(V): I'm not sure what your point is. When you say [ But no... it's an explanation of the duality of human being. Even Jesus said he was the Son of man... while Christ said he was the son of God.. ] is that supposed to mean all of us are sons of men and sons of God in the same way Jesus is? Having two titles to illustrate two different aspects of the same person is commonplace, but finding both God and man in one vessel (a man) would be unique. According to the Bible it only happened once, and it happened for a specific purpose known only at the time by God. If Satan had known what God's purpose was he might have felt the need to constrain himself, but probably not because for Satan it was a lose/lose scenario... inspire people to reject Gods son results in victory for God, and not inspiring people to reject His son results in another kind of victory for God. So Satan losing is a given, but we are in the position of having to make a choice whether we want to or not. And claiming we didn't know or believe in this choice to be made is no excuse. Ignorance or disbelief (or both) is not something Judge Judy would approve of and see as grounds for dismissal, so there's no reason to believe God would. That's how I see it.

Maybe I'm being too much of a purist, but I was only commenting on branches that deviate so far from a root premise that it can no longer be called a 'true' branch. If I saw an apple growing from a cherry tree, I would have to assume the branch holding the apple did not originate from that tree. I might assume that branch was grafted onto the tree, but it's a safe guess that the apple branch didn't naturally grow out of the cherry tree.


But I think we are deviating from ADs original question. At least we agree on one point, that consciousness is a given. Physicalists say that consciousness is a natural result of matter becoming living tissue, and then later on it developed consciousness. But there is evidence (no kidding, actual scientific evidence along with philosophical proofs) that point to the mind and brain being two distinct entities. The mind inhabits the brain, but the mind is not the brain. I skipped to that chapter of the book I mentioned before, where it talks about the evidence of consciousness. The physicalist argument for consciousness is almost identical to the "something from nothing" argument offered to explain the Big Bang. They claim that consciousness naturally arises from physical matter, even thoug physical matter doesn't contain anything that can generate that attribute.

Oddly enough, free will is only mentioned once or twice in that chapter, as though free will is automatically conditional to being a conscious entity. Like I said before, although the book I'm reading doesn't automatically reject theism, it is mostly focused on science, logic, and practical philosophy. Most books don't hold my interest all the way through, but this one does.

Iamon lyme: No, you are not a purist... far from it.

"but finding both God and man in one vessel (a man) would be unique. According to the Bible it only happened once."

No, that's a distortion thanks to some rather old semi pagan conceptualisations that have existed ever since the Nicene creed was made. The RCC used the same speech in order to define who was a heretic or not.

The Bible actually says we, the people, aka the children of God.... ... ALL have God in us, and we are part of the 'Christ'... there is also OT passages that talk of the LORD being visible to the likes of the discoverers that Elohim was ONE. Even Jesus says we can activate that God'ness in us and enjoy the 'kingdom of heaven' while we are still not dead.

God himself at the end of the Eden incident says we can become like God himself, and only after we started to ask one simple question..... """"why?""".

. If you are a purist.. you'd have to recognise God himself has no religion, Jesus was born as a Jew, the Christ in him was a pure virgin soul born with God alive when we guys have to 'purify' ourselves. .... .... even Jesus had to face a period of testing and purification, as denoted by the 40 days and nights he spent in the desert.

40 being a known figure referring to the purification of an object/soul/souls described in the OT.

... If you are a purist then you'll know that all OT text was written told from a knowledge that included PaRDeS, which Christ was of course aware of.

.... back to.....

"I'm not sure what your point is."

I can see that, I can also see that the fight/flight automatic response that interpretates much of the sense information that enters our brain is active in your reply.

ie..... "I don't know, so I'll fear and hate it".. There is no God in this and never can be. Everyone that holds onto such denies his/her God given spirit, just to be 'right' rather than face the inner storm and heal the 'world'.

why?? It's easy to do... blame the world rather than the way you see it.

Which brings us back to philosophy, and relativity. That one can be everything and unique in it's own right.One can understand without knowing no-thing.

If you were a purist, you'd not be looking for people to agree with you on every spiritual question.... But then again, you are here. Part of you wants to be as a child again in the pure form Christ talks of... It's a point we all face and many back down on.

...because we fear being childlike.

