If the Truth is True Without Man’s Existence, Then Man Cannot Claim to Know Truth at All

If TRUTH (the universal composition of all that man declares true) does not require my existence in order to be true, then it is quite impossible for me to declare that it is true at all.  My observations; my thoughts concerning it; my concession of its axiom…all of these things are entirely irrelevant.  Thus, if my existence presents an absolutely irrelevant component to the reality of truth…that is, it is true regardless of whether I am around to observe it or not, then I am always and perpetually operating from a place of irrelevance with respect to the truth.  There is literally and absolutely nothing which is an extension of me which offers anything of any meaning or worth to truth.  Which  makes it impossible for me, being inexorably me, absolutely outside of truth, to even acknowledge that truth is true at all.  It is beyond my observation because the sum total of my observation, being a direct function of ME, which is absolutely outside of truth, is irrelevance.  Period.

I, in other words, due to my abject and utter irrelevance, am antithetical to truth.  Perpetually and wholly outside of it, I represent nothing less than a categorical affront to the truth, which not only does not need me to be true, but finds that my existence poses a contradiction…an insufferable limitation to its absolute-ness and its absolutely true existence.

Further, if we say that truth is absolutely true regardless of whether I exist or not–which is what absolutely true means–then we have in fact posited a contradiction in terms.  If concede that  I do exist, and if I concede that truth is absolutely true outside of me, then my existence is NOT actually irrelevant.  My existence, again conceding that I DO in fact exist, must represent a limitation to the absolute true-ness of the truth.  And thus, with my existence established, the truth can no longer be absolutely true, it is only relatively true.  Relative to what?  Relative to its position with respect to ME.  Which makes my existence an integral and utterly defining component of truth.  Instead of being absolutely true without me, it’s true-ness depends on my existence to give it meaning at any given moment….it cannot and does not operate in a vacuum.  I exist, and therefore I am a boundary to its truth; a boundary it must include and reconcile when defining the terms of its truth.  And since, between truth and myself, I am the only one who is consciously aware of truth (for truth is not a self-aware agent, but purely a concept in this paradigm), the responsibility falls to me to utilize truth, to declare it, in service to the only frame of reference I have for truth:  my own existence.  For man and truth cannot exist in tension as absolute forms in and of themselves.  One MUST subjugate the other to its singular frame of reference, its SELF.  Otherwise an insurmountable and perpetual contradiction arises whereby man and truth are constantly at war with each other.  As soon as man declares the truth true outside of his SELF, then that truth demands his submission leading to non-existence as the logical conclusion of that which hinders the absolute truth from being, in fact, absolutely true:  man’s life.  But if man declares himself the categorical reference point of truth–the standard of truth, which I wholly affirm he is, as the only rational conclusion–then truth must be completely submitted to him; to his life, and must itself instead be rendered non-existent.  Not that I am proclaiming that the existence of man means the death of truth.  On the contrary, I proclaim that truth is a concept derived from man’s brain…it is not actual (thus it never actually existed as such in the first place) but it is a cognitive invention of man’s astonishing brain, rooted in his ability to simultaneously observe SELF juxtaposed to what is NOT SELF.  This is the power of his unique consciousness combined with his senses.  Truth doesn’t die in service to man, as though man’s existence destroys truth and thus man represents an inexorable and subversive (read “totally depraved”) presence to all that is true and by extension good.  Rather truth never actually exists at all, in so many words, as though it were some kind of objective force beyond man’s mind and singularity of SELF.  Not in the least.  This is the perspective of the demonstrably wicked and destructive collectivist ideologies (Calvinism, Islamic terrorist shitheadism , Marxism/Socialism/Fascism, neo-Reformation protestantism, Catholicism), and their oceans of blood upon which the history of the world has sailed since practically the beginning of time.  I am arguing that truth doesn’t exist outside of man, but rather that man’s life is the source and standard of it.

In short, without man’s life, the truth does not get to be true.

