not going to take the time to point out all the contradictions in scripture because I'm already tired of writing this silly essay.

The only real defense that legitimate portions of the Bible have are convictions that can only come from God Himself. These convictions and the method of assurance from God cannot be tested, measured, shown, or revealed to others. It is a supremely personal thing designed to benefit YOU specifically. Nothing you say will convince anyone that your beliefs are true, if they're well studied and not prone to constant change, like a reed shaken in the wind. So why not leave that to the All-Powerful people who actually have the time and resources to prove what we couldn't hope to prove in a lifetime? We Christians ought to be more worried about the poor, the homeless, the widowed, the fatherless, the people who are actually in need, and be more worried about embracing the Christlike attributes of faith, hope, charity, virtue, knowledge, *humility*, diligence, obedience to truth wherever it can be found, mercy, and all those things that really matter in this world. If by living in accordance with these things someone takes an interest in our beliefs, perhaps that would be a wiser time to share them.

Now for atheism. You've claimed without knowledge or understanding that Atheism is a religion. That it in fact, *is* something. I can assure you Uchea, as surely as it is impossible to form something from nothing (we mormons have a different perspective on creation), atheism cannot be a religion.

Let's consider today's acceptable definition of atheism and compare it to the first-mentioned definition in this little expose and see if we find any red flags you might be interested in.

"Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities.[1][2] In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities.[3][4][5] Most inclusively, atheism is simply the absence of belief that any deities exist."

Please point your attention to the last sentence, where we find not the existence of a belief, but the absence of one. If, as most of us agree, a religion is first and foremost a collection of beliefs, then it follows that atheism cannot be a belief, since atheists have no religious beliefs, none that have to do with the existence of deities anyway. It is not simply believing something does not exist when it does as you suggest Uchea, but it is living without a belief in what appears to not exist in the natural universe. Now to you and I, Uchea, it could appear that these people are refusing to believe in something that does exist because, for example, *I* know that God exists and so then it follows that these other people are denying a truth that could be had by them.. But I assure you, they are not. They don't know Him and frankly a good deal have found convincing reasons that prevent a belief in deity to take root. So theirs is not a denial of knowledge, but an acceptance of appearances.

Here you might say, "But you said they could have that knowledge! Surely God will give them that!" Now we jump into the realm of uncertain assumptions. As a believer myself, I do believe everyone will have the opportunity to know the most important truths, but who the hell are we to say when that is? Do you know how many billions have died without knowing a thing about Christianity as you've defined it? What about them? Will you condemn billions both living and dead for experiences they've never had, for not taking an interest in the beliefs of a group of people who have become characterized by many evil things as well as good? People will know when they will know, in this life or the next, the most important thing for a person like you or I is not to ramble listlessly about the nature truth that our own understanding is so hugely limited in and to sit in God's throne and make His calls. As Jeannie has so aptly put more than once, the ultimate purpose, the real call of the Christians ought to be one of love.

Have you noticed what this thread is sickeningly absent of Uchea? =(

So Atheism is not a religion, but a paradigm, and a very natural one. So let's leave each other be and get to the respective things we find most important.

And let's pretend this thread never existed and have a bloody happy thanksgiving eh?

Cheers everyone,

Mark

Um. Well, okay.



I'm now unavailable, haha. That date went better than I anticipated.

I think- therefore I spam. =)














Sorry, I saw your thread question and it was the first thing that came to my head. xD


I wouldn't worry about all the views and the subsequent disparity in actual interaction. Just think to yourself- 'I'm successfully filtering out all the dross on here already. Go me!' =p

How can that be a man rule if women participate? O.o That's just a general standard among some of my circles of friends, men and women.

I dunno, nudges are nice but only as complements to a message or something. Leigh is a master combining those forces, I might add.

Thank you, *finally* someone who understands. I hate those '****' or 'azz' questions. Obviously my body is powerfully attracted to both. xDD

I have autism. Believe me, the damn things are real.

For the fun of it, naturally.

They work out about .00000000001% of the time.

lmao, bahahaha =D


I have a knack for getting into trouble and then worming my way out of it. xD

'Tis, although we've also had our fair share of marriages to catholic ideals and others.

psssssshhhh, hahaha. Thank you! I never wear boxers. I'm mormon so I have special bullet-proof undies. Saved my life more than once. xD


heheh- markman, there's a new one, I like that. Points for originality. =D

And no one with half a brain doesn't wear chapstick out here. We descendants of the LDS nomads live in the middle of a desert. =p

Heyyy, that's exactly what we believe! =)

In our faith it doesn't particularly matter, from a certain point of view, what your faith is if you are true to yourself and what you are convinced is the right thing to do. It doesn't seem logical to me that a perfectly just being would condemn everyone for failing to live according to one set of standards they've known nothing of. So I believe you're spot on.

Isn't our continued attempts to be Christlike the crux of Christianity? The core of what you're all about? (being mormon, I honestly could't say. Our respective cultures have long been estranged)

If being Christian-like means something else like adopting the habits of the mainstreamists then I certainly don't want to be that. Besides, I like swearing. It doeth my soul good like a medicine. xD

Oh I don't know, it doesn't seem so bad. =) Christ cussed out pharisees and threw over tables in a rage after all. =p

I will say our friend's final line here does smack of intellectual exhaustion/desperation in what appears to be a lost debate. Certainly not Christlike there, since Christ seemed to have had an endless talent for sound argument.