(V): Don't take this as a critcism, because it's not... I've fallen into the same trap, and even after I learned to recognise the trap I still find myself falling into it.

I believe you are equating the core tenets of Judaism and Christianity with institutional (organized) religion, which itself has deviated from those same simple (childlike, if you will) tenets.

So now you've found an alternative (or alternatives) to a mismanaged and corrupt system of belief that became corrupt due to abandoning those same tenets. Switching over for another system that doesn't even pretend to adhere to those tenets is a waste of time and effort... it accomplishes less than nothing, because abandoning a system that only pretends to adhere to its tenets for one that wholesale rejects them is like jumping off a cliff to avoid falling into a hole. None of us can afford to waste our time indefinitely, because someday the testing and searching will stop and all of this will come to a conclusion.

Iamon lyme: No.

"None of us can afford to waste our time indefinitely, because someday the testing and searching will stop and all of this will come to a conclusion."

Time is an illusion, lunch time doubly so. This is stated clearly in the Bible... First and Last.. all else means nothing. You are and are not. But hey.. Me like everyone being unique.. positioning is everything.

Do you believe in a literal end of the world. Holy war.. all non believers will die... If you do, you've failed.

"same simple (childlike, if you will) tenets."

Now you are mocking what Jesus said... Shame on you!!

btw.. Genesis 3:21
The Lord God made garments of skin for Adam and his wife and clothed them. 22 And the Lord God said, “The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever.” 23 So the Lord God banished him from the Garden of Eden to work the ground from which he had been taken. 24 After he drove the man out, he placed on the east side[e] of the Garden of Eden cherubim and a flaming sword flashing back and forth to guard the way to the tree of life.

Without the fall, would such still be possible?

(V): You're cracking me up dude... you could've just stopped after saying "No", because the rest of your message is essentially just one long "No".

You said [ Do you believe in a literal end of the world. Holy war.. all non believers will die... If you do, you've failed. ]

Where do you get this stuff?

If I asked you, "Do you really believe leprechauns don't play basketball because they are too small?" as though I'm implying it IS something you believe, would you defend your belief in leprechauns playing basketball?

No, of course you wouldn't. Because you are not stupid. You would recognise the question is flawed, and that it is only an attempt to distract you from a discussion about what you really believe. But here's my point, if you are not stupid enough to fall for such an obvious ruse, then why... I'll let you finish that thought. You're no dummy, you can figure it out.

Seriously V, that kind of end of the world argument is a cartoonish idea, invented by athiests to discredit the Bible and make Christians look foolish. I'm having trouble believing you came to that conclusion after an independent reading of the Bible. And by "independent" I mean without the help of commentaries. It's easier for me to believe you got this idea from an invented "interpretation" for reasons which should be obvious... to discredit something they (the anti-religionists) adamantly oppose... because it contracts their own world view.

But then I have to wonder how valid that world view could be, if they have to lie about a world view that opposes theirs? This is an example of why, even if I never came to believe in God, that I could no longer run with the athiests. They talk a lot about truth and logic and science, and then prove those things are only secondary to what (without question) they actually believe. Truth is usually the best tool for proving or disproving something, unless reality itself is false... then nothing you say or do would actually matter.

Where in the Bible do you see it saying the world (our physical earth) will no longer continue to exist? It will undergo a big change, so of course an old way of doing things will end, but the earth itself will still be here. And it doesn't say God will destroy the earth, it says that if He doesn't intercede we will manage to destroy ourselves, along with every other living thing. So, how does that line up with what you've been saying Christians believe? Did I misunderstand the point you intended to make?

By the way, it is possible... we literally have, or soon will have, the capacity to end all life on earth. If not all, then certainly most of it. It was a crazy idea for hundreds of years, and probably something for athiests to laugh about, because how could it be possible for mere mean to destroy all life on earth?

But things have changed, haven't they. So I wonder, how many athiests today still think this is an utterly ridiculous impossibility? Any?

Iamon lyme: Is it?

"Where do you get this stuff?"

From certain churches and preachers proclaiming they know that the world will end in a big holy war between heaven and hell... no I don't believe that version, but there is other interpretations based on metaphorical statements that were part of story telling back in dem old days.

"No, of course you wouldn't. Because you are not stupid. You would recognise the question is flawed, and that it is only an attempt to distract you from a discussion about what you really believe."