And thus, by logical extrapolation, if the truth is declared true outside of man, absolutely, then man never gets to be man.  And thus, if we declare man wholly irrelevant to truth, meaning that truth exists absolutely in spite of his life, then what we are really saying is that man must be dead…must be nonactual for the truth to be absolutely true in order that its infinite boundaries are not limited by man’s existence.  Thus, in order for truth to be true outside of man it cannot be conceded that man gets to exist at all, so that he cannot present an affront to absolute truth. And if you don’t exist, then you don’t get to affirm that truth is actually true.  In other words, either man’s life MUST be the standard of truth–that which defines what things are true and what things are a lie; which things are good and which things are evil–or man is dead.  Though he wakes, he is death walking.  He is non-existence incarnate.  Thus, it isn’t that the plague of collectivist ideologies like Calvinism/neo-Reformation theology murder and exploit the living…it is that they do not recognize that the living are in fact alive at all.  You are an extension of the truth outside of you.  Thus, whatever happens to you, be it your death or suffering or injustice or abuse or the theft of your property, it  is ALWAYS in service to truth.  You may claim no ownership of your life because your life is a figment of fantasy.  It is the great lie of Satan:  that YOU are actually ALIVE, and therefore, entitled to justice and consideration commensurate to your status as an absolute, sentient child of God.  Your belief in yourself as actual is the singular source of all the evil which exists in the world.  And indeed, spend a couple of Sundays in a Sovereign Grace Ministries church (a cauldron of pure Calvinist death-worship), and you will observe this message first hand.  And it will be couched in the most sanctimonious, sage, pensive, and reverent of terms.  But once you train your vision to observe beyond the propaganda, you can clearly see; and clearly see that the terror you feel is entirely appropriate; that message is nothing more than: God hates people. And people will be sacrificed into submission by His ecclesiastical proxies or burned alive for eternity in a lake of fire for being born.


The truth which is outside of us and doesn’t require our existence or the context of our SELVES, which is our perpetual reference point, indeed cannot recognize us, and neither can we recognize it.  And if we pretend that it can and it does, then affirming that it indeed is absolutely true outside of us demands our removal from reality.  It demands our death; the eradication of that which sabotages its truth, and we are obligated to acquiesce to this demand.  We have agreed that the truth is true regardless of our existence, and thus we have tacitly agreed that we offer it nothing except an unacceptable boundary to its perfect truthfulness outside of ourselves.  Our existence trespasses upon its domain, which, being absolutely true, is everything.  If everything which is said to exist, exists in the presence of an absolute truth, then it follows that everything is a direct extension of–a functional and utter part of–absolute truth, and therefore we meddling humans must forfeit any claim to SELF we might like to believe exists autonomously.  To assume that we ARE…that man IS, and therefore has his own SELF, is to blaspheme truth, which does not need us; and indeed, must obliterate us if it is to indeed be an absolute, unlimited, categorically objective truth (that is, a non-relative, objective truth).

Of course the problem this poses for truth and those who proclaim truth outside of man (those who peddle the wares of determinist and causal “natural law”, be it the mystics of today’s “orthodox” Christianity, or the many purveyors of the causal power of science’s laws of the universe which “govern” and determine) is the immutability of consciousness.  You are perpetually YOU.  YOU are the objective prerequisite of the existence of anything else NOT you…for if something cannot be observed by YOU to exist TO YOU (that is, relevant to YOU; meaning, providing the environment necessary for you to know the difference between what is you and what is not you) then YOU cannot argue for its existence at all.  In order for you to concede that there are things–a world, a universe, a God–which exist, you must BE you.  You must possess an infinite and absolute SELF of your own…a consistent and singular frame of reference by which you can know that the truth is actually true.  Which means it can only be true, again, if it is true TO you.  And therefore the absolute reference point of your SELF, whether you find this consistent with your beliefs or not, must become the standard…the yardstick by which anything you observe can be declared as true.  You, in other words, are are absolutely you, which means that truth cannot be absolutely true, it can only be relatively true insofar as it affirms the standard of truth, which again is YOU; your life; your SELF, and that of others who can be observed to demonstrably exist as metaphysical and epistemological equals (man and God).  The frame of reference of SELF is the only absolute standard of TRUTH, which makes human life the only absolute truth, beyond which nothing man observes can have any relevant meaning or practical, sensible definitions…things cannot even be declared as existing at all absent the conscious observation of man from the inexorable and infinite vantage point of SELF.  Thus, and again, the movement of things you observe and the subsequent concepts you (or we, as a human race, cooperatively) create in order to categorize and organize this movement are only relatively true depending on how they agree with and affirm the standard of YOU, which is the truth at any and every given moment.


