I know I said I was going to ignore you Fishermage, but I guess since you chimed back in after so long, than I will go right ahead and say this. No, quite unforutnate and quite the opposite I was indeed reading your posts, hence my sentiments and hence my statements. I read them, and I commented on them. Clearly you are the one who isn't reading because on several occassions, I quoted your insane close minded beliefs, while you failed time and time again to acknowledge what anyone else was saying and by no means not just my own, but rather every ones. My deepest apologies if you are offended, but quite frankly that's a false apology because clearly you'll never allow yourself to hear a dissenting opinion without trying to argue it, so I can tell you'd never accept an apology even if it is sincere.
I'm not the least bit offended. Mildly amused, but not offended at all. I enjoy and welcome differences of opinion. Please, let's see one that isn't laced with childish vitriol.
At any rate, I am always open to change, and have changed my opinions on a great many things over the years. However, schoolyard attacks and other such nonsense never did the trick. Cogent arguments and evidence are more what I am after.
I know I said I was going to ignore you Fishermage, but I guess since you chimed back in after so long, than I will go right ahead and say this. No, quite unforutnate and quite the opposite I was indeed reading your posts, hence my sentiments and hence my statements. I read them, and I commented on them. Clearly you are the one who isn't reading because on several occassions, I quoted your insane close minded beliefs, while you failed time and time again to acknowledge what anyone else was saying and by no means not just my own, but rather every ones. My deepest apologies if you are offended, but quite frankly that's a false apology because clearly you'll never allow yourself to hear a dissenting opinion without trying to argue it, so I can tell you'd never accept an apology even if it is sincere.
I'm not the least bit offended. Mildly amused, but not offended at all. I enjoy and welcome differences of opinion. Please, let's see one that isn't laced with childish vitriol.
At any rate, I am always open to change, and have changed my opinions on a great many things over the years. However, schoolyard attacks and other such nonsense never did the trick. Cogent arguments and evidence are more what I am after.
Hate, hate, hate, call me childish all you want, your hate doesn't affect me, and I am done talking to you because obviously your inability to state anything other than my being childish proves my point. You spread hate because you have no other counter. Stating you are open to change isn't the same as changing. And just because you use a complicated word while you call me childish doesn't mean that makes your are intelligent, it only means you have a thesaurus to use for your hate.
As for you SabbathSMC, that is solely your opinion, and not a very good one in my own personal view since you try to lash out at me rather than trying to counter the argument.
Hate begets hate, and until either of you have something interesting to say, clearly it would be a waste of my time to make any further comment to either of you.
I know I said I was going to ignore you Fishermage, but I guess since you chimed back in after so long, than I will go right ahead and say this. No, quite unforutnate and quite the opposite I was indeed reading your posts, hence my sentiments and hence my statements. I read them, and I commented on them. Clearly you are the one who isn't reading because on several occassions, I quoted your insane close minded beliefs, while you failed time and time again to acknowledge what anyone else was saying and by no means not just my own, but rather every ones. My deepest apologies if you are offended, but quite frankly that's a false apology because clearly you'll never allow yourself to hear a dissenting opinion without trying to argue it, so I can tell you'd never accept an apology even if it is sincere.
I'm not the least bit offended. Mildly amused, but not offended at all. I enjoy and welcome differences of opinion. Please, let's see one that isn't laced with childish vitriol.
At any rate, I am always open to change, and have changed my opinions on a great many things over the years. However, schoolyard attacks and other such nonsense never did the trick. Cogent arguments and evidence are more what I am after.
Hate, hate, hate, call me childish all you want, your hate doesn't affect me, and I am done talking to you because obviously your inability to state anything other than my being childish proves my point. You spread hate because you have no other counter. Stating you are open to change isn't the same as changing. And just because you use a complicated word while you call me childish doesn't mean that makes your are intelligent, it only means you have a thesaurus to use for your hate.
As for you SabbathSMC, that is solely your opinion, and not a very good one in my own personal view since you try to lash out at me rather than trying to counter the argument.
Hate begets hate, and until either of you have something interesting to say, clearly it would be a waste of my time to make any further comment to either of you.
Are you on bipolar medication? You are the only one that seems to be ranting hatred. Often people do not read what the posts actually say, they only reflect their own thoughts onto what they comprehend. That appears to be the case with you.
I know I said I was going to ignore you Fishermage, but I guess since you chimed back in after so long, than I will go right ahead and say this. No, quite unforutnate and quite the opposite I was indeed reading your posts, hence my sentiments and hence my statements. I read them, and I commented on them. Clearly you are the one who isn't reading because on several occassions, I quoted your insane close minded beliefs, while you failed time and time again to acknowledge what anyone else was saying and by no means not just my own, but rather every ones. My deepest apologies if you are offended, but quite frankly that's a false apology because clearly you'll never allow yourself to hear a dissenting opinion without trying to argue it, so I can tell you'd never accept an apology even if it is sincere.
I'm not the least bit offended. Mildly amused, but not offended at all. I enjoy and welcome differences of opinion. Please, let's see one that isn't laced with childish vitriol.
At any rate, I am always open to change, and have changed my opinions on a great many things over the years. However, schoolyard attacks and other such nonsense never did the trick. Cogent arguments and evidence are more what I am after.
Hate, hate, hate, call me childish all you want, your hate doesn't affect me, and I am done talking to you because obviously your inability to state anything other than my being childish proves my point. You spread hate because you have no other counter. Stating you are open to change isn't the same as changing. And just because you use a complicated word while you call me childish doesn't mean that makes your are intelligent, it only means you have a thesaurus to use for your hate.
As for you SabbathSMC, that is solely your opinion, and not a very good one in my own personal view since you try to lash out at me rather than trying to counter the argument.
Hate begets hate, and until either of you have something interesting to say, clearly it would be a waste of my time to make any further comment to either of you.
The only one hating here seems to be you.
I don't know why you have a problem with the fact that I simply don't find jesus to be a liberal, or a conservative, and that from my reading of scriptures, and reading about jesus, and discussing these things with lots of folks more educated than me about the subject, that jesus was more of an anarcho-libertarian kinda guy, and as such, sometimes would say things that would appeal to conservatives, and at other times say things that would appeal to liberals.