Wrong. The question is not flawed, it is not a distraction.. it's just a question. There are still valid interpretations without that literal bs of ReLeVaTiOnS.

"we literally have, or soon will have, the capacity to end all life on earth. If not all, then certainly most of it. It was a crazy idea for hundreds of years, and probably something for athiests to laugh about, because how could it be possible for mere mean to destroy all life on earth?"

We have since the 50's had the ability to wipe out 'all' life. Well..... most. Some species are hardy little buggers just like we were when the dino's got killed off. So?

..... Choices were made back then that proved we are not that suicidal as a race.

(V): [ We have since the 50's had the ability to wipe out 'all' life. Well..... most. Some species are hardy little buggers just like we were when the dino's got killed off. So? ]

So pretend we are living say, a mere two or three centuries ago, and are having this conversation. Do you think you might agree this was possible, and wonder why I'm even bothering to bring it up... or would you think I'm some starry eyed religonist who mindless believes everything the Bible says?

How could I believe this was even possible, like the prophesy that says everyone in the world will be able to see an event as it unfolds... IMPOSSIBLE!!

COULD you believe that, when reason and everything you know about reality says it can't happen? A massive natural disaster on a global scale, okay, maybe all life could be wiped out by that. But completely wiped out by men? No way! It's impossible!

Seriously, do you think two hundred years ago you wouldn't be tempted to scoff at an impossible scenario "invented" two thousand years ago? It would take lots of faith and guts for anyone to say they believed it. But this is today, so your response was basically to repeat what I said and then ask "So?"

One of the proofs of prophesy, IMO, isn't just that an event happens as predicted, it also contains information that can only make sense at the time it happens. The idea that the whole world can witness an event as it happens, or that man would have the power to wipe out all life on earth would sound like the ravings of a lunatic 2 thousand years ago. There would be zero evidence of anything existing at that time to even base that kind of prediction on.

Who would predict something happening if they didn't believe it can happen? And how could the ravings of a lunatic turn out to be true, if he (or anyone else) did not have the information needed to begin with? WE know it can happen, because we live in that pocket of time those prophesies pointed to, and so for us it usually means nothing more than "Of course this is true, so what?"

Iamon lyme: No.. I asked a question if you are.

Seriously, do you think two hundred years ago you wouldn't be tempted to scoff at an impossible scenario "invented" two thousand years ago?

That would depend on my education at that time. And again.... my philosophical understanding... a point I keep trying to get across. Not believing something does not mean you have to "scoff" at it also.

"It would take lots of faith and guts for anyone to say they believed it."

No.. lots of hate for what you 'see' when you 'look' at life.

"Who would predict something happening if they didn't believe it can happen? And how could the ravings of a lunatic turn out to be true, if he (or anyone else) did not have the information needed to begin with?"

Context... who was occupying 'Palestine' back then.. evil ones will not prevail, have faith, stop worrying, it'll be ok.

"There would be zero evidence of anything existing at that time to even base that kind of prediction on."

... yes there would be.. some of it would be known through the story of Noah, which is based on an event that did happen... a flood. Wars... long ones, where whole cities are pillaged, Volcanic eruptions.. such as recorded in the Moses story, earthquakes such as recorded in the Sodom story.

Even Eden seems to record that a certain desert is not a desert.. Something that in recent years has been confirmed through the finding of huge reservoirs of water under the desert. :)

(V): Hey, if you don't want to deal with this then just say so. I came prepared to answer your objections, but you seem intent on objecting to something else.


[ No.. I asked a question if you are. ]

If I am what?


[ It would take lots of faith and guts for anyone to say they believed it."

No.. lots of hate for what you 'see' when you 'look' at life. ]

I was inviting you to think about what it means to see something that could not have happened without the help of an immaterial intelligence. Does the idea of a God who defies your description of Him offend you? I don't know why it would. So allow me to offend you again by posing this question:

If I know a little something about you and then fill in the gaps with what I imagine is true, then between just you and me, which of us would be the better judge of how accurate that picture is... you or me? Who is in a better position to know who you are, and what the true details of your life are?

( By the way, if the answer to this isn't obvious, then you may as well stop now because the answer to what comes next will be no less obvious. )


So, using the same criteria, who is in a better position to explain who God is... you or God?

