Re: lip balm by FreeFormFixation	zodiac 24.148.234.30	30-Dec-05/7:12 AM
A strawberry bounces like a blueberry? That seems kind of sloppy. "bad to wear by monkeys" needs rephrasing. Otherwise, good.
Re: order of events by skaskowski	zodiac 24.148.234.30	30-Dec-05/7:11 AM
Are you Amelie Poulain?
Re: a cordial greeting by calliope	zodiac 24.148.234.30	30-Dec-05/7:10 AM
You seem to need about 6 more lines between "hello" and "your poison". And a different last line. Other than that, I like it. Especially the rhyme and half-rhyme.
Re: a comment on philosophy of a new age by crazyknight	zodiac 24.148.234.30	30-Dec-05/6:57 AM
Not technically. An oxymoron is just a literary device for shock value. The best-known oxymorons are Shakespeare's in Romeo and Juliet: feather of lead, beautiful tyrant, fiend angelical, dove-feather'd raven, wolvish-ravening lamb, damned saint, honourable villain, and so on. These are either not strictly opposites (ie, tyrant doesn't mean 'one who is not beautiful') or they're impossible (ie, a saint cannot really be damned). That's pretty much it: oxymorons CANNOT be technically true and oxymorons at the same time. I'd dare you to find an example of an oxymoron which is.
Re: a comment on It's Time by PoeticXTC	zodiac 24.148.234.30	30-Dec-05/6:39 AM
Um, no.
Re: a comment on Romans 8:28 by amanda_dcosta	zodiac 24.148.234.30	30-Dec-05/6:25 AM
What bothers me more about this conversation is that Dovina's basically saying The proof of God is that things are reasonable. That is, if you count one plum and one plum, you always end up with two plums and not, say, five plums or an infinite number of goldfish. If you did get five plums or infinite goldfish, Dovina would likely say that's proof of God. MORAL: God exists because things are logical. God exists if things are illogical. I think this is because Dovina doesn't have a very good idea about math, language, God, logic or plums. But that's just me. Amanda, I'm trying. Really I am.
Re: a comment on Romans 8:28 by amanda_dcosta	zodiac 24.148.234.30	30-Dec-05/6:14 AM
* = http://examinedlifejournal.com/thinkaboutit/template.php?number=13
Re: a comment on Romans 8:28 by amanda_dcosta	zodiac 24.148.234.30	30-Dec-05/6:12 AM
To answer Dovina's earlier question: Imagine a universe without intelligent beings. Now suppose that in this universe there's a plum O - And another plum O Of course, they're not called 'plums', since there's no one there to call them anything. But I think we can agree that for all practical purposes the plums are there and pretty much the same as they are here.* Are you with me? In English, you'd say, 'There are two plums'. 'Two' is only a description of plums, specifically a description of quantity. We could just as easily say 'There are purple plums' or 'There are round plums'. In a universe with no intelligent beings, the descriptions 'two', 'purple' and 'round' wouldn't exist, of course - no language would. But the nature of the plums, the quantity, color, and shape, wouldn't be any different there. You see? You can also just as easily (and correctly) say 'One plum and one plum means there are two plums', or 'One plum PLUS one plum means two plums'. That's still just description, right? Mathematicians abbreviate those sentence into '1 + 1 = 2'. They all mean the same thing. They're all only language. I can even do more complicated descriptions. Suppose in our hypothetical universe I have three valleys, each of which have three plums - or, \ O O O /\ O O O /\ O O O / In English, I can say 'There are nine plums', or 'Three valleys with three plums in each of them means there are nine plums altogether', or 'Three groups of three plums means nine plums', or '3 x 3 = 9'. All of those statements are essentially equivalent. They're just our language for describing plums. They don't change the nature of the plums. WHAT I THINK YOU'RE SAYING: One characteristic of intelligent beings that wouldn't exist in an unintelligent (or God-oriented) universe is our tendency to arbitrarily group discrete, unique objects, to say 'There are two PLUMS' instead of, say, 'There is one round purplish thing and one not-so-round reddish-yellow thing'. You'd think that in, um, Heaven, one could only say 'One round purplish thing and one not-round red-yellow thing means only one round purplish thing and one not-round red-yellow thing.' Everything's unique individualness in the eyes of God means no two things can be grouped into 'plums', ergo no numbers and maths. Bollocks, I say. I can do math descriptions at any level. For instance, 'How many things with color are there? Two.' Or, 'How many different shapes are there? Two.' Or simply, 'How many things are there? Two.'
Re: a comment on Romans 8:28 by amanda_dcosta	zodiac 24.148.234.30	30-Dec-05/5:13 AM
That's very easy for you to say. You already have faith in God, part of which says that every little molecule is perfect and proof of God; another, bigger part of which says that God requires no proof. It's easy for me to take a small breath and imagine a universe run by God, though I bet it's nearly impossible for you to take a breath and imagine my idea of universe: where everything runs perfectly reasonably without Him. Does that mean God's better? No, it probably just means He's easier.
