One would have to love someone to be sent to Hell. Not everyone makes it through the fire into Heaven. One would judge Oneself because One would discover One was the Creator all along. Have sympathy for the Devil. Hope you guess Ones name.

No need tell anyone about their mistakes. Mistakes correct themselves. For instance I thought loving someone was the right thing to do.

Then one day I lost someone I loved. It was the worst and most fearful point in my life. I felt that somehow I had the wrong idea about love and I was the only one who didn't get the message. The grief was terrible. Almost inescapable. I was stuck inside my own little world. If I had a gun I would have put it to my head and pulled the trigger. Luckily I had no gun but I did have a little more time to suffer over a decision.

Do I continue to love knowing the pain and nightmare of grief?

What do you think my choice was?

EDIT: Actually, you don't help by not forgiving inappropriate behavior. Forgiving is not condoning. It's really more of an exercise to keep from pulling the trigger or setting yourself on fire.

Your death has nothing to do with you and everything to do with those that love you.

Hannah and Connor were treated to a pleasant surprise on their one-on-one date when Lukas Graham performed their hit single, "Love Someone."

My intent is not insult you. I respect you. You have a powerful talent and I feel as though you become frustrated because you keep hitting the curb with your Bugatti.

I never called you a liar nor do I believe you are. Maybe just a little ignorant of your powers.

ig·no·rant
/ˈiɡnərənt/
adjective
lacking knowledge or awareness in general; uneducated or unsophisticated.

Again, not insult you but just to show I did my homework. I know you demand that.

Edit: "If I did, I don't want anyone to catch me. Let me fall, crash, and burn, that's what liars deserve."

No one deserves that but, grief will take you there. If you haven't experienced real greif, you're not alone. When you fall it won't be because you're a liar. It will be because you loved someone.

Anger/hatred is only step one, maybe even a precursor to step one, which is devising and taking action to oppose the wrongs that pissed you off. You're making assumptions again....what did Mptions do to deserve being made an ass of? ;-)

The roads to hell (and by your theory, back out) are infinite, and usually paved with good intentions (but poor premeditation and/or ongoing examination).

The abuse I speak of was the illegal search and the aggressive, disruptive, stress-causing intrusion into his private room, and he had no choice in that. He also had no choice but to waste his time with them. He could have made it easier and more pleasant for them by letting them violate him silently, but he chose not to capitulate without resistance....what little he had to offer. I support that wholeheartedly.

Trust doesn't expose truth, it hides it, obfuscated it, twists it, colors it.....Trust is antithetical to finding "truth", and today is a terrible idea as more than half of all circulating information is not trustworthy by far. (""Truth" is an idea in the mind of a crazy person, you don't need to know the "truth" to not lie."-my father.
.....what I really mean here is "fact" Not "truth".)

Only truly blind infatuation fits that model, I love with eyes open. If you love someone blindly you really love a concept of them you created, not the real person. I think love is much stronger and real when you love the whole person, scars and blemishes included, not some idealized version without the normal human flaws. It leads to far less disappointment.

The only reason you hate bullies and liars is because you believe you have no other options. That makes you a hater and no different than that which you hate.

Anger is only hate if that's what you want it to be. You have a choice of what to do with the energy that anger creates. You make it destructive or productive.

Nothing is better than love. It leads straight to hell. It will be the ONLY thing to get you out.

He subjected himself to the abuse. He could have just said, knock yourself out fellows. Just close the door behind you. But instead he chose to waste his short remaining time on the clowns.

Are you still looking for the ugly truth? How do you expect to find it if you don't make yourself vulnerable? If you don't trust?

If you love someone or someone loves you, all your defenses have already been penetrated. Pretty slick, eh?

EDIT:

I hope you're writing all this down. There are a lot people that need help. That's where your talent comes in.

My thoughts about bobknight33

I think bobknight33 is different than a troll.

I think, no matter his beliefs, he's true to himself. He gives his opinions and unless I'm mistaken, he's never personally berated anyone here that I've seen.

I think bobknight33 simply respects and loves someone in his life that has beliefs and fears different than others may have. To attack him is to attack someone he loves.

With that in mind I don't think a ban is needed but, rather we can be ready to catch him when he falls. If he falls.

Unless he becomes a troll I mean.

t's possible to love someone
And not treat them in the way that you want
It's possible to see your eyes
Be the devil in disguise with another front
And, it's possible to change this world
Revolutionise the boys and girls
It's possible to educate
The next generation that will rule the world someday

The changing times of the 21st century
Means nothing to me cos I would rather be
At the beginning of time, earth would be mine
Living in luxury
Discovering a world out there
Believing in the sun earth water and air
Take me there so I could see the world bloom
Standing on a sea cliff howling at the moon
Creating a world for the open minded
A unique perception of truth inside it
I know we could find it
It's just a matter of where and when we collectively decide it
The world is not a vicious place
It's just the way we've been raised
Discovering time and space
I know that we could make a change
Rearrange the way that we appreciate the world today

It's possible to love someone..