Iamon lyme: I don't enjoy correcting myself, but if anyone does I want it to be me.

[ ...the answer to what comes next will be no less obvious. ]

That doesn't make sense. It can't be less "obvious" or more "obvious", or even as "obvious". I forgot "obvious" has a non-negotiable meaning and is relative to the observer... what might be obvious to you wouldn't necessarily be obvious to me.


Obviously, this is a word I should use sparingly or stop using altogether... DOH!!

Iamon lyme: ... The God within a flower, certainly.

I'm sorry that you've gotten confused over the God within and the God without. N' the philosophy behind it.

Isn't it Godly to help someone, isn't it Godly to enjoy the splendour of creation, and to be content and at peace with what we don't understand because we can just accept that.

... A child sees the splendour easily.... it's this metaphorical aspect that I've been using since we started talking philosophy. Christ describes what he is, how he sees things.. in order to be like Christ we have to give up (surrender) to God (the God without) to allow the God within (a reflection) shine.

There is no pride or ego in this, it is just something that is.

http://www.jewfaq.org/human.htm

"" Clearly, we are not created in the physical image of G-d, because Judaism steadfastly maintains that G-d is incorporeal and has no physical appearance. Rambam points out that the Hebrew words translated as "image" and "likeness" in Gen. 1:27 do not refer to the physical form of a thing. The word for "image" in Gen. 1:27 is "tzelem," which refers to the nature or essence of a thing, as in Psalm 73:20, "you will despise their image (tzel'mam)." You despise a person's nature and not a person's physical appearance. The word for physical form, Rambam explains, is "to'ar," as in Gen. 39:6, "and Joseph was beautiful of form (to'ar) and fair to look upon." Similarly, the word used for "likeness" is "damut," which is used to indicate a simile, not identity of form. For example, "He is like (damuno) a lion" in Ps. 17:12 refers not to similar appearance, but to similar nature.

What is it in our nature that is G-d-like? Rashi explains that we are like G-d in that we have the ability to understand and discern. Rambam elaborates that by using our intellect, we are able to perceive things without the use of our physical senses, an ability that makes us like G-d, who perceives without having physical senses. ""

Your point was pointless. Now can we get back to philosophy?

(V): "I'm sorry that you've gotten confused over the God within and the God without. N' the philosophy behind it."

I'm not confused, I'm just trying to get you to say what you believe. So far you've been talking about God as though he is nothing more than an idea, or an attribute for us to emulate. Your description of the person of God so far looks a little fuzzy and non descript.

IYO is God real? Is He an independent satient being whose existence and nature does not rely on what we think of Him? Or is he something less than that, is the idea of God something you have the power to define for yourself?

These may sound like silly questions, but IMO it's important to make this distinction. If I wasn't sure of who you are or if you were real, then I might ask: Is (V) real, or is he only an idea and so therefore I have the power to define who (V) is?

(V): "Christ describes what he is, how he sees things.. in order to be like Christ we have to give up (surrender) to God (the God without) to allow the God within (a reflection) shine."

"There is no pride or ego in this, it is just something that is."

Well, there WAS no pride or ego in that until you said "the God within". You could have just as easily said "the Magnificence within" without changing the meaning. A subtle distinction perhaps, but do you see how this elevates you into a higher position, and puts you closer to being a god?

We can get closer to God, but we will never be gods. The same temtpation that caused man to fall in the garden of eden is still tugging at our souls, and we are no less prone than Adam and Eve to be drawn towards that tempation. The battle that started there hasn't ended... not yet.

Iamon lyme: What battle?

(V): "What battle?"

I suppose you could call it "spiritual warfare". Before the fall we were not at odds with God. God was not our enemy. The battle began when we decided to step outside of His. I'm calling it a 'battle' and not a 'war' because the war actually started before that... and it was the leader of the opposition (satan) who got us involved in it by convincing us to oppose his enemy (God). That battle is still going on... it hasn't been resolved yet.

I don't want to bore people who don't believe any of this or are offended by "religious talk", so I'll bring this back to the point I was originally trying to make.

If you say the God in a flower, or the God in you, it suggests there is no need to invite him into your life, because he is already there. So if he stands at the door knocking, and will only come into your life if you invite him, why would you bother to get up to let him in? You wouldn't, because he is already there with you.