This is why He appeals to social gospel preachers like Rev Wright and end times right wing nutjobs like Hagee. jesus is cool that way.
However, He is liberal where libertarians are liberal, and conservative where libertarians are conservative -- at least from my perspective. I think that's extremely cool.
If you think otherwise, fine. If you want to present evidence that He was more of what we would call a modern liberal, or something else, please do so.
I know I said I was going to ignore you Fishermage, but I guess since you chimed back in after so long, than I will go right ahead and say this. No, quite unforutnate and quite the opposite I was indeed reading your posts, hence my sentiments and hence my statements. I read them, and I commented on them. Clearly you are the one who isn't reading because on several occassions, I quoted your insane close minded beliefs, while you failed time and time again to acknowledge what anyone else was saying and by no means not just my own, but rather every ones. My deepest apologies if you are offended, but quite frankly that's a false apology because clearly you'll never allow yourself to hear a dissenting opinion without trying to argue it, so I can tell you'd never accept an apology even if it is sincere.
I'm not the least bit offended. Mildly amused, but not offended at all. I enjoy and welcome differences of opinion. Please, let's see one that isn't laced with childish vitriol.
At any rate, I am always open to change, and have changed my opinions on a great many things over the years. However, schoolyard attacks and other such nonsense never did the trick. Cogent arguments and evidence are more what I am after.
Hate, hate, hate, call me childish all you want, your hate doesn't affect me, and I am done talking to you because obviously your inability to state anything other than my being childish proves my point. You spread hate because you have no other counter. Stating you are open to change isn't the same as changing. And just because you use a complicated word while you call me childish doesn't mean that makes your are intelligent, it only means you have a thesaurus to use for your hate.
As for you SabbathSMC, that is solely your opinion, and not a very good one in my own personal view since you try to lash out at me rather than trying to counter the argument.
Hate begets hate, and until either of you have something interesting to say, clearly it would be a waste of my time to make any further comment to either of you.
Are you on bipolar medication? You are the only one that seems to be ranting hatred. Often people do not read what the posts actually say, they only reflect their own thoughts onto what they comprehend. That appears to be the case with you.
Yes the liberals have lost it.
Fisher is correct on the classic version of a liberal,that being said if you could tag jesus he would fall into the Law abiding libertarian.Remember the ear !!!
Trade in material assumptions for spiritual facts and make permanent progress.
You can't call someone childish and claim to not be spewing hate, that's just what it is, insults are hate.
As for you comments about Jesus, I can't and won't sit here and argue scripture with anyone as much because I never read, never had a reason to read it, and never found a good reason to change that. Personally I think Christianity would have a great deal going for it, if it weren't for the people who are fanatically devouted to it and Completely fail to follow the tenants of the religion they preach.
But as for the nature of Jesus and the religion that pretty much centers around it, how can you say anything about him with any kind of authority, yes the bible is old, but it's just not that old. Many scholars have all but proved that book people brandy about was written a long time after Jesus walked the earth, some say as many as 500 years. Not to mention the dead-sea scrolls carried with them stories that pained Jesus in a completely different light. While those could be just as fictional as the bible might be, it does call the 'holy writ' into question.
But when you truly boil it down to the brass tax, how can you try to define someone who lived in1 ad by the tenants of those of us who live in 2009. That's a damn long road, and huge amount of history, and not to mention a massive change in perspective. If you were to try and define Jesus by an actual viewpoint in his own lifetime he could easily be called a radical. While I probably wouldn't go that far, my opinion is you are trying to apply some vague kind of political agenda to some religious abstract. And when you do that, you aren't discussing religion, you aren't really discussing politics, you are trying to apply one to the other, and the consitution was supposedly written to prevent that very thing.
And when I say abstract that's what it really is, we would have to invent a time machine go back to 20 ad and actually stand in the man's presence to truly define him. Barring that, there is no way to label Jesus or Alah, Buddha, Shiva, Thor, or any other such abstract.
By Clive Hamilton May 23, 2009 "Counterpunch" -- The revelation this month in GQ magazine that Donald Rumsfeld as Defense Secretary embellished top-secret wartime memos with quotations from the Bible prompts a question. Why did he believe he could influence President Bush by that means? The answer may lie in an alarming story about George Bush’s Christian millenarian beliefs that has yet to come to light. In 2003 while lobbying leaders to put together the Coalition of the Willing, President Bush spoke to France’s President Jacques Chirac. Bush wove a story about how the Biblical creatures Gog and Magog were at work in the Middle East and how they must be defeated. In Genesis and Ezekiel Gog and Magog are forces of the Apocalypse who are prophesied to come out of the north and destroy Israel unless stopped. The Book of Revelation took up the Old Testament prophesy: “And when the thousand years are expired, Satan shall be loosed out of his prison, And shall go out to deceive the nations which are in the four quarters of the earth, Gog and Magog, to gather them together to battle … and fire came down from God out of heaven, and devoured them.” Bush believed the time had now come for that battle, telling Chirac: “This confrontation is willed by God, who wants to use this conflict to erase his people’s enemies before a New Age begins”. The story of the conversation emerged only because the Elysée Palace, baffled by Bush’s words, sought advice from Thomas Römer, a professor of theology at the University of Lausanne. Four years later, Römer gave an account in the September 2007 issue of the university’s review, Allez savoir. The article apparently went unnoticed, although it was referred to in a French newspaper. The story has now been confirmed by Chirac himself in a new book, published in France in March, by journalist Jean Claude Maurice. Chirac is said to have been stupefied and disturbed by Bush’s invocation of Biblical prophesy to justify the war in Iraq and “wondered how someone could be so superficial and fanatical in their beliefs”. In the same year he spoke to Chirac, Bush had reportedly said to the Palestinian foreign minister that he was on “a mission from God” in launching the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan and was receiving commands from the Lord. There can be little doubt now that President Bush’s reason for launching the war in Iraq was, for him, fundamentally religious. He was driven by his belief that the attack on Saddam’s Iraq was the fulfilment of a Biblical prophesy in which he had been chosen to serve as the instrument of the Lord. Many thousands of Americans and Iraqis have died in the campaign to defeat Gog and Magog. That the US President saw himself as the vehicle of God whose duty was to prevent the Apocalypse can only inflame suspicions across the Middle East that the United States is on a crusade against Islam. There is a curious coda to this story. While a senior at Yale University George W. Bush was a member of the exclusive and secretive Skull & Bones society. His father, George H.W. Bush had also been a “Bonesman”, as indeed had his father. Skull & Bones’ initiates are assigned or take on nicknames. And what was George Bush Senior’s nickname? “Magog”.