Re: a comment on Romans 8:28 by amanda_dcosta	some deleted user 204.97.18.126	30-Dec-05/4:26 AM
You're welcome Amanda. Just a thought--in stanza 5, the last line,"I see the light"--could you describe the light (i.e. "the purest light," "the brightest light," or whatever light) Just something to keep the bounce in your rhythm. I really like the way you write by the way.
Re: I don't rhyme enough, eh? by Niphredil	Prince of Void 213.207.224.156	30-Dec-05/3:45 AM
u are right ...we dont need to follow rules of past ..we made rules ..that's art ...it must face changes if changes are against past ..
Re: Ennui by Sisterwolf	Niphredil 192.114.44.176	30-Dec-05/3:30 AM
P.S. I feel this version is much better than the previous one, which I found somewhat muddled.
Re: Ennui by Sisterwolf	Niphredil 192.114.44.176	30-Dec-05/3:28 AM
Excellent poem :-) and I'd do just that, if only there were no lectures to attend...
Re: a comment on Romans 8:28 by amanda_dcosta	ALChemy 24.74.101.159	30-Dec-05/3:27 AM
But God created the universe didn't he? I mean when exactly did he decide to go from chaotic natural universe to governed unnatural universe? God is the truth and logic seeks the truth so why isn't logic logically the best way to find God? Faith only desires to feel true. What Zodiac was saying is that math is a metaphor for anything that appears consistent or repetitive. Is that proof of God? Could you imagine a heaven where everyone was a cookie cut out doing the exact same things at the exact same time? Scary. In truthful reality 1+1=1 of each for everything is unique even if just for it's occupation of space and time. I love the fact that you are using the bible as a metaphor for your life because the truest bible you'll ever read is yourself. I just think you're smart enough to search deeper into yourself and find a God that doesn't sound so much like a fairytale. But even if you don't I still think your poetry is quite beautiful.
Re: Don't Touch Me! by elderking	Niphredil 192.114.44.176	30-Dec-05/3:15 AM
Interesting, I liked the poem. I also enjoyed the occasional alliteration :-)
Re: a comment on Romans 8:28 by amanda_dcosta	ALChemy 24.74.101.159	30-Dec-05/2:28 AM
Just because someone said that love is blind and sometimes it appears to be blind doesn't make it blind. As far as God is love? Well love is a chemical reaction sturred by mental stimuli that is designed to urge a species to procreate ie. Sex or it is a simular chemical reaction meant to cause a desire to group oneself with another usually for the sake of safety and survival. So maybe God exist for the sake of sex and safety. I kinda like that idea. Shouldn't God be blind in the way "love is blind" anyway. "No, your ugly. You can't go to heaven." Seems logical that in that way God should be blind. Why shouldn't a God that created us to think in logical terms(at least aspire to) not make his own existance appear logical? If that child's father told him to go kill his puppy to prove his loyalty to him. if his father watched him being tortured and nailed to a telephone pole and didn't do a thing about it even though he could have ended it emediately. Do you honestly think the child would still trust him? Only if the child was insane. If I told you that the bible you read is one that was rewritten and edited by the multi-god Greeks and Romans and then later by a cruel English monarchy. If I told you some books of the bible are lost forever to us and some passages were entirely invented in later versions of the bible. Would you still call it the word of God and worship the bible(which by the way the bible tells us not to worship objects)? I don't mean to scare or offend you but if the word of God exist then the only place it's truly written is on our souls. I do believe the spirit of God(whatever he is) eminates from the bible as well as others. The Chronicles of Narnia for example or Dante's Devine Comedy. The childs bond to it's father can be summed up like this: If you drop me I might die but you hold me and feed me and keep me warm so that I don't die so I guess I owe my life to you at least until I'm old enough to live on my own. Now, I'm about to tell you what God is so hold on. God is the idea that something exist beyond our capacity of knowledge and the hope that someday we may become a part of that higher level of existance.
Re: a comment on Romans 8:28 by amanda_dcosta	amanda_dcosta 203.145.159.37	30-Dec-05/2:22 AM
I agree with dovina. Just because something is simple does not mean its not complicated. The question was proof of the logical explaination for god, the answers is 1+1=2,it is a simple way to show that the answer is all around us. simple for the faithful, difficult for the wise. For they search in the deepest of logic, most complicated thoughts while not realising that the answer stares from every little molecule. the natural order of the universe is chaos and any matter left alone moves towards it. energy is required to bring order into chaos. look at the beautiful rules that guide everything and see the simplicity of it all. look deep inside you and take a small breath, you will see the light of dovinas statement............
Re: a comment on Romans 8:28 by amanda_dcosta	ALChemy 24.74.101.159	30-Dec-05/1:32 AM
Here, This fill you in: http://poemranker.com/poem-details.jsp?id=135575
Re: a comment on It's Time by PoeticXTC	ALChemy 24.74.101.159	30-Dec-05/1:25 AM
See?
Re: a comment on philosophy of a new age by crazyknight	amanda_dcosta 203.145.159.37	30-Dec-05/1:23 AM
He probably is an ancient pot smoker.