Think of it this way... Joe is sitting with you in your living room, he's a good buddy of yours and has always lived in your home. But then someone is knocking on your door and asking to come in... not demanding, just asking. He won't come in unless he's invited to come in... so it's entirely up to you, it's your choice. So you go to the door and say, "Who are you?" The voice on the other side says, "It's me, Joe."

So then you look back at Joe and tell him, "Well, I'm no fool! I know he isn't Joe because you are Joe, and you are already here." And so you go back to visiting Joe, and ignore the joker who is only claiming he is Joe so you will let him in. End of story...






...or is it?

Iamon lyme: "...or is it?"

( Substitute the word "God" for "Joe". )

If there is only one Joe, then how can you be sure the Joe you know is the real Joe, and the Joe who came to the door isn't? You know one of them is a fake because there is only one Joe, so how do you decide who the real one is?

Mysticism overcomes this problem by saying they both are, or neither are, or everything is, or it doesn't matter because I'm too tired to think about it so I'll make the problem (of understanding this) go away in a mystical puff of smoke. Mysticism doesn't solve the problem by making the answer more visible, it solves the problem by making the problem less visible...



... and air freshener can make farty smells disappear behind a cloud of sweet smelling fragrance. It's like magic, only better.

.: oops, did it again.

I wrote "The battle began when we decided to step outside of His."

It was supposed to say "...outside of His will."

(V): "Your point was pointless. Now can we get back to philosophy?"

Granted, it was a very small point, but it was there... that's why I drew the arrows, so you could find the point I was pointing to. Pointing to the point would only be pointless if you could see the point without the pointer. But if you were unable to see the point without the help of a pointer, wouldn't it have been pointless for me to have made that point? I mean really, what is the point of making a point if you don't see the point? I knew it was there, I just wanted to make sure you knew it was there too.

I didn't expect you to see the point hidden within the set up, so I didn't want to disappoint you by ending it with no apparent (eminentlly visible) point. I did this for you, but apparently you don't appreciate all the effort I've put into this explicitly for your benefit...
Shame on you!!!

(V): I need to set this up before making my point. If you want argue with the set up that's fine, but if you do then you will be missing the point. The set up isn't the point, so please be patient and wait for it.


~ What do you see when you look in a mirror? Do you see you, or a reflection (image) of you? You're seeing an image of you. If you were seeing you, then there would be two of you. One of you is looking at the mirror, the other you is looking back... at you. That can't be right, so what you are actually seeing must only be a reflection, and not the real you.

~ God made man in his image... in the image of God man was made. Man is not God, he is only a relfection of Him. Man is not a god, nor is he God, he is simply an image of God. The Bible doesn't say everything was made in Gods image (not everything is a mirror) so I have to assume man was set aside to be that reflective creation.

~ The very first mention or suggestion of man being more than an image, but that he is as God (or like gods) shows up early in the book of Genesis. Who suggested God had lied to man, and encouraged him to elevate himself? Who tempted man to elevate himself into a higher position than he was created to occupy?



so here's my point ===> . <===

Iamon lyme:<b>Iamon lyme</b>:  Well here's the cure for that:

Worth listening to:

">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DC1AOtznXsI

Artful Dodger: Do you mean the cure for smoking?

I've thought about that... the withdrawl symptoms are nothing, it's the emotions I feel as I'm going through withdrawl that keep me coming back for relief. The best I've been able to do after 3 days is to smoke less, by putting off the relief for as long as I can tollerate it. I didn't think this would be easy, that's why I've given myself a full 4 months to keep working at it.

I didn't have to work at quiting alcohol. In fact, I had no intention of stopping, but the desire for it diminished over time until I didn't want it any more. I wasn't even aware that I had stopped until a few months had passed. I was hoping maybe the same thing could happen with the smoking. I think I could be making too big a deal out this, that may be the reason for most of the anxiety.


I clicked on the second link and got a message about finding and isolating a virus. I was told (my computer talks to me) that I needed to reboot to have the virus deleted. I came back after rebooting and clicked on the same link, but got the same message... so I knew it wasn't just a fluke, it had to be the link. It could be my computer is being over protective and too sensitive to anything it thinks may be a virus, but I thought I should pass this along just in case it really is a problem and could end up being a problem for someone else.