I thought this was fake at first. Turns out to be true. So thousands of Americans and innocent Iraqis have died due to a religious nut getting into office. Some God....
First, wasn't Clinton a member of skull and bones as well?
I opposed going into Iraq, because I knew we would be opening pandoras box and it is not something you can just " close".
It has been opened, now we have to deal with it the best we can. People told me I was out of my gourd when I warned them that because many people believe the site of armegeddon is where the Tigris and the Euphrates rivers meet ( central iraq) that this would be a war we could never truly end. WHY? because people will not allow it to happen. Many people WANT this to happen so that Jesus can return. They want the "new world order" discussed by Bush I, BushII, CLinton, and Obama have all spoke of. They want this so that Jesus can return and there can be peace on earth.
According to the religious documents, the world must be under one government, one currency in order for this to happen. I do not think it is inevitable if people continue to oppose globalization, but more and more so recently you see the social grooming taking place for this. If and when these same groups that are strongly pushing for globalization, one world government, the world bank succeed in these efforts, they can then go on to the next agenda, preparing the world for "christs return" in their eyes. Those of us that do not share these beliefs really do not want to be caught up in their massive destruction of life as we know it. Though they now have more support for this very thing than ever before. If you consider yourself a "citizen of the world" you have already bought into their propaganda, and do not even realize it.
Maybe I can buy my own privte Island by then and flee this madness they are bringing upon us.
Fisher is correct on the classic version of a liberal,that being said if you could tag jesus he would fall into the Law abiding libertarian.Remember the ear !!!
So you relly think Jesus was one of these guys:
Libertarianism is a term used by a broad spectrum[1] of political philosophies which seek to maximize individual liberty[2], which they see as requiring minimization of state power over individuals' personal and economic decisions, or for some libertarians, the abolition of the state.[3][4] Libertarians embrace viewpoints across that spectrum ranging from anti-property to pro-property, from openly anarchist to minimal government.[1][5][6][7] The word libertarian is an antonym of authoritarian.[8]
Try and back any of a "libertarian" definition with biblical Scripture. I bet I can find more socialist, communist and liberalism in Scripture than you can find libertarianism. I can find at least three examples of those for each one you could find, if you could find any because there is no libertarian Jesus in the bible.
You can't call someone childish and claim to not be spewing hate, that's just what it is, insults are hate. As for you comments about Jesus, I can't and won't sit here and argue scripture with anyone as much because I never read, never had a reason to read it, and never found a good reason to change that. Personally I think Christianity would have a great deal going for it, if it weren't for the people who are fanatically devouted to it and Completely fail to follow the tenants of the religion they preach. But as for the nature of Jesus and the religion that pretty much centers around it, how can you say anything about him with any kind of authority, yes the bible is old, but it's just not that old. Many scholars have all but proved that book people brandy about was written a long time after Jesus walked the earth, some say as many as 500 years. Not to mention the dead-sea scrolls carried with them stories that pained Jesus in a completely different light. While those could be just as fictional as the bible might be, it does call the 'holy writ' into question. But when you truly boil it down to the brass tax, how can you try to define someone who lived in1 ad by the tenants of those of us who live in 2009. That's a damn long road, and huge amount of history, and not to mention a massive change in perspective. If you were to try and define Jesus by an actual viewpoint in his own lifetime he could easily be called a radical. While I probably wouldn't go that far, my opinion is you are trying to apply some vague kind of political agenda to some religious abstract. And when you do that, you aren't discussing religion, you aren't really discussing politics, you are trying to apply one to the other, and the consitution was supposedly written to prevent that very thing. And when I say abstract that's what it really is, we would have to invent a time machine go back to 20 ad and actually stand in the man's presence to truly define him. Barring that, there is no way to label Jesus or Alah, Buddha, Shiva, Thor, or any other such abstract.
I think you have strong inferiority complex issues if you equate someone calling you childish to hate.
Also I don't understand why you are putting Jesus up on some sort of pedestal, why is it wrong for people to try and understand Jesus in modern terms? None of us here are 2000 years old, yet some people devote their entire life to studying scripture for religious and historical reasons. Using modern terms helps people garner an understanding.
Because The people, our government, other governments are actively trying to MAKE it happen.
If the world is trying to make it happen again.. where could you run in the world? No place would be safe. One currency, mark of the beast, etc, etc.. no matter where you went, it would be there.
I think you have strong inferiority complex issues if you equate someone calling you childish to hate. Also I don't understand why you are putting Jesus up on some sort of pedestal, why is it wrong for people to try and understand Jesus in modern terms? None of us here are 2000 years old, yet some people devote their entire life to studying scripture for religious and historical reasons. Using modern terms helps people garner an understanding.
First of all, complex or not, any insult is hate, whether you like it or not.
Second, I was putting Jesus on a pedastal I was addressing a specific person on a specific issue, which I can not be sure if you even read closely enough to grasp. And just so you don't go back, I was specfically speaking about those who use terms like liberal and conservative in terms of a religious abstract and when they use those terms and that figure in politics. The fact is the united states was founded on many beliefs, one of those being seperation of church and state. I was speaking to the fact that the founding fathers wanted them seperate but this modern society fails to do that at the drop of a hat.
Additionally, I wasn't speaking against religious scholars or their efforts to translate into a modern context, I was speaking of those who use the bible and the characters within to support their own political agendas.
Because The people, our government, other governments are actively trying to MAKE it happen.
If the world is trying to make it happen again.. where could you run in the world? No place would be safe. One currency, mark of the beast, etc, etc.. no matter where you went, it would be there.