Now as i start to put my mind into words
I stall I fall I'm loosing it all, my inhibitions
The thought of wasting a way
The fact that the music's at a place not far away
Yet I stray and stick to my world
In love with my life my beliefs and a girl
Is it luck that I love this crazy place, the human race?
Don't get me wrong I still think we could change
But this life and the fact that time exists
And were here and we don't come equipped with it all
Half the fun is learning and I'm having a ball
While the world keeps turning my role is small
But I'll make a change
I hope you're feeling the same way
I hope you're seeing what I say

It's possible to love someone..

In this concrete jungle we live
Our survival is love that we give
Now my instinct is guiding my way
It's true what they say
The world is your chance to create

I understand the sentiment and don't hold it against you, but you are absolutely incorrect.

I can't stress enough that this is exactly what an actual Asperger's self-harm breakdown looks like. I was shocked at how exactly I recognized her every action and facial expression.

Please cease all doubts about the legitimacy of this video for her sake and everyone else who suffers from or loves someone with Asperger's.

Me and my dad had the exact same dream, with all the exact same details, a few days after a very difficult loss. We were all hugging each other, together - like when we were younger - and we both agreed on our positions, things that were 'said' (felt), everything. As he kept telling me details that i also had written down, i was getting chills down my spine. It felt like nothing i'd ever experienced before.. i even woke up feeling positive, like nothing was really wrong and it was all going to be ok.

I always went through life certain that nothing profoundly mysterious would ever happen; i understood a lot about the world and i thought i knew how to make sense of anything that happened given time. I felt like life was about getting to know someone, growing to love them and need them, only for them to be stripped away and never be known again, and for me to live on carrying that pain until eventually i was released from it. And that single experience changed my mind on all of those things, giving me a feeling of passion back... which in a way, to me, confirms that it was real - even though he passed, he somehow managed to enrich me and give me a reason to carry on. But that experience is something unique to me and my understanding of things, and no one else could or should be convinced by it.

I accept that no one else will be able to believe that what i know happened really did happen, and there will be people who would say it's coincidence. Yes it looks like one, no i can't prove it, but i feel differently about it than you do, and you weren't there.... and that's all i can say with any certainty to another person. If there IS some kind of god, or some kind of life after death, and our loved ones are waiting for us, then why would the evidence BE scientific and provable? Why should it be scientific instead of unscientific evidence, just because THIS world is scientific?

I don't believe in mediums, ghosts, tarot cards or any hocus pocus - none of that will be proven. But that doesn't mean that sometimes, perhaps, when you love someone so much, the distance between is not so great. All i can be sure of, about death, is that absolutely anything can happen, and there is no reason to assume it will be anything like what we know now.

I believe you bob. I wouldn't have before that happened, but i do now... it's just that perhaps we disagree on what it means. Which is ok, cos your guess is just as good as mine.

That's about the average size I've seen since those RC engines came on the market. I was always surprised as well. I'd love to see a smaller version, but as I've (in the most casual, uneducated manner) followed the RC advancements in the last few years, I've noticed that (edit: scale in) RC air flight has grown a great deal.
I can theorize that this is because of some physical property leading to easier control, but would love someone more in the know to confirm that.

God, I love Mr. Brown for this. I love someone refusing to play along, and calling people out on their bullshit (No, I won't pass the mike, because that's a game you play so I can't follow up to the non-answer I'm about to receive). He still didn't really get an answer, but he made it plainly clear that there was no honest answer the people in power were willing to give.

By your rhetorical suggestion: God created us with free will, then he created laws for us because following them is good for us and he loves us, then he said there would be consequences for not following those laws to encourage us to follow them because he loves us, then he determined that the consequences would be the worst possible thing that could happen, far worse than the real-life consequences for breaking the rules… because he loves us? It doesn’t add up. Don't give me some reductionist "let all rapists go free" argument. There's no way to explain the extreme severity of the consequences for breaking the law if the law itself was created so we would be better off. See?

In the beginning, God created Adam and Eve to be completely dependent on Him for everything. They relied upon God to make their decisions for them, and tell them what good and evil was. However, because He wanted His creatures to be free to love Him, ie just not just forced to obey Him, He gave them one command. That command was not to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. He told them that in the day they ate of it they would surely die.

What lay in the fruit of that tree for Adam and Eve was their own autonomy. The fruit represented an independence from God to decide on their own what is good and evil. Rather than sitting at Gods feet and learning from Him, they would become a law onto themselves through their own judgment. What eating this fruit did was destroy their innocence forever. It ruined the perfect relationship and fellowship they had with God by turning them into rebels who would make choices apart from God.

So, rather than the law being given for the reasons you are saying, it was given to offer them a choice between obedience to God and personal autonomy. The consequences of breaking that law not only changed their nature but brought sin and death into the world. God draws the line at His standard for goodness, which is perfection. It is a zero tolerance policy for rebellion, not only for moral guidance, but to maintain order in His kingdom.