I doubt it though, because I assume you were able to see the link without experiencing a problem... so do you know why my virus protection might identify something as a virus if it isn't actually a virus?

put the lyme in the coconut: To be (a virus) or not to be (a virus)...

Ahha! I know what it is! My computer has the same problem I do... it thinks too much!

Iamon lyme: Have you tried the 3 step program on one brand of Nicotine patches? It can be very good. First it helps stop that habit of picking one up, getting a large amount of nicotine in the first stage. Then gradually you lower the amount you are getting.

They helped me finally quit. Of course it took major surgery (unrelated, of course) and almost a full month in the hospital to get over that final hurdle. I was on the smallest patch, and was not going to stop using it until I was positive I would be successful. However, being in the hospital and having NO choice, helped me to take off that final one.
I haven't had a cigarette now since July 2009. I had tried many many many times before that and failed. (Even WITH the patch - it was that final small patch that I couldn't let go of, so when I stopped, I'd start back up to smoking)

I still miss it though lol. I just don't NEED it. I often think I'd like to have JUST ONE - but after being unsuccessful too many times, I don't dare to ruin it.

rod03801: Nicotine patches or an electronic cigarette that delivers only nictotine (no tars and no carcinogens) in water vapor is something I might try. I've heard either of those can work if I stick with them. Do I need to see a doctor to get the patches, or are they sold over the counter?

I like the idea of an electronic cigarette. It's supposed to be half as expensive as buying regular cigarettes, but I stopped buying cartons of smokes years ago when they only cost a fraction of what they do now, so to me it would be much more expensive than continuing to smoke. The cost of a product like patches or a fake cigarette is something I have to consider, especially if I'm not sure it will without question lead to becoming smoke free.

I've tried quiting before, in fact so many times that I gave up quiting because it was becoming a ridiculous exercise in good intentions... they were 'feel good' efforts with no results. LOL That sounds familiar, kind of like how politics is practiced today in contrast to 30 or 40 years ago.

I know this is the politics board, but most of time I can't stand politics, and if I play politics with myself when trying to give up smoking I'll lose everytime. The real battle will be mental. I have to want something enough to put up with any discomfort that may discourage me... so a lot my focus will have to be less on the mechanics of stopping and more on what my mind is doing. I know that if I continue to "hold out" between smokes, and immediately stop puffiing on each one when the discomfort abaits, I'll become less addicted as time goes by. This can work, but it means practicing self discipline and not giving up on it for a long time... it could several months or even years to get to the same point you were able to get to when you got to the smallest patch.

Iamon lyme: Ronny Wood of the Stones uses electronic ciggs, I wonder if you would still get hassled on an airplane regardless

The Col: I know the answer to this, because I've heard some stories about people using them in restaurants and other smoke free zones. You can and will be hassled, and for no other reason than because it looks like you are smoking a cigarette. There's not enough nictone in the expelled water vapor for anyone to be concerned about. If they didn't know there were a few parts per million of nictone in the air that weren't there before, they wouldn't know it was there... they wouldn't be able to smell or feel it.

Even if you put a candy cigarette in your mouth and pretend to smoke it, I think there's a good chance you would be hassled for doing that as well. I know this sounds bizarre, but over the years I've been amazed at how some people will react to perceived threats or violations of law even after they've discovered no threat or violation exists. Perception has the power to trump reality... it has always had that power, but only with people who don't bother to think about what it is they are seeing and believing. And I think perception drives politics more today than it ever used to... so between my own experiences with mindless reactionaries and what I'm seeing with national politics, I'm pretty sure I'm not just imagining all of this.

Iamon lyme: No doctor needed for the patches now. (When they first came out, years ago, you did need a prescription)
I don't recommend the cheaper "no name" ones. Maybe it was all in my head, but they didn't seem to work as well.
I recommend the NicoDerm ones They have 3 sizes. Start at the big and work down. They have a recommended amount of time for each size, but I found I needed to follow MY OWN path, and decide when I was ready for the next size down. (Because I failed when following THEIR plan, and dropped sizes quicker than was appropriate for ME)

They have finally gone down in price. I think 3 years ago, I found I was spending about half on the patches than I was on cigs. I was smoking 1 pack per day.

rod03801: How many years did you smoke?
1 pack a day? I consider that pretty lightweight , I smoke 2 1/2 per day

The Col: I started smoking a little over 40 years ago. I stopped trying to quit smoking a little over 30 years ago... I'm trying to keep from laughing about this, but it's hard to stop doing that too. If you haven't done something for over 30 years, it takes a while to get back into it... like the art of quiting smoking.