The notion of absolute truth outside of absolute man presents us with an immovable impasse.  How can two absolute truths co-exist?  Man concedes the absolute truth exists outside of him, thus he necessarily makes his own SELF totally besides the point when it comes to truth.  You see, since man always functions from a place of absolute SELF (your essence of YOU; your metaphysical SELF is indivisible and perpetual) but then turns and declares himself to be absolutely irrelevant to truth, man cannot in actuality claim any truth outside himself because his observation, being a direct function of his immutable SELF, is wholly unable to perceive this truth which is absolutely outside of the absolute frame of reference of his SELF.  Thus, he concedes the un-actuality of SELF when confronted with the “objective” truth.  Man dies. And if not, the emissaries of “objective” truth tell us, the truth dies.  And then its all just an orgy of sin and chaos, and God or nature or both will have to blow up everything and start over.

Well, the solution to this impasse would seem obvious after considering the aforementioned facts:  There is no such thing as man conceding any absolute truth (any external standard of truth) because his observation is always tied to the infinite reference point of his SELF; their is no absolute external place beyond himself by which he can observe and know truth to be utterly true, by definition.  It is mutually exclusive to him, because it, also being “absolute”, cannot include man’s external observation in the realm of its own absolute existence.  There is no other point outside the SELF of man’s observation which man can declare is the reference point of truth.  He alone is the reference point.  And since man IS, the reference point of SELF likewise IS, to the utter exclusion of all other reference points.

This makes all “external” truths purely conceptual; purely abstract; purely a function of man’s mind, and not some absolute force outside of him, which therefore must, being absolute, determine all things, including man and his mind, his thoughts, and the knowledge of his SELF, effectively removing man form existence altogether, making man a lie, as he must be nothing but a direct manifestation of the absolute and absolutely determining truth outside of him.  Thus, you, insofar as you are aware of YOU, if you concede this, are obligated to deny this errant sense of yourself, and allow yourself (not “choose”; for you can do nothing of your own volition, as you don’t exist) to be sacrificed to the absolute truth outside of you, because it IS you, being absolutely absolute, and it therefore owns you, lest you present yourself as an immoral boundary to this infinite truth; which again claims an inherent right to your life as its own, to the utter denial of YOU in totality, which finds perfect moral fruition in your literal death.  For death is the ultimate and most assured way to eradicate your conscience, which can only ever serve to condemn you, but more importantly, condemn the truth, as it constantly lies to you, and proclaims immorally and relentlessly the existence of the autonomous SELF of YOU, which deceptively believes itself to lay somewhere beyond the infinite boundaries of absolute truth, which is impossible.  And thus this rebellion of your mind…your awareness, represents the greatest evil of all, and is the father of lies, making human consciousness THE paramount violation of GOOD…of TRUTH…

…of God.

And this is the philosophy of Calvinism, Reformation protestantism, and all other collectivist ideologies, stripped bare and to the bone.

25 thoughts on “If the Truth is True Without Man’s Existence, Then Man Cannot Claim to Know Truth at All

  1. Good thoughts. That don’t go quite far enough, however. Your observations would be 100% accurate were it not for the fact that the absolute and independent Truth desires to enter into relationship with your irrelevant self. 🙂

    Jesus said, “I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life…”

    Grace to you,


  2. Thanks, Wade. Grace to you too. I think we had different views on TRUTH; namely, it’s yardstick. The only objective yardstick for TRUTH is human life.