No, if they succeed in their efforts for globalization, there will be no place to hide... so would it not be the best measure to attempt to block it at every means possible? Remove their power to do so? They are gaining much ground on this as they toss the ball back and forth between republicans and democrats both pushing for the same agenda, while the sheep bicker about petty details.
I don;t want any part of their armegeddon, one world government, preparing the world for their savior... I just want to live my life in peace and help those around me as much as possible. Is that too much to ask?
Originally posted by deviliscious No, if they succeed in their efforts for globalization, there will be no place to hide... so would it not be the best measure to attempt to block it at every means possible? Remove their power to do so? If someone truly believed that this was going to happen, it couldn't be stopped because that would mean some cosmic forces have seen or ordained it. In fact, the more someone tried to stop it, they would probably actually be making it happen the way it was supposed to.
They are gaining much ground on this as they toss the ball back and forth between republicans and democrats both pushing for the same agenda, while the sheep bicker about petty details. I don;t want any part of their armegeddon, one world government, preparing the world for their savior... I just want to live my life in peace and help those around me as much as possible. Is that too much to ask? Well, if you believe in the bible, Romans 9:16 says "So then it is not of him who wills, nor of him who runs, but of God who shows Mercy."
If you believe God made you, Romans 9:21 says: "Does not the potter have power over the clay, from the same lump to make one vessel for honor and another for dishonor?"
That means, if you are asking me is it too much too ask for you to have peace in the world, I didn't make you so you are asking the wrong person. That is, if you believe in what the Bible says.
No, if they succeed in their efforts for globalization, there will be no place to hide... so would it not be the best measure to attempt to block it at every means possible? Remove their power to do so? If someone truly believed that this was going to happen, it couldn't be stopped because that would mean some cosmic forces have seen or ordained it. In fact, the more someone tried to stop it, they would probably actually be making it happen the way it was supposed to.
They are gaining much ground on this as they toss the ball back and forth between republicans and democrats both pushing for the same agenda, while the sheep bicker about petty details.
I don;t want any part of their armegeddon, one world government, preparing the world for their savior... I just want to live my life in peace and help those around me as much as possible. Is that too much to ask? Well, if you believe in the bible, Romans 9:16 says "So then it is not of him who wills, nor of him who runs, but of God who shows Mercy."
If you believe God made you, Romans 9:21 says: "Does not the ptter have power over the clay, from the same lump to make one vessel for honor and another for dishonor?"
That means, if you are asking me is it too much too ask for you to have peace in the world, I didn't make you so you are asking the wrong person. That is, if you believe in what the Bible says.
With the arguements I have ahd in the past on this site, I am surprised that you are not fully aware of what I think of the Bible. It is a nice story with alot of history. I don;t get into argueing religion all that much, because I do not intend on insulting anyone else beliefs. Everyone has a right to believe what they want, since none of us truly have hard evidence supporting any of our beliefs.
I believe people are capable of making things happen because of their beliefs, and it is up to rational thought to prevent this from occuring. Why do you keep pushing the whole Bible issue at me? I have read it, translated it along with many other ancient texts. ( ancient history is a hobby of mine). My personal beliefs that all of these major religions are they are in fact related, does not mean that I consider the collection of books that are known as the "Bible" are not affected by opinions of those who wrote them, as well as some distortion.
My concern is is that MANY people do believe this to be the truth, and in doing so are also actively preparing our world for the return of their savior. This is not just limited to Christians, and is repeated in other religions and books as well. This being the case, to prevent them from detroying our lifestyle in the process, and leave me in peace is to block the conditions that have to be met prior to their " armegeddon". as long as the " great purification" as stated in other religions does not take place then no problem. In order for armegeddon to occur they need the new world order. So would not blocking The new world order prevent their conditions from being met? I am sure it is probably futile, and will have to be dealing with these crazies at some point or another. I know from the people I had come throught he ER at Parkland that the sheer number of people that believe and support this are ever increasing.
People say alot of things when their life is in danger ..
With the arguements I have ahd in the past on this site, I am surprised that you are not fully aware of what I think of the Bible. It is a nice story with alot of history. I don;t get into argueing religion all that much, because I do not intend on insulting anyone else beliefs. Everyone has a right to believe what they want, since none of us truly have hard evidence supporting any of our beliefs.
I believe people are capable of making things happen because of their beliefs, and it is up to rational thought to prevent this from occuring. Why do you keep pushing the whole Bible issue at me? I have read it, translated it along with many other ancient texts. ( ancient history is a hobby of mine). My personal beliefs that all of these major religions are they are in fact related, does not mean that I consider the collection of books that are known as the "Bible" are not affected by opinions of those who wrote them, as well as some distortion. My concern is is that MANY people do believe this to be the truth, and in doing so are also actively preparing our world for the return of their savior. This is not just limited to Christians, and is repeated in other religions and books as well. This being the case, to prevent them from detroying our lifestyle in the process, and leave me in peace is to block the conditions that have to be met prior to their " armegeddon". as long as the " great purification" as stated in other religions does not take place then no problem. In order for armegeddon to occur they need the new world order. So would not blocking The new world order prevent their conditions from being met? I am sure it is probably futile, and will have to be dealing with these crazies at some point or another. I know from the people I had come throught he ER at Parkland that the sheer number of people that believe and support this are ever increasing. People say alot of things when their life is in danger ..
Didn't mean to be "pushing the Bible at you". I was merely asking questions. I have no idea what you believe but we were talking about the thread, which goes right in with.. the Bible. I was trying to ascertain if you believe the story of Revealation or not regarding an inevitable final battle.
The reason was as I said, if you did believe such a thing then you could never stop it. Anything you did would directly affect it going forward, not halting it. Some people believe that because the Bible talks about knowledge increasing in the last days that things as you said you see in the ER would begin to happen with frequency. A wave of people all thinking the same thing would eventually begin to spread. Then the world would be split into two camps:
Those that believed without a doubt it was happening because of all the signs, and those who would be moved further and further away from seeing it happening.
