Bradley is cooler than Danny Ainge. He didn't win as much, but he is far cooler. He hasn't bitten anybody's ear, and he didn't throw a ball in Mario Ellie's face in a rage of spoiled baby poor sportsmanship.
Why does it matter? Why is love better than murder? Is it just about stimulating the senses into having a pleasant experience while on earth? I believe the term your looking to describe your views would be close to Hedonism. I sure hope for you and your family's sake, you don't run into someone with similiar viewpoints who has choosen murder for the way they want to occupy their life.
^^Stimulating the senses and experiencing them are different things. How we interpret the world around us is unique. I think what Dubious is refering to is solipsism.
I also wanted to add that during Hakeem's last years in Houston he was very philosophical, and interested. He invited several mormon's to his place for dinner in order to listen and discuss religion. I was fascinated when I learned this. Some of the folks who went to his house were friends with a friend of mine who is an active in Church of LDS.
Just make sure to stay away from personal pronouns around the collective consciousness that posts mostly under the pseudonym MR MEOWGI....
A guy posts that he wants to live his life to be happy and he gets slammed for it. What does that tell you? You and rhester have argued against living life for happiness on this board. I think most Christians think you live to be good, die, then become happy forever. Showing an image of Jesus smiling was revolutionary just 50 years ago or so. You yourself said you don't like the image of Buddha smiling and a religion promoting happiness on Earth.
I think the Christian warning is aimed against what they would percieve as false happiness. Maybe we should split the two into the categories they are viewed from. Temporal happiness, which passes, and eternal happiness. The latter is much harder to find and arguably many who think they have it are loonies. But then again, that's the point. It's not something that's supposed to be easy or temporal to find. IT is a journey. It is that life affirming Nietzschian stance Dubious has taken. But it also accounts for the soul, which Dubious' stance neglects. It says man has a spiritual side that cannot be neglected.
I agree with true vs. false happiness. But I think living for true happiness now is more life affirming than living for a false idea of eternal happiness after death. The idea of a soul is no more spiritual than the idea of no soul.
yeah, i'm miserable. i've embraced misery on this earth. i've never once talked about the kingdom of God being here and now, have i? come on, meowgi. this discussion is about your issues with christianity. not about who christ was or what i'm following. when you speak of christianity you speak of it in a way very different from how i understand it. as if we're talking about two different faiths entirely.
Stop defining the terms for Christianity's belief system. Eternal happiness is comprised of earthly happiness and beyond. You don't get to write the rule book for Christianity's beliefs. I think the idea of the soul is inately spiritual. Please clarify oh cryptic one.
I'm defining the terms? I'm just stating what I see. The idea of a soul is spiritual, but it is not more spiritual than the idea of no soul. If clinging to the idea of an eternal soul does not bring true happiness, then it would be a spiritual idea not to do so.
Well i replied to your post, that replied to my post that wasn't specifically directed to you. So I guess that then does make it about you, if replying to you directly does that.