    Jesus also said, “Love God” (who sustains your life)”, and “Love your neighbor as yourself” (your SELF which IS your life; and your neighbor who reflects it.) Upon these two commandments hang the whole law.

  3. Wade –

    What do you mean by your “irrevelant self?” If self (life) is irrelevant, what was the point of Jesus’ life’ death, and resurrection?

  4. Can an unbeliever know any truth, right/wrong, good/bad? Let’s look around & you will see all kinds of folks doing the right thing, IMO. If not, why would you ever dare get on the road? And wouldn’t it be a never-ending pile of cars filled with drivers who are unable to obey the laws?

    Is God mind-controlling some unbelievers (or event controlling) so the roads aren’t deadlocked?

    If God mind-controls (event controls), then everything that happens is meant to be.

    If everything is designed/decided by God to be, why work against God? John Piper IS right to say God sent tornadoes to kill children in OK in this framework of thinking….. Or is Piper right, but just needs to keep quite about it?

    Frankly, I am really confused by this logic & can’t make sense of this thinking… no matter how hard I try.

  5. What Wade is saying about our “irrelevant” selves ONLY makes sense in any way if Jesus’ actual human life on earth is not relevant at all to us. And we see this humaness played down all the time with all the focus on the Cross. Even the resurrection gets downplayed by many. Because the resurrection means life. Not JUST eternal life but life NOW. Living out the kingdom right now.

    So WHY was Jesus Christ the way, the truth and the life? It is interesting to read the historical backdrop to the historical Jesus. There were “messiahs” proclaimed for Israel before and even after Jesus. Zealots who were also killed. And many young Jewish men were crucified in the 1st Century.

    The distant God in the temple who very few had access to lived among humans as a human and spent a good bit of his time traveling with women! (who were not allowed in the inner part of the temple, I might add)

    Really thinking this through means it is not so easy to claim consistent sin is normal for Christians. Making excuses for evil done by long time believers only makes sense if we are “irrelevant” because “justice” is not for here and now. (That cannot be true because Jesus prayed His will be done on EARTH as it is in heaven)

    I think they miss the part that God wants to be connected to us BECAUSE we are relevant. Look who He told they were relevant early on! The oppressed. Poor Jews living under Roman rule. Look who He rebuked the most. The Romans? No. The Jewish religious leaders of his day.

    They seem to think our being relevant devalues God and elevates us. When in fact, not acknowledging or living out our relevancy, responsibility and worth is devaluing to Him as Creator. We choose whether we devalue ourselves by doing evil or not. Even the Jews understood this concept better than the pagans even though they got a lot wrong because they liked many pagan concepts of lording it over. I often think of what Jesus said in Matthew 5-7 about rewards now or later for those frauds who claim they are doing great things for God. He says I never knew you.

    We are relevant because we can find a cure for cancer and save a baby. We are relevant because we can think up things to improve people’s lives. We are relevant because we seek justice for the oppressed. We are relevant because…fill in the blank. All that comes from the brain God gave us to use to think and use reason. Everything else is glorying in death and/or tyranny.

    To believe we are irrelevant means none of that matters here and now. I don’t think so.

  6. If you want to know what makes us irrelevant it is teaching like this:


    “Actually, Paul and Jesus had two different purposes in their statements. Jesus was going after the Pharisees who would divorce for no reason whatsoever-often leaving their spouse destitute. As always, Jesus was showing just how far the law extended and was convicting them of their sin of abandonment. This was one more pronouncement by Jesus that irritated the Pharisees.

    Remember, Jesus also said “Go and sin no more” fully realizing that people would go and sin. Why would He say that? because He was pointing to the fact that we are utterly unable to keep the Law. And He was about to give us the solution via the Cross.”

    So Jesus gives the woman a command He KNOWS SHE CANNOT KEEP. To what purpose? To be a lying Savior? And we are supposed to see this as loving? This is the bait and switch Savior who says things He does not mean but we are not to know why.