I started off as a heavy smoker, went from one to two to three and then four packs a day. Four packs a day for almost a year nearly killed me. I would wake up 2 or 3 times a night because the addiction was so strong I couldn't sleep through the whole night without waking up to smoke... it was that bad.

So anyway, the smoking tapered off more or less naturally (because it had to, or I wouldn't be here today talking about it) to about two packs a day. All of this happened within a year of starting to smoke. After about 10 to 15 years of two packs a day I switched over to hand rolled cigarettes, and that's where I am today... I'm an expert at rolling cigs, even people who do the same are impressed with how I can roll a nearly perfectly shaped cig in only a few seconds.

Iamon lyme: I usually tune out once I hear a half, or pack a day smoker give advice on how hard it is/was quitting, though I am aware they are trying to help.I was actually down to less than a pack over the holidays while staying in a home where the balcony was the only option.I have been smoking for about 30 years at an increasing rate, I've got to stop

The Col: I'd go for a replacement like the electronic cigs then if I were you. It's what I want to try this year... not quite giving up, but just to cut down.

(V): Is that the one that gives off stream?
I guess it beats sucking on a carrot

The Col: ... a nicotine fluid that is flavoured... e liquid I think it's called. I'm not sure if they do a carrot flavoured one though!! ;P

(V): I wonder why they can't just find the part of the brain that controls the urge to smoke and perform a partial lobotomy to erase it

The Col: Because it's all tied in to the adrenal system. Your body cannot function without that system.

(V): so you've looked into it?

The Col: Yes. Same reason caffeine works amongst many stimulants. We have receptors that nicotine stimulate our adrenal glands.... with THC, Morphine, LSD and many other drugs... legal or illegal we rely on systems that have been used for millions of years by us and other creatures.

There's been alot of discussion on this thanks to a govern'ment boffin openly disagreeing with govern'ment policy.

...especially with the latest outbreak of legal highs.

The Col: I smoked longer than I should have. LOL. Started on a bet. (I thought people "addicted" to cigarettes were making it up)

And just because you smoke twice as much, it really doesn't give you a lot of grounds to discount the hard time anyone who smoked less had in quitting.

I can promise you I did not have an easy time. And if I hadn't had the month long hospital stay, I probably would have failed this time too. (Or 3 years later I'd still be buying that damn patch)

I enjoyed the patch though! Gave me VERY vivid amazing dreams! (Some people hate that part, but I LOVED it)

I mostly decided to quit the last time, because the cost had gone up again, and I was sick of spending all that money on something so awful. I miss it. I enjoy the smell. I'm not bothered being around smokers. (I enjoy the smell of the smoke and the cig.. A dirty ashtray or old smashed out butts gross me out though)

And I was sick of being banished outdoors in the Winter to puff. LOL

rod03801: Smoking is apparently harder to quit than heroin. I'm not an "addictive personality" generally, but triggers such as coffee,reading,being online, driving, alcohol(though I drink very rarely) cause me to automatically reach for a cig.

The Col: Yup. I'd agree that's part of what makes it hardest. The triggers. My favorite was after eating.
I'm still amazed I don't smoke anymore. I TRULY loved it.

Driving was hard too. I chain smoked when driving. On "regular trips" I always knew right where I would have to be passing for the best time to light the last one, so that I'd be done with it right when arriving. LOL

The Col: It's been known for a long time what happens in the brain when nicotine is present. I studied this in the late 70's because I thought learning why nicotine is addicting might help me overcome the addiction... then I learned that knowing and doing are two entirely different things.

Nicotine is addicting because the chemical is similar to one of the natural links in the wiring of your brain. Nicotine "successfully competes" for that link, which means the chemical intended for occuping that particular link in the wiring chain is shut out... it can't get in because nicotine got there first.

