boasts of Athiests II

Why do you think you see unhappiness present in their eyes? Could it not be you projecting your own unhappiness upon them?

Also entirely possible, but i'm thinking he also tries to see how happy his friends are. And my thinking is that he sees the same thing in all of their eyes.Which I think to me...is unhealthy to see exactly the same thing in a bunch of different people, because it sends up a flair that there would be something wrong in the way i percieve life.

True you must recognize it to be able to see it, but at the same time why search for their unhappiness in such a manner or even at all?Are you so discontent that another can experience their happiness without reserve? Are you so discontent with your own life that you must try and find the unhappiness present in another person's life?What causes you to search out another person's unhappiness?

What does holding another's eyes have to do anything with their happiness level?Meeting another person's eyes is a culturally dependent thing. In some cultures like Japan to meet a superior eyes is a symbol of arrogance because you are challenging their place, in western cultures its a signature of confidence level in the meeting. In some cultures its an act of agression to have eye contact and it will definetly lower your standing. In others to meet their eyes significes a level of equality.

I'm curious when you listen to these things do you focus solely on the unhappiness and act as an outlet for temporary relief or what?

So then what I am hearing is that while you there working with people you sit down and you listen and try to help them move toward a solution?Yet while you are here, what i am hearing is that you are all words and no listening? Is that a proper interpretation?

So, what i am hearing you saying is that you assume that because you are here to preach your worldview that everyone else present here must also be doing the same thing? Pitting your world view against another person's?And that because you feel people here are generally smart around here that then means they aren't interested in coming to understand or being open to change their world views or exploring another person's world view?I would name number of the participants as lifelong learners vs being smart, but we'll go into that later if you are interested.

Well back to boasting while looking through this thread this post: EvC Forum: Unethical practices in Evangelism. What is the value of the conversions?turned up an interesting non-aethist boast:Iano says I would be inclined to agree, his testimony is very true, be very careful as this statement may run very close to being boastful if Iano tries to say that this is what another person should feel. I do though appreciate his assurance and confidence in that he speaks. It indicates a strength of character that is difficult to find.andIano says To learn at Iano's feet would be a treat. Iano's knowledge of rotten fruit would assuredly help me in my own life, and help me making the correct choices. But by the same token, what are the rotten fruit that Iano speaks of? I must ask how the fruit is identified because i would think an episcoalian has a different take on bad fruit, then say a protestant, luthern or baptist. I would nominate him to be the leader of all christianity.EvC Forum: Unethical practices in Evangelism. What is the value of the conversions?
Iano says I wish Iano's skill at to know the emptiness of a person. For surely it would make my life easier. I could better help those in needs, to get on their feet and back into life, be it with Christ or with anything else. However, I would like to put forth for all that Christ does not satisfy all needs for if it did, we surely would live through him alone.I am not immune to boasting either. The biggest boast I can think of is that I'm pretty sure I don't make the best decisions and the time I make this post is definetly not a good time for this kind of thing.Edited by Discreet Label, : fixing some stuff a couple of added sentances, and to make more coherrant

Indeed its called entropy, the desire not to expand possibilies through the expending energy. Which is why people like Schraf attempt to avoid the habituation you describe. One partiuclar way you can avoid this habituation, is to continually re-explore or re-discover particular occurances, attempting to percieve things in a novel way each time it is done. By all means its not possible to experience novelty everytime, but everyone can probably vary there life enough to prevent complete habituation. For example theres a book by the name of Wizard's First Rule, i've read it a dozen times anywhere from 1-3 times a year for the past 5 years, but each time I've read it I feel I discover something new that the book touches upon. Even though I know what will happen in the story, I try and suspend it my knowledge or try to think in a different context when I read the story. You could characterize that as being true for yourself. But why must moderate satisfaction or dissatisfaction even be a part of life? For myself I don't spend much time satisfied or dissatisfied, i spend my time exploring and feeling either of those interrupts my exploration. After i've made a new connection then i feel a bit of joy at a new piece of knowledge that i've put together. I try to lose myself in what i'm doing, so i can fully enjoy the experience of doing it, and then reflect upon that later. I would counter, why must you even feel the vacuity if at all? By all means at some point a person does feel empty for all that they have done because there is so much left. And surely the vacuum of the unaccomplished imagination is the majority of the human experience, yet a person could instead take joy in the small fraction of life they have experienced. For myself I feel there is so much open to me in life, that I wonder how at all I will be able to touch it all and experience it, yet counter to that I must temper my pursuit so that I can experience in what my understanding is the heart of the pursuit.

I probably do have a unique idea of what boasting is. For example: I feel that in this statement you have a paradox of knowing that assurance has nothing to do with salvataion. Yet while assurance has nothing to do with salvation you are confident, assured that arrogance, pride and boastfulness reside within me in most recognizable fashion. Just not when it comes to a statement like the one you were referring to. Demonstrates a certitude of knowledge that is boasting. You know for a certainty that having assurance of salvation is false, yet that same statement I feel you must maintain a pride, or arrogance to state it is truth. Christianity, does it not speak to all who have accepted (your term of accepted) Christ into their hearts and homes? And even if I were still be the offspring of Satan if I were to follow your perscribed life would it not demonstrate a Christian stance that would it not be difficult to say I was the offspring of Satan?And to the second what what makes a pastor or a church leader any more qualified then yourself to lead a congregation? A church leader are they not the same as you? In that they are equally sinful and equally attempting to work towards Christ, yet the only difference is that they have devoted their life to help others in their journey toward Christ? Perhaps but even a sinned man, can they not help anothers walk toward the path of rightousness? I would assume the 12 apostles, being human, have the same problem that we do in that they were all equally as sinful as ourselves yet they maintained that they could still help others walk toward Christ, and to better their fellow man's life? What makes you any less qualified then the next human to help your neighbor? For are you not at least as bad as the next one?Edited by Discreet Label, : Some bolded stuff was supposed to be in quotes.

Definetly know this is off topic. Yes indeed it probably is 'oh god please make it stop.' Its getting to be a great deal like Robert Jordan's own writing.However, I would hazard that Goodkind's writing is far more enjoyable then Jordan's. And I was a little unhappy at the way his last book, chainfire, totally had the most diabolical cliff hanger, most of his books usually were one complete story. And you could be satisfied in leaving the series at any point.

I ask why at all must we be satisfied in this life? To say that this life is a hollow one, would it not be akin to saying your birth was an empty birth, a birth of just chance? Does GOD not have a plan for all things? And from that would it not follow that life could be a lesson in learning how to become closer to GOD? Why cannot the human condition be a plan of GOD's for a person to learn to walk the path of rightousness?

Why must at all everything to be done must be taken over by something more stimulating? For example cooking, a basic human necessity, is as stimulating as watching paint dry. Yet can I not shape my perception of the cooking experience into something of joy? I mean could I not percieve the prepartion of a salad to be an excerise of wonder in how such simple beginnings of individual vegies can make the beauty of a simple salad? How perfectly lettuce, carrots, tomotoes, red onions etc, fit so beautifully to create a marvelous salad?Why at all must be something bigger, better, faster, more exciting or more stimulating to even draw any joy from the action?

So what other fulfillments aside from that of GOD are there present?

I think what I was thinking about, are there minor fulfillments in life to achieve before final fulfillment in GOD?