    Not only that but this Savior does not explain Himself well at all. Where does he say here that no one is capable of keeping the law? Again, these people present a monster God who makes laws He knows we cannot keep.

    I am not sure why people cannot see how they totally blaspheme Jesus Christ with this teaching. He is explained as a lying, bait and switch deceiver according to this explanation. And because of this we ARE irrelevant. We end up being dupes He lies to.

    (She might want to study some Instone Brewer who explains in depth what Jesus was referring to here)


  7. The root of the theology is contradiction. Therefore, equivocation is their art. We can see this easily with Tom over at SpiritualTyranny. Look at his last response to me (I will link it later).

    The premise is always that reality is not what it appears to be (John and I are ALWAYS misunderstanding poor Tom, who is just trying to learn. The self evident truth is that he despises our respective messages and will resort to all manner of savage attacks, accusations and ad hominem to deflect them.) The premise is always that reality CAN NOT be reasonable. It is always an amalgamation of two diametrically opposed concepts.

    For example:

    A. Men CANNOT help but sin BY CHOICE.

    B. Man is not metaphysically insufficient but Jesus is the “mechanism” by which man must be saved; His teachings are tangential at best (go and sin no more He says, but this is impossible for man…so His message is irrelevant).

    C. There is a priesthood of believers who are are made free and yet they are bound to follow the edicts of the “local church”, because, among other things, that is the only effective context for the primary ethic, Matthew 18

    D. hierarchy is decried as a great apostasy and yet Christians are bound to the “authority of scripture”, which is a bullshit statement because scripture must be interpreted, which makes this nothing more than an appeal to a particular set of interpretive premises. Which NECESSARILY demands hierarchy.

    It is all equivocation…a deceptive approach intended to mask the real message, which is doctrinal submission, the disregard of which invites a cavalcade of character assassination, threats, bullying, insults and proclamations of excommunication. e.g. Tom says “you are dead to me” and then rebuffs me when I describe this as a statement of hate. Well, in a way he is right. According to his metaphysic I don’t really exist, thus there is no one there for him to hate. I am dead to him? Because I never acceded his “sound doctrine” I was never alive to him and the first place. Which is why he feels it no mark against his Christian character to dismiss my person as soon as I offend his delicate sensibilities.

    And I bring up Tom because he is a supreme example of the kind of philosophical animal we are dealing with: A vapid nebula of theological capriciousness…which, fucking convenient. If you always get to define the terms, by your “special knowledge”, then you never really have to defend your ideas rationally. Which is very good for Tom, because he isn’t good at it. By his own admission.

  8. You know, the more I think about some of your points above, the more I think most of it simply ends up maiking Jesus irrelevant. If we remain sinning irrelevant humoids then what was the point?

    CJ cannot stop sinning
    Driscoll cannot stop sinning
    None of them they write about it can stop sinning so what is the point? Why not just admit all the sin they write about cannot be helped, is normal and leave it at that?

  9. This will sound cynical but…there’s no money in that, Lydia. And as a pastor once said to me, ” it’s not just a church, it’s a business.”

  10. “This will sound cynical but…there’s no money in that, Lydia. And as a pastor once said to me, ” it’s not just a church, it’s a business.””

    Argo, ONe of the biggest mistakes we make it thinking it starts out about money. As one who read the HR top 10 in the WSJ for years, we would do well to remember it starts out with “recognition”. The money follows and they get used to it. And the money then becomes part of the measurment.

    And you can see this in almost all the venues if you look closely.

    They start out wanting to make a name for themselves. That drives it. It is very psychological. The need for recognition and respect by many. That is a form of power and the roots of a form of narcissism.

    Then it becomes a business because such things must be not only maintained but also grow..

    I only say this because if we don’t understand the true origins, we can get sucked in early on when it seems like an altruistic mission. It isn’t. It is about one person craving recognition and power. Then they love it and incorporate it.

  11. Lydia,

    That is true, but where is the recognition if they can no longer peddle their mysticism? They need to have a product that keeps on giving.