Then, a few days after you start introducing nicotine into your brain, manufacture of the natural chemical produced by your body (made for occupying that link in the chain) begins to shut down, because making it doesn't make sense if it's not being used for anything. In a way this is a testimony to your body's efficiency in dealing with a poison, because instead of trying to fight it your body gives in and accepts the new link.

But nicotine washes out very quickly, which means you need to keep replenishing it often to keep that link in place. So the signals meant to follow the circuitry are constanty being weakened and interrupted, until you take in more nicotine to fully replenish the link. Food and other things can trigger a desire to smoke, but you already have an internal trigger. Your mind starts saying to you, "Hey there, the link is dissolving... DO SOMETHING!!"

About 3 days after you stop smoking (three days of hell) your body finally figures out it ain't getting any more freebies to fill in that link, and it needs to start producing its own link again. Three whole days, yeah, it takes that long for my stupid lazy liberal no account brain to figure that out!!! Why can't there be better communication between my conscious mind and the goofballs who keep falling asleep at the switch inside my brain!! WAKE UP YOU IDIOTS, AND DO YOUR JOBS!!!!! Do I need to whack myself over the head with a frying pan to get your attention?!! Oh, sure, you'd like that, wouldn't you?!!! Boy, am I pissed!!! it's been a few hours since my last smoke... I deserve a break.

Iamon lyme: Holy Crap Batman!!!  Politics (30 new)

rod03801: Okay, good, so the first thing I might try will be the patches, because I shouldn't have a problem finding them in local stores. But if it's only half the cost of tobacco, then it sounds like the price will be about the same as using an electronic cigarette. I was a two pack a day smoker, but I think today it's the equivalent of one pack per day. I roll my own, so it's hard to compared that to packs of smokes. I don't inhale added chemicals, but I think the tobacco itself is a bit stronger than most packaged cigarettes... I'm thinking out loud now, so I should probably stop talking about this...

Iamon lyme: I still do roll my own. The Duty (tax) on cigs is bad in the UK. I'm use to roll ups from having worked in an office before the smoking laws all came in. If I smoked a normal fag, It would be gone by the time I return to it.. burnt away.

Roll ups don't have that problem. :) Sometimes it's an hour before I get to relighting a roll up again.

rod03801: So you got helped!! Gave you some extra life to play with and enjoy. :P

Iamon lyme: Odd. It's a youtube link. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DC1AOtznXsI Not sure why it gave that message.

As for smoking, I smoked for 13 plus years and finally was able to quit but it wasn't "will" power. I got too sick from the smoke and had to quit or put up with feeling ill every morning. I developed a plan that worked for me. I think God jumped in and removed the cravings because I quit one day and never craved another smoke. I went from smoking over a pack a day to smoking zero. My farting increased but there was no longer a nicotine ring on my undies

Artful Dodger: No more nicotine ring on your undies? Hmmmm, I wonder if that would work for me? I'm tired of having to wash my undies on a regular basis, so it appears there is one more reason for me to quit. I'm assuming no more nicotine stained fingers either... that IS nicotine, right? Okay, maybe not nicotine, but it does come from cigarettes... right?

Half way through this week it occurred to me I didn't have a plan. I expected to feel discomfort, but no plan for how I would deal with those moments of "hunger", and what to fill the extra time with. I thought this should be easier than when I was younger, when I didn't have as much experience and my days were full of things to do, but that's not the case. When I was younger I had more resolve, and more physical and mental strength. I needed those things when I was younger because of all the trouble I caused for myself. Smoking is one of the few things that hasn't naturally fallen away after I didn't want it anymore.

For me this is actually a normal way of doing things, jump into something with an idea that turns out to be wrong, then try again with a better idea, or plan, and then fail again... and again... and so forth. What eventually happens is I'll finally get it right, just so long as I don't give up and I keeping going with it.

I think I know what you mean by "will" power... my will can actually get in the way of what I want to see happening. It seems counter-intuitive, but sometimes giving up and surrendering is the only logical (practical) path to winning. It's like trying to tune in on one of those Magic Eye pictures... I can't make myself see it, I have to let myself see it. Does this make sense?

(V): That's strange the post I wrote to you about what you was smoking has vanished. I hope you understand I was joking to you?

You must of saw it to reply to it so thanks. ;)

Silvery Moon: Yes of course, I think it must be a legal thing... as it certainly isn't a matter of what is lawful. :)