The former were the Chosen, saved by God, because they were being clued in to the signs of the Coming. That latter would be the Unsaved, because God was "hardening their hearts" as he did with Pharoah in the Old Testament so over time, they would could never see the truth.
Bush believed his actions would help aid Israel against the coming attacks of godless countries and people by bringing peace and stability to the Middle East, but the problem with that is... if he truly believes that, then he has to believe the WHOLE story which says only the Antichrist would take over the world and make peace with Israel, protecting them for seven years, then breaking a truce in the middle of it and attacking Israel.
So that means Bush, if he made world peace would have been the Antichrist. I don't know why the evangelists didn't tell him that part of the story though.
With the arguements I have ahd in the past on this site, I am surprised that you are not fully aware of what I think of the Bible. It is a nice story with alot of history. I don;t get into argueing religion all that much, because I do not intend on insulting anyone else beliefs. Everyone has a right to believe what they want, since none of us truly have hard evidence supporting any of our beliefs.
I believe people are capable of making things happen because of their beliefs, and it is up to rational thought to prevent this from occuring. Why do you keep pushing the whole Bible issue at me? I have read it, translated it along with many other ancient texts. ( ancient history is a hobby of mine). My personal beliefs that all of these major religions are they are in fact related, does not mean that I consider the collection of books that are known as the "Bible" are not affected by opinions of those who wrote them, as well as some distortion.
My concern is is that MANY people do believe this to be the truth, and in doing so are also actively preparing our world for the return of their savior. This is not just limited to Christians, and is repeated in other religions and books as well. This being the case, to prevent them from detroying our lifestyle in the process, and leave me in peace is to block the conditions that have to be met prior to their " armegeddon". as long as the " great purification" as stated in other religions does not take place then no problem. In order for armegeddon to occur they need the new world order. So would not blocking The new world order prevent their conditions from being met? I am sure it is probably futile, and will have to be dealing with these crazies at some point or another. I know from the people I had come throught he ER at Parkland that the sheer number of people that believe and support this are ever increasing.
People say alot of things when their life is in danger ..
Didn't mean to be "pushing the Bible at you". I was merely asking questions. I have no idea what you believe but we were talking about the thread, which goes right in with.. the Bible. I was trying to ascertain if you believe the story of Revealation or not regarding an inevitable final battle.
The reason was as I said, if you did believe such a thing then you could never stop it. Anything you did would directly affect it going forward, not halting it. Some people believe that because the Bible talks about knowledge increasing in the last days that things as you said you see in the ER would begin to happen with frequency. A wave of people all thinking the same thing would eventually begin to spread. Then the world would be split into two camps:
Those that believed without a doubt it was happening because of all the signs, and those who would be moved further and further away from seeing it happening.
The former were the Chosen, saved by God, because they were being clued in to the signs of the Coming. That latter would be the Unsaved, because God was "hardening their hearts" as he did with Pharoah in the Old Testament so over time, they would could never see the truth.
Bush believed his actions would help aid Israel against the coming attacks of godless countries and people by bringing peace and stability to the Middle East, but the problem with that is... if he truly believes that, then he has to believe the WHOLE story which says only the Antichrist would take over the world and make peace with Israel, protecting them for 3 1/2 years, then breaking a truce in the middle of it and attacking Israel.
So that means Bush, if he made world peace would have been the Antichrist. I don't know why the evangelists didn't tell him that part of the story though.
I do not listen to evangelists, I argue with pastors.
First, you are off because the antichrist would not come until the " one world government " was in place for him to sit at the throne.
SO there is NO WAY possible he could even be remotely confused with such.
My beliefs fall more in line with my Native American Ancestry. That we are here to protect and take care of the earth and all that dwell upon it. That we are "all brothers" ( or all sisters in my case) all related and that there will be a time come that we all realize this. I do not search for an all might God to tell me what is right and worng. I believe the God that everyone seeks is the energy that makes up all things. That is the only way it can be the first and the last, all seeing and all knowing. When you break down an atom, you have protons, neutrons and electrons. When you break those down you have tinier particles. Break them down some more and you will find this " energy" . I do believe in " life after death", because energy can be transformed but not detroyed. Our "energy" is our lifeforce, and this would explain the loss in weight at the time of death when the lifeforce leaves the body. Whteher it is Heaven or hell you seek, I believe that is created in your own mind, by your own thoughts. You can have positive, or negative thoughts just as you have positve or negative energy. Take it or leave it that is how I feel about it.
NOw as for people "making things happen". They do, and it has shown throughout history that history will repeat itself if we fail to learn from it. As long as there has been "history" as we know it there have been wars over God, Gods, religion... Wars and conquests to force their belief and rule over someone else. Massive destruction of historic documents because they wanted to control the information. Control over information as a means to control the masses has been used longer in our history than just about ANY tactic for control of power. It does not surprise me a bit that it is so frequently used today. People pushing forward their own agendas, their own desire for power has been the strongest force to be reckoned with in the history of mankind. Learning from these things is the only defense we have to keep history from repeating itself, and building self fulfilling prophecies. If mankind cannot get past that and see it for what it is, the cycle will keep repeating itself.
If Bush invaded Iraq for religious reasons or not really doesn't matter to me, I never agreed with his views anyways but I do not hate him. But Jesus was IMHO the ultimate pacifist, he said if someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.. So you can't justify killing someone in Jesus name no matter what. Jesus was totally against violence even in self defense or retaliation.
He was teaching things that went against all other ideas and beliefs that were being taught at the time and a lot of people got mad at him for it. I guess you could say he was a mix between conservative and libertarian. Hes kinda like an super old school hippie. He loved everyone and wanted everyone to love one another, yet he was against homosexuality not the people themselves but the act of homosexuality. The reason why I am and I think Jesus was against it too is he wanted to preserve his creation. You can't procreate naturally if your having sex with the same sex. Now I don't hate gay's and lesbians, and as a matter of fact I've had a few friends that were one or the other. I didn't agree with there actions but I still loved them and didn't look down upon them.