  12. My point is that I see the recognition/power and money as two sides of the same “business” coin.

    But you are right, money is not the thrust. Domination of human ideology “for God” is what they are after. They believe they are the first ambassadors of the new earth. And they are true believers. That’s really what makes them so scary.

  13. Argo, Your June 14, 10:46AM comment, particularly the examples you list are spot on, IMO. Jesus as “mechanism” was a new one for me, but more of the same standard idea of who Jesus is. More descriptive phrases are chemical cleanser, means to an end, tool, process.

    Jesus as transaction.

    My view is different. I see Jesus as teacher, God, Daddy, Lord, leader of the way.

    John Immel said something that I have put to the test. He said orthodox Christianity is a religion of death & not life. I have pondered that for a long time now… is that really true? Could that even be possible?

    Well, it seems to me it IS a focus on death. Blood. Never take your eyes off the cross=the transaction. Why? Can’t you learn something from Jesus’ life, teaching, parables, etc? It’s irrelevant or not that big a deal.

    Where is the doing? Life? Love? Learning? Right action? Any take-away for the here & now?

    Lydia, That quote from TWW is chilling. Man is unable to consistently know & do right is a message from God? Yikes! If so, then Christians should be 100% against punishment issued by a court of law for breaking the law. Zero responsibility when there is zero capability IS just/fair. Period. And the same goes for any expectation in church. In fact, if man is UNABLE then there should be zero expectation in church. This is blatant double-mindedness when paired with a justice for victims goal.

  14. A mom, I am convinced Christians make way too big of a deal about the law and that means they totally misunderstand it which ends up with a tyrannical god that gave a law he knew people could not keep. In fact, that sounds eerily like the pagan gods.

    And I do think this problem comes from not taking the historical context of when and why the law was given into consideration. And does not take into consideration that just because the Law was given did not mean individuals could not have a relationship with God in the OT and be righteous.

    And to take it a bit further in the NT Epistles, when law is discussed it is not see as against the backdrop of what that would mean to Gentiles when the Jews had not only the Law of Moses but oral law that eventually turned into Talmud/Mishna which made it even more harsh. (I sometimes think many confuse the two in the NT and that is one reason they say no one could ever keep the law)

    And I am no scholar believe me but I will say that I see all this focus on” no one being able to keep the law, sinners sin and consistent sin is expected from long time believers”, etc,,,,,is nothing but anti intellectualism. They believe contradicting thoughts and therefore have contradicting actions. It is a cop out. The easy road.

    They give us a false dichtomy of sinless perfection vs sinning all the time, having mixed motives, etc. This only means we cannot know ourselves. Truth is outside of us as Argo’s title says.

    I lived in that world long enough and I am well aware the havoc that doctrine wrecks on lives.

    No thanks. Yes, we sin, we know it and we stop it. I used to have a saying in my corporate training days that if you make the same exact mistakes 3x in a row it is no longer a mistake. Time to make new ones. :o) (I have had to teach my kids this too!)

    As to sin, we need to stop doing the consistent ones and work on other ones. But then, I am sure there are many differences in defining sin. In my view, the ones to focus on are the ones that are unfair and/or unjust treatment of others. (Some think disagreeing with their view is unfair. Sigh) So there has to be some understanding of sin. (There are quite a few lists in the NT which is a good place to start)

    Our existence is not a sin. But you would think it is since so many think we cannot stop sinning.

    What is missing in all this? Good old fashioned character and virtue. NT Wright does a great lecture on this called After you believe. As in “then what”? Well we go to work on being the creatures God intended.

  15. “More descriptive phrases are chemical cleanser, means to an end, tool, process.”

    A Mom,

    Yes, yes, yes, and yes!

