If the Holy Spirit heals the soul into something simular of the innocents and purity of a new soul; then a life without this renewal is a void of innocents and purity. Thus science needs to reason out acceptance of perversion.
as if innocence or purity were all that…
-Imp
imagine being able to live with love of your job and freetime.
___We are bogged down by unfullfilling jobs, thus need to overcompensate for a lacking of fullfillment with treating the side effects.
Imagine living without being offended by selfcentered calousness.
___thus people have guarded hearts because we cannot trust eachother. Our sence of community is greatly hindered.
Only then would progression be void of neglect.
lennon is dead. imagine.
-Imp
so you suggest continued perpetuation of the problem,… instead of rooting up the core spiritual cause and effect?
Doesn’t this thread already exist in the hall of question? 
history never repeats.
there is no core.
there is no spiritual.
there is no cause and effect.
you want slaves under the flag of jesus? you have to sell it better…
-Imp
We all have the same spiritual needs. Thus, the most realistic way of appeasing these needs is by their true cause and effect (not just the side effects). Just because science limits understanding of the side effects of the soul, by limiting the understanding of all aspects of the soul,… doesn’t mean it’s unimportant.
Slaves is your definition. For if you don’t desire God, then you won’t desire to follow God’s way.
All I’m showing is the important of God. To limit the need of God by assumming you can compensate for it’s lacking is presumptious. Thus you choose to ignore God by your own hopes.
A spiritual hierarchey.
Love of God. To be without God is to be spiritually discontent. Even if you have true love. Thus people who have true love consistantly try to fill their cake hole. It’s shown through catscan, that durring worship most of the brain shuts down accept for the still quiet voice.
Love of friends and family. Couples who pray together stay together. It’s statistically shown couples who pray together have more intimate relatioships. Thus shows God is needed to see the problems we ignore in every relationship.
Love of the world. Become spiritually content and take worldly things at stride.
Damn, I wish I posted that…oh, well. Nice one, Imp. 
Think for a minute, Phil270f79:
If there was no God, and it turn there were no souls, then it would be nearly impossible to live in an afterlife.
That means all of us have ONE life to live. No second chances, no do-overs; everything that happened since your birth will remain that way until you die.
If such is the case, would it not be a moral imperative to live your life the best you possibly can? And if the same applies to others, would they not wish the same?
In the end, everybody respects everybody and seeks to improve everyones one chance at existence, making others lives the best possible and in return having everyone else’s make yours a good life to live too.
Don’t get me wrong, I believe in God and an afterlife, but saying so just doesn’t make it so. So IF there really is one life to live, then morals have much greater significance then they would otherwise.
What is the best??? If this life is just temporary. Then why not live for the temporary. Thus is life today.
Why would people seek to improve everyone else??? Are you sugesting the side effects of the soul are mere instinct? Then you really believe that love and joy is up to the user. Thus, saticfing these biochemical needs is just a trick of the mind. Thus you also should believe that lions who kill their cubs for the lioness to mate sooner is a ligitament means to an end.
Morality is just as significant because as souls,… all we are is a sum of the view on life as we live. Thus, if we focus on holy ways of achieving life,… that is what we will perfect.
Satan perpetuates the spirit of distrust. Satan perpetuates the spirit of hate. Satan comes to kill steal and destroy all that isn’t satans personal view on morality. Thus if you don’t trust Jesus first,… you are bound to fall into satan’s traps. For to be void of trust of God, is to be open to satan to fill the void. Imagine a being who could merely use your own desires to dislike what God represents. Yet this further speeks the need to find the presence of God to keep yourself in check.
could it be…
-Imp
Sure there’s cause and effect, but it’s limited to the primary conditions of a particular event. A particular effect arises as the result of the arising of particular conditions. This must be the case, otherwise there’d be no power to act. To put it another way, whenever this occurs, that occurs. A match will light when it’s struck. The problem is when we confuse that functional property of the causal conditions with an existent, unconditioned essential thingie and call that ‘power to act’.
Y’know what Phil27of79, I’m not going to argue with you. As in, anymore. It’s ridiculous and futile to even try.
I loved that guy from Saturday Night Live. He was really funny.
Hume’s argument only stands if one holds true an inherent essence of phenomena, and it implies uniformity of experience over time in order to lead to our erroneous assumptions about causality. My philosphical foundation for causality (based on the writings of Nagarjuna) is different, in that phenomena are characterized in two ‘realms’, the conventional one of Hume’s understanding and the ultimate one, characterized by constant impermanence, interdependence and non-self existence. This means that no thing comes into existence or exists in isolation from the world; things cannot exist absolutely, but only relatively in this constantly changing flux (which does not, btw, imply a continuing movement of time). We abstract though language a thing-in-itself, but this is only a conventional mechanism necessary because of our relatively limited neural and sensory capabilities. There’s no ‘uniformity of experience’ in that sense, just as there’s no inherently independent ‘past’.
So I’d agree with Hume’s assertion in one respect, that we project our wants, needs and desires onto experience. But Hume addresses only this conventional level in his metaphysics, that conclusions from perception indicate that causality doesn’t lend itself to rational analysis. But my view is that there are two interdependent, simultaneous truths regarding how phenomena exist. There’s a ‘lower’, or empirical, truth that time exists and goes forward (although we can’t grasp this through reason) and a higher, ‘ultimate’ truth that time “ceases”. (the logical – and Eastern – basis for this ultimate truth being, in part, A and not-A, wherein not-A is that which has been A but is no longer A). Conventional truths are indeed objects of our perception; ultimate truths are the fundamental nature of the conventional truths, or their lack of inherent essence. Not even separate truths, but two views of phenomena.
one is a view of phenomena, the other is a metaphysical attachment to said view. both are worthless.
-Imp
what has science got to do with.....perversion?
OK, I meet both of these. I don’t even need to work (by my own hand).
Am a tragic optimist to boot.
Ethics and morality are not dependant on religion, never were.
Humans define them, and rightly so.
-Mach