But ok to get back on topic, what I would have done with the "9/11 Attack" would have just beefed up our borders security. The reason why I put quotation marks around 9/11 is because I believe it was actually set up by our government not by Bush himself he may not even known about it but he took advantage of the situation and striped us from some of our freedoms in sake of security. Think I'm crazy watch Zero: An Investigation into 9/11 with an open mind and decide for yourself. Here is a link its legit its my myspace blog....... if you dont' trust myspace just google it.
Thank you Cunkimangi(sorry if I mispelled that really tired) for proving that just because your beliefs say one thing that you aren't blinded into hate.
Personally except for that one minor view I think you made an extremely valid point there.
As for what you said about 9/11, personally I go a few steps further, I think Bush was directly involved in 9/11, facts about the terrorists could have just as easily been manufactured. I say this because Bush went from one of the most unpopular presidents in history to one of the most popular in the week on either side of that date. If he could (allegedly) have rigged the election, both times, that he could easily concoct the whole tragedy to allow him to gain the wars he wanted to fight and put the populace into the mindset that he wanted.
Additionally, I personally find it interesting that of the three attacks, the towers were hit at 8:45 in the morning, rather than 11 or 12 when they would have had a higher body account, and the one attack against an actual government building, the Pentagon caused no damage and took no lives. Face it that place is MASSIVE far larger than the towers themselves, how could they truly miss a target that big. Also, why did it take so many years for the pentagon attack video to be revealed?
Disagree with me if you want, nay-say me all you want, but until someone could provide me with definitive proof that I am wrong I will continue to see the truth in my arguements.
I know I said I was going to ignore you Fishermage, but I guess since you chimed back in after so long, than I will go right ahead and say this. No, quite unforutnate and quite the opposite I was indeed reading your posts, hence my sentiments and hence my statements. I read them, and I commented on them. Clearly you are the one who isn't reading because on several occassions, I quoted your insane close minded beliefs, while you failed time and time again to acknowledge what anyone else was saying and by no means not just my own, but rather every ones. My deepest apologies if you are offended, but quite frankly that's a false apology because clearly you'll never allow yourself to hear a dissenting opinion without trying to argue it, so I can tell you'd never accept an apology even if it is sincere.
I'm not the least bit offended. Mildly amused, but not offended at all. I enjoy and welcome differences of opinion. Please, let's see one that isn't laced with childish vitriol.
At any rate, I am always open to change, and have changed my opinions on a great many things over the years. However, schoolyard attacks and other such nonsense never did the trick. Cogent arguments and evidence are more what I am after.
You are the exact opposite of open minded. You have never ever even considered the fact that you might be wrong about something. You even attempted to change the definition of a word because you didn't agree with it. Go argue with a wall, it's obvious you don't want to hear anyone else's opinion, no matter how many times you say you do.
I know I said I was going to ignore you Fishermage, but I guess since you chimed back in after so long, than I will go right ahead and say this. No, quite unforutnate and quite the opposite I was indeed reading your posts, hence my sentiments and hence my statements. I read them, and I commented on them. Clearly you are the one who isn't reading because on several occassions, I quoted your insane close minded beliefs, while you failed time and time again to acknowledge what anyone else was saying and by no means not just my own, but rather every ones. My deepest apologies if you are offended, but quite frankly that's a false apology because clearly you'll never allow yourself to hear a dissenting opinion without trying to argue it, so I can tell you'd never accept an apology even if it is sincere.
I'm not the least bit offended. Mildly amused, but not offended at all. I enjoy and welcome differences of opinion. Please, let's see one that isn't laced with childish vitriol.
At any rate, I am always open to change, and have changed my opinions on a great many things over the years. However, schoolyard attacks and other such nonsense never did the trick. Cogent arguments and evidence are more what I am after.
You are the exact opposite of open minded. You have never ever even considered the fact that you might be wrong about something. You even attempted to change the definition of a word because you didn't agree with it. Go argue with a wall, it's obvious you don't want to hear anyone else's opinion, no matter how many times you say you do.
Actually, I long for my opinion to be changed. Before I even come to an opinion on anything, I seek out the best arguments against my tentative position, and test them. Then, after my position is more cogent and reasonable than the best arguments against it, I actually TAKE a position.
I only want to know the truth, and be cloer to the truth, and more in line with reality. Anytime someone corrects me, I owe them.
Why do you always have to make every position I take about ME and my mindset and not about my position? I don't understand how in thread after thread you can attempt to argue in this shabby manner.
The reason why I put quotation marks around 9/11 is because I believe it was actually set up by our government not by Bush himself he may not even known about it but he took advantage of the situation and striped us from some of our freedoms in sake of security. Think I'm crazy watch Zero: An Investigation into 9/11 with an open mind and decide for yourself. Here is a link its legit its my myspace blog....... if you dont' trust myspace just google it.
I have another thread here about a group of 600 something Arcitects and Engineers that are calling for a revisited investigation on World Trade Building 7 as well as the other two. They seem to believe what you believe, but they are all actually in the related field to the evidence (unless you're an engineer/arcitect as well).
You might want to skip over and check it. The lead guy just gave a television interview in Fresno, CA a few days ago. This link is here if you didn't see the interview. It's pretty interesting and the female host was clearly getting spooked, lol. (She kept putting her hand on her head in amazement)
Comments
I'm not the least bit offended. Mildly amused, but not offended at all. I enjoy and welcome differences of opinion. Please, let's see one that isn't laced with childish vitriol.
At any rate, I am always open to change, and have changed my opinions on a great many things over the years. However, schoolyard attacks and other such nonsense never did the trick. Cogent arguments and evidence are more what I am after.
fishermage.blogspot.com
I'm not the least bit offended. Mildly amused, but not offended at all. I enjoy and welcome differences of opinion. Please, let's see one that isn't laced with childish vitriol.
At any rate, I am always open to change, and have changed my opinions on a great many things over the years. However, schoolyard attacks and other such nonsense never did the trick. Cogent arguments and evidence are more what I am after.
Hate, hate, hate, call me childish all you want, your hate doesn't affect me, and I am done talking to you because obviously your inability to state anything other than my being childish proves my point. You spread hate because you have no other counter. Stating you are open to change isn't the same as changing. And just because you use a complicated word while you call me childish doesn't mean that makes your are intelligent, it only means you have a thesaurus to use for your hate.