  16. “Men CANNOT help but sin BY CHOICE. ”

    This is one I spent way too much time on when interacting on YRR NC pastor blogs. The mental gymnastics and contradictions they have to live with to explain it away are unbelievable. The main one being compatablism. What was amusing was to learn in that doctrine man is FREE to sin all he wants because it is his nature (inherited guilt, total depravity). HOWEVER, if the man was “chosen” before the Adam even sinned then when he is elected then that FREEDOM stops. God is now controlling every molecule. But before when man was free to sin God was not controlling it. See, makes perfect sense, right? Right? Oh and I almost forgot, when you are elected you still sin even though God is now controlling every molecule. That is the compatablism part you are living under a determinist god controlling every molecule but still have free will to sin when you are elected.

    I started seeing the pride in the contradictory explanation. It was: If you don’t understand it there is a problem with you. (As in God does not want you to know the mystery)

    Then the ad hominem comes out: So you claim you are not a sinner? You claim your heart is not wicked? And on and on.

    My response is that if we are not sinning less and less as time goes on as believers something is wrong. But then, the gurus decide what is sin for us so that brings up another whole round of contradictions. Because what is sin for us is not sin for them. Go figure.

    Best to do this “walk” with Jesus and leave the gurus out of it.

  17. “Where is the doing? Life? Love? Learning? Right action? Any take-away for the here & now?”

    The words “Life” and “Living” have taken on a whole new meaning for me. We are to live out the Kingdom now. That is Life abundantly, too. I no longer read those words as solely belonging to “Life” after death. Eternal life starts here, imo.

    It is not an easy path, either, being surrounded by “Christians” who live out the death part.

  18. Argo, Thank you for your ideas. They are refreshing. I have changed my stance on certain topics after reading your posts, thinking, thinking, observing life. Overall, you have been a great help to me. I feel your pain at the damage caused by following beliefs that devalue people from the moment they are born. Thank you for using your voice regarding painful religious choices/experiences to sound an alarm & warn others. And for encouraging others with hope which is realized by make good choices. Love in action is loving God/self/others.

    Hope you had a good Father’s day with your kids & wife. May your family live the abundant life! 🙂

    If I remember correctly, my first comment on TWW was in defense of your right to speak your ideas. If a blog owner doesn’t allow or like differing opinions, I suspect they are aware of & are uncomfortable with gaps in their ideas. It’s peculiar that freedom of speech (of people clearly against spiritual abuse) would be denied.

  19. A Mom,

    Thank you! And yes, I had a fine fathers day…minus the six hour drive back from Richmond whereby I had to pull over and pee in the woods because the one gas station I found in a several mile stretch of back roads boasted a broken toilet…on a piece of smudged notebook paper and written in ballpoint pen. Classy.

  20. “I have changed my stance on certain topics after reading your posts, thinking, thinking, observing life.”

    A Mom,

    And you are VERY good at it. 🙂

    Am loving watching you and Lydia thunder away at Tom over there on John’s site. Rock on.

  21. “minus the six hour drive back from Richmond whereby I had to pull over and pee in the woods because the one gas station I found in a several mile stretch of back roads boasted a broken toilet…on a piece of smudged notebook paper and written in ballpoint pen. Classy. ”

    Hee Hee. I will never forget the time we were driving through the mountains in W.VA in the middle of the night and I had to go so bad we took the first exit which did not look promising but I was desperate. The only gas station with 2 pumps had a head shot of a decomposing corpse on front door with this caption: Do you know this man?

    I did my business in record time.

  22. Argo, I was going to let you know our little guy takes a certain amount of pleasure hopping out of our pool to pee in the bushes. Yesterday was no exception. Lol I think it’s one of the reasons he likes to go camping…

    Honestly, I would prefer the great outdoors to some of the toilets in Rome & China.

    But Lydia’s experience takes the cake!

  23. Lydia,

    Wow. That’s way worse than my notebook paper sign with the smudged finger prints. Lol!!

    That poor guy in the picture was both missing (no one knew him nor claimed him) AND dead. Poor guy was having a very bad day.

  24. A Mom,

    Yes…there is something about it that is liberating. Lol. I mean, I feel like an old pioneer.

    And…a little naughty. It was on private land right next to the posted “no trespassing” sign.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.