What’s wrong with robots? You said elsewhere it’s because god wouldn’t want robots. How can he want anything? He’s perfect. Does his own existence not satisfy him? Is he lacking something? Was he bored and lonely? Are we his pets?

God created not out of need, but out of the abundance of His love. He regards us as His offspring, not His pets.

Act 17:22-31

Then Paul stood in the midst of Mars' hill, and said, Ye men of Athens, I perceive that in all things ye are too superstitious.

For as I passed by, and beheld your devotions, I found an altar with this inscription, TO THE UNKNOWN GOD. Whom therefore ye ignorantly worship, him declare I unto you.

God that made the world and all things therein, seeing that he is Lord of heaven and earth, dwelleth not in temples made with hands;

Neither is worshipped with men's hands, as though he needed any thing, seeing he giveth to all life, and breath, and all things;

And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation;

That they should seek the Lord, if haply they might feel after him, and find him, though he be not far from every one of us:

For in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring.

Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man's device.

And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent:

Because he hath appointed a day, in the which he will judge the world in righteousness by that man whom he hath ordained; whereof he hath given assurance unto all men, in that he hath raised him from the dead.

But he forgave us all our sins through the sacrifice of his son. Was that a compromise of his integrity? It seems he does choose to forgive us, at least once every 4000 years or so.

No, because He laid all of our sin on His Son, who bore the punishment we deserve. It is not a compromise of His integrity so long as the sin has been paid for.

Romans 4:25

He was delivered over to death for our sins and was raised to life for our justification

You didn’t answer my questions. I know the stated purpose of sending Jesus. My question is why the situation required exactly that. Surely God, at some point, decided, "Well, they’re bad, and I want to get closer, and the exact thing required is for me to have a son, for that son to be a perfect human, for him to preach for three years and then get executed by the other humans, and then we can be closer." God decided something like that. It’s a direct implication of saying that God created everything and that this was necessary.

Jesus was the lamb slain before the foundation of the world.

Rev 13:8 And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.

Before the world began, God knew that He would need to send His Son.

If you want to know more about what it means in the image of God, read this:

http://www.gotquestions.org/image-of-God.html

It told me almost nothing. It says that the definition of "the image of God" is everything that makes us different from other animals, and everything intangible about us, as if that’s what God looks like. It compared naming pets and enjoying music to being God. Weird.

Because being in the image of God isn't about what God looks like, it is about being imbued with His personal attributes. We resemble Him in our better nature, not our appearance.

What I’m getting at is the arbitrariness of the consequences and why God would have created such random consequences. Look at them with a critical eye, if you can: Adam and Eve committed one sin, and for that their nature was changed forever, and that of their descendents forever, and they lost paradise. For one sin? You believe that God created such a heavy consequence for the first offence ever committed by innocent people – and people without "knowledge" mind you, because they hadn’t eaten the fruit yet. I cannot.

I understand what you're saying. You're not going to see the picture before you connect all of the dots. I'll keep supplying you the dots as I am able. I think I explained this particular question to you in more specific detail this time around, as to why the separation occurred.

God got to enjoy his creation for about 45 minutes before it screwed itself up, and from then on we’ve been a disappointment to him. Yet, as you’ve stated elsewhere, God created us for his pleasure. He knew what would happen, so he screwed up. He couldn’t even create himself a pleasing race of pets. Dogs have free will, understand good and bad, and are extremely pleasing as companions. Why couldn’t God create as good for himself as he did for humans? The whole story doesn’t hold water.

He knew before He created that His creation would rebel at some point, and He took the necessary steps to reconcile it back to Himself at the end of time. He didn't screw up, but He did create beings capable of screwing up. To allow for the real possibility of good, He also had to allow for the real possibility of evil.

But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

That's a defence mechanism against whatever the opposite of apologia is. Reason, maybe.

Or it's absolutely true.

The only consistent model is that God himself created sin and evil by creating the laws, because if he hadn't created the laws, there would be no sin or evil in the world. This understanding is consistent with your statement A and in spirit with C, if you understand C to mean, "We created evil by breaking his law".

Sorry, I should have clarified this a lot more. When scripture says "the law" what it is reffering to is the Mosaic law that was given at Mt Sinai. This law was given because of sin, and sin was already in the world at that time. This really goes back to the beginning with what I described earlier. What we had in the beginning was not a law, but simply a choice. It was given not to keep us from evil but to give us freedom to choose to obey Gods will. You can't freely obey someone if you don't have a choice not to do it. You can't love someone without the choice not to love. The law came into play after all of this, and that is a whole other discussion.

>> ^messenger:

stuff

I love someone throwing a little stool at the car around 2:45.

loving is always the better choice.>> ^StukaFox:

The problem with loving someone: someday, in some way, you'll have to let them go.