As for you SabbathSMC, that is solely your opinion, and not a very good one in my own personal view since you try to lash out at me rather than trying to counter the argument.
Hate begets hate, and until either of you have something interesting to say, clearly it would be a waste of my time to make any further comment to either of you.
I'm not the least bit offended. Mildly amused, but not offended at all. I enjoy and welcome differences of opinion. Please, let's see one that isn't laced with childish vitriol.
At any rate, I am always open to change, and have changed my opinions on a great many things over the years. However, schoolyard attacks and other such nonsense never did the trick. Cogent arguments and evidence are more what I am after.
Hate, hate, hate, call me childish all you want, your hate doesn't affect me, and I am done talking to you because obviously your inability to state anything other than my being childish proves my point. You spread hate because you have no other counter. Stating you are open to change isn't the same as changing. And just because you use a complicated word while you call me childish doesn't mean that makes your are intelligent, it only means you have a thesaurus to use for your hate.
As for you SabbathSMC, that is solely your opinion, and not a very good one in my own personal view since you try to lash out at me rather than trying to counter the argument.
Hate begets hate, and until either of you have something interesting to say, clearly it would be a waste of my time to make any further comment to either of you.
Are you on bipolar medication? You are the only one that seems to be ranting hatred. Often people do not read what the posts actually say, they only reflect their own thoughts onto what they comprehend. That appears to be the case with you.
I'm not the least bit offended. Mildly amused, but not offended at all. I enjoy and welcome differences of opinion. Please, let's see one that isn't laced with childish vitriol.
At any rate, I am always open to change, and have changed my opinions on a great many things over the years. However, schoolyard attacks and other such nonsense never did the trick. Cogent arguments and evidence are more what I am after.
Hate, hate, hate, call me childish all you want, your hate doesn't affect me, and I am done talking to you because obviously your inability to state anything other than my being childish proves my point. You spread hate because you have no other counter. Stating you are open to change isn't the same as changing. And just because you use a complicated word while you call me childish doesn't mean that makes your are intelligent, it only means you have a thesaurus to use for your hate.
As for you SabbathSMC, that is solely your opinion, and not a very good one in my own personal view since you try to lash out at me rather than trying to counter the argument.
Hate begets hate, and until either of you have something interesting to say, clearly it would be a waste of my time to make any further comment to either of you.
The only one hating here seems to be you.
I don't know why you have a problem with the fact that I simply don't find jesus to be a liberal, or a conservative, and that from my reading of scriptures, and reading about jesus, and discussing these things with lots of folks more educated than me about the subject, that jesus was more of an anarcho-libertarian kinda guy, and as such, sometimes would say things that would appeal to conservatives, and at other times say things that would appeal to liberals.
This is why He appeals to social gospel preachers like Rev Wright and end times right wing nutjobs like Hagee. jesus is cool that way.
However, He is liberal where libertarians are liberal, and conservative where libertarians are conservative -- at least from my perspective. I think that's extremely cool.
If you think otherwise, fine. If you want to present evidence that He was more of what we would call a modern liberal, or something else, please do so.
fishermage.blogspot.com
I'm not the least bit offended. Mildly amused, but not offended at all. I enjoy and welcome differences of opinion. Please, let's see one that isn't laced with childish vitriol.
At any rate, I am always open to change, and have changed my opinions on a great many things over the years. However, schoolyard attacks and other such nonsense never did the trick. Cogent arguments and evidence are more what I am after.
Hate, hate, hate, call me childish all you want, your hate doesn't affect me, and I am done talking to you because obviously your inability to state anything other than my being childish proves my point. You spread hate because you have no other counter. Stating you are open to change isn't the same as changing. And just because you use a complicated word while you call me childish doesn't mean that makes your are intelligent, it only means you have a thesaurus to use for your hate.
As for you SabbathSMC, that is solely your opinion, and not a very good one in my own personal view since you try to lash out at me rather than trying to counter the argument.
Hate begets hate, and until either of you have something interesting to say, clearly it would be a waste of my time to make any further comment to either of you.
Are you on bipolar medication? You are the only one that seems to be ranting hatred. Often people do not read what the posts actually say, they only reflect their own thoughts onto what they comprehend. That appears to be the case with you.
Yes the liberals have lost it.
Fisher is correct on the classic version of a liberal,that being said if you could tag jesus he would fall into the Law abiding libertarian.Remember the ear !!!
Trade in material assumptions for spiritual facts and make permanent progress.
You can't call someone childish and claim to not be spewing hate, that's just what it is, insults are hate.
As for you comments about Jesus, I can't and won't sit here and argue scripture with anyone as much because I never read, never had a reason to read it, and never found a good reason to change that. Personally I think Christianity would have a great deal going for it, if it weren't for the people who are fanatically devouted to it and Completely fail to follow the tenants of the religion they preach.
But as for the nature of Jesus and the religion that pretty much centers around it, how can you say anything about him with any kind of authority, yes the bible is old, but it's just not that old. Many scholars have all but proved that book people brandy about was written a long time after Jesus walked the earth, some say as many as 500 years. Not to mention the dead-sea scrolls carried with them stories that pained Jesus in a completely different light. While those could be just as fictional as the bible might be, it does call the 'holy writ' into question.
But when you truly boil it down to the brass tax, how can you try to define someone who lived in1 ad by the tenants of those of us who live in 2009. That's a damn long road, and huge amount of history, and not to mention a massive change in perspective. If you were to try and define Jesus by an actual viewpoint in his own lifetime he could easily be called a radical. While I probably wouldn't go that far, my opinion is you are trying to apply some vague kind of political agenda to some religious abstract. And when you do that, you aren't discussing religion, you aren't really discussing politics, you are trying to apply one to the other, and the consitution was supposedly written to prevent that very thing.
And when I say abstract that's what it really is, we would have to invent a time machine go back to 20 ad and actually stand in the man's presence to truly define him. Barring that, there is no way to label Jesus or Alah, Buddha, Shiva, Thor, or any other such abstract.
First, wasn't Clinton a member of skull and bones as well?
