I look at it like a puzzle. The spirit and soul are patterned after the body and spirit has unchangeable elements so even changing the bodies doesnt change sex of the spirit. Same sex is like the same side of the puzzle. You need the other half of the puzzle to complete the picture and you need your other half to make you one complete whole entity. Two of the same sex simply do not fit together to make it one whole. Its not about accusation its about education.
What's the beef with homosexuality?
- Thread starter pghguy
- Start date
NiceCupOfTea
Pathetic earthlings
- Messages
- 1,242
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 0
yes nice theory but how do you know its true ?
in other words are you talking from your experience or from your theories ?
Experience.
Etu Malku
Mercuræn
- Messages
- 1,439
- Reaction score
- 2
- Points
- 38
Wow, if you can prove to the world the existence of a soul, you can start clearing your mantelpiece for a few Nobel prizes and a few world science awards!
radarmark
Quaker-in-the-Making
Wow! It is good that you believe this (donnann) and you are entitled to believe this. However, you are making some rather striking claims:
1) male and female are different in more than just material form (unproved, perhaps disproved factually),
2) there is a sex associated with a spiirit (unproved, disproved in my experience),
3) "puzzle", "education", and "experience" are words that mean something... look them up--you are not using them as most of us are.
The gist is that your comments would mean you believe the sexes (all four or five) are not equal. That is a quaint notion, but one most here have gotten beyond.
Please try to use the words "I believe" or "I think" to at least qualify your statements (IMHO). Pax et amore omnia vincunt!
1) male and female are different in more than just material form (unproved, perhaps disproved factually),
2) there is a sex associated with a spiirit (unproved, disproved in my experience),
3) "puzzle", "education", and "experience" are words that mean something... look them up--you are not using them as most of us are.
The gist is that your comments would mean you believe the sexes (all four or five) are not equal. That is a quaint notion, but one most here have gotten beyond.
Please try to use the words "I believe" or "I think" to at least qualify your statements (IMHO). Pax et amore omnia vincunt!
I dont care about prizes but world peace would be nice. The soul is multicolored light like a patchwork quilt. It is an essence that is literal emotion that can only be felt on the senses level with the body because that essence is sealed away. The soul exists as does the spirit.
NiceCupOfTea
Pathetic earthlings
- Messages
- 1,242
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 0
Fair play then.
I have had both male and female lovers and the emotional and spiritual union is the same IMO.
Well same sex unions isnt my cup of tea.......ha get the pun.
bob x
Well-Known Member
And that's fine: I wouldn't force you to drink a cup that was not yours. All I ask is the same courtesy, which seems to be impossible from you.
Etu Malku
Mercuræn
- Messages
- 1,439
- Reaction score
- 2
- Points
- 38
I'm thinking of a few other prizes you might win
If the soul was multicolored light, then we would be able to see it, and thus far that hasn't happened. Now, if we can't see the soul, then we can't see what it looks like . . . yet, YOU know it's multicolored? Right
Wait . . . now it's an essence, not multicolored light, and 'literal' emotion to boot. But even still, this literal emotion "can only be felt on the senses level with the body because that essence is sealed away"
What are you smoking? This is utter nonsense, and borderline insanity . . . please make sense, or stop trolling here.
I'm thinking of a few other prizes you might win
If the soul was multicolored light, then we would be able to see it, and thus far that hasn't happened. Now, if we can't see the soul, then we can't see what it looks like . . . yet, YOU know it's multicolored? Right
Wait . . . now it's an essence, not multicolored light, and 'literal' emotion to boot. But even still, this literal emotion "can only be felt on the senses level with the body because that essence is sealed away"
What are you smoking? This is utter nonsense, and borderline insanity . . . please make sense, or stop trolling here.
The soul is literal emotion. If the soul were to come into the body you would know , say for example love , what esssence it was because you feel it on the senses level of the body. Your body is like a skin. The soul looks like a patchwork quilt of multicolored light. The bible calls this union of essence a rapture.
I'm thinking of a few other prizes you might win
If the soul was multicolored light, then we would be able to see it, and thus far that hasn't happened. Now, if we can't see the soul, then we can't see what it looks like . . . yet, YOU know it's multicolored? Right
Wait . . . now it's an essence, not multicolored light, and 'literal' emotion to boot. But even still, this literal emotion "can only be felt on the senses level with the body because that essence is sealed away"
What are you smoking? This is utter nonsense, and borderline insanity . . . please make sense, or stop trolling here.
Let me guess........The Nobel Nut Prize?
radarmark
Quaker-in-the-Making
Again, Donnann, we are trying to examine rationally the questions raised in the different threads. You are not the only ones we point out as having communications problems within that context.
If you want to communicate (share your beliefs) with us it would help to use some qualifiers. Let us look (again at the common English and rational level) at what it takes for something to be true. First your words must refer to something in the universe (this dog or the idea of G!d). Second of all what is indicated by those words is factual (100% certainty that they correspond to that something in the universe). What, then is true? One plus one equals two. This dog is brown. The idea most prople have of G!d is that H! is not coporeal.
Because you say it, it is not true. Because you experience it is not true (necessarily). To say "I know this to be true" two other caveats apply, besides of course the fact that is true per the above discussion. First, you must believe it to be true (saying "I know X but do not believe it" is meaningless, within the context of English). Second, you must have sufficient reason to believe it is true (saying "I know the Packers will win tomorrow" and you know nothing about football), even if it is the case that what you prophecy is true, you cannot know it. For instance, a Native of the Amazon rainforest who has never seen a TV or heard of American Football, says "I know the Packers will win tomorrow" and they do... it is not the case that she knew it ahead of time, it was a guess (and since the odds were 50-50, not even a hard one). Grok?
So temper your claims, if you do not like typing "I believe" all the time, use INHO (in my humble opinion) or IMO (in my opinion). That should save you a lot of grief.
Panta Rhei! (Everything Flows!)
If you want to communicate (share your beliefs) with us it would help to use some qualifiers. Let us look (again at the common English and rational level) at what it takes for something to be true. First your words must refer to something in the universe (this dog or the idea of G!d). Second of all what is indicated by those words is factual (100% certainty that they correspond to that something in the universe). What, then is true? One plus one equals two. This dog is brown. The idea most prople have of G!d is that H! is not coporeal.
Because you say it, it is not true. Because you experience it is not true (necessarily). To say "I know this to be true" two other caveats apply, besides of course the fact that is true per the above discussion. First, you must believe it to be true (saying "I know X but do not believe it" is meaningless, within the context of English). Second, you must have sufficient reason to believe it is true (saying "I know the Packers will win tomorrow" and you know nothing about football), even if it is the case that what you prophecy is true, you cannot know it. For instance, a Native of the Amazon rainforest who has never seen a TV or heard of American Football, says "I know the Packers will win tomorrow" and they do... it is not the case that she knew it ahead of time, it was a guess (and since the odds were 50-50, not even a hard one). Grok?
So temper your claims, if you do not like typing "I believe" all the time, use INHO (in my humble opinion) or IMO (in my opinion). That should save you a lot of grief.
Panta Rhei! (Everything Flows!)
I explained it in my other post in the other thread. Clearly you cannot argue with the logic in that post.