I opposed going into Iraq, because I knew we would be opening pandoras box and it is not something you can just " close".
It has been opened, now we have to deal with it the best we can. People told me I was out of my gourd when I warned them that because many people believe the site of armegeddon is where the Tigris and the Euphrates rivers meet ( central iraq) that this would be a war we could never truly end. WHY? because people will not allow it to happen. Many people WANT this to happen so that Jesus can return. They want the "new world order" discussed by Bush I, BushII, CLinton, and Obama have all spoke of. They want this so that Jesus can return and there can be peace on earth.
According to the religious documents, the world must be under one government, one currency in order for this to happen. I do not think it is inevitable if people continue to oppose globalization, but more and more so recently you see the social grooming taking place for this. If and when these same groups that are strongly pushing for globalization, one world government, the world bank succeed in these efforts, they can then go on to the next agenda, preparing the world for "christs return" in their eyes. Those of us that do not share these beliefs really do not want to be caught up in their massive destruction of life as we know it. Though they now have more support for this very thing than ever before. If you consider yourself a "citizen of the world" you have already bought into their propaganda, and do not even realize it.
Maybe I can buy my own privte Island by then and flee this madness they are bringing upon us.
So you relly think Jesus was one of these guys:
Try and back any of a "libertarian" definition with biblical Scripture. I bet I can find more socialist, communist and liberalism in Scripture than you can find libertarianism. I can find at least three examples of those for each one you could find, if you could find any because there is no libertarian Jesus in the bible.
I wonder what bibles you guys use. Catholic ones?
And what ear are you talking about?
"TO MICHAEL!"
If you believe Revealations, there is nowhere to flee to.
If you don't, then why flee?
"TO MICHAEL!"
I think you have strong inferiority complex issues if you equate someone calling you childish to hate.
Also I don't understand why you are putting Jesus up on some sort of pedestal, why is it wrong for people to try and understand Jesus in modern terms? None of us here are 2000 years old, yet some people devote their entire life to studying scripture for religious and historical reasons. Using modern terms helps people garner an understanding.
O_o o_O
If you believe Revealations, there is nowhere to flee to.
If you don't, then why flee?
Because The people, our government, other governments are actively trying to MAKE it happen.
If the world is trying to make it happen again.. where could you run in the world? No place would be safe. One currency, mark of the beast, etc, etc.. no matter where you went, it would be there.
"TO MICHAEL!"
First of all, complex or not, any insult is hate, whether you like it or not.
Second, I was putting Jesus on a pedastal I was addressing a specific person on a specific issue, which I can not be sure if you even read closely enough to grasp. And just so you don't go back, I was specfically speaking about those who use terms like liberal and conservative in terms of a religious abstract and when they use those terms and that figure in politics. The fact is the united states was founded on many beliefs, one of those being seperation of church and state. I was speaking to the fact that the founding fathers wanted them seperate but this modern society fails to do that at the drop of a hat.
Additionally, I wasn't speaking against religious scholars or their efforts to translate into a modern context, I was speaking of those who use the bible and the characters within to support their own political agendas.
If the world is trying to make it happen again.. where could you run in the world? No place would be safe. One currency, mark of the beast, etc, etc.. no matter where you went, it would be there.
No, if they succeed in their efforts for globalization, there will be no place to hide... so would it not be the best measure to attempt to block it at every means possible? Remove their power to do so? They are gaining much ground on this as they toss the ball back and forth between republicans and democrats both pushing for the same agenda, while the sheep bicker about petty details.
I don;t want any part of their armegeddon, one world government, preparing the world for their savior... I just want to live my life in peace and help those around me as much as possible. Is that too much to ask?
That means, if you are asking me is it too much too ask for you to have peace in the world, I didn't make you so you are asking the wrong person. That is, if you believe in what the Bible says.
"TO MICHAEL!"
That means, if you are asking me is it too much too ask for you to have peace in the world, I didn't make you so you are asking the wrong person. That is, if you believe in what the Bible says.
With the arguements I have ahd in the past on this site, I am surprised that you are not fully aware of what I think of the Bible. It is a nice story with alot of history. I don;t get into argueing religion all that much, because I do not intend on insulting anyone else beliefs. Everyone has a right to believe what they want, since none of us truly have hard evidence supporting any of our beliefs.
I believe people are capable of making things happen because of their beliefs, and it is up to rational thought to prevent this from occuring. Why do you keep pushing the whole Bible issue at me? I have read it, translated it along with many other ancient texts. ( ancient history is a hobby of mine). My personal beliefs that all of these major religions are they are in fact related, does not mean that I consider the collection of books that are known as the "Bible" are not affected by opinions of those who wrote them, as well as some distortion.
My concern is is that MANY people do believe this to be the truth, and in doing so are also actively preparing our world for the return of their savior. This is not just limited to Christians, and is repeated in other religions and books as well. This being the case, to prevent them from detroying our lifestyle in the process, and leave me in peace is to block the conditions that have to be met prior to their " armegeddon". as long as the " great purification" as stated in other religions does not take place then no problem. In order for armegeddon to occur they need the new world order. So would not blocking The new world order prevent their conditions from being met? I am sure it is probably futile, and will have to be dealing with these crazies at some point or another. I know from the people I had come throught he ER at Parkland that the sheer number of people that believe and support this are ever increasing.
People say alot of things when their life is in danger ..
Didn't mean to be "pushing the Bible at you". I was merely asking questions. I have no idea what you believe but we were talking about the thread, which goes right in with.. the Bible. I was trying to ascertain if you believe the story of Revealation or not regarding an inevitable final battle.
The reason was as I said, if you did believe such a thing then you could never stop it. Anything you did would directly affect it going forward, not halting it. Some people believe that because the Bible talks about knowledge increasing in the last days that things as you said you see in the ER would begin to happen with frequency. A wave of people all thinking the same thing would eventually begin to spread. Then the world would be split into two camps:
Those that believed without a doubt it was happening because of all the signs, and those who would be moved further and further away from seeing it happening.
The former were the Chosen, saved by God, because they were being clued in to the signs of the Coming. That latter would be the Unsaved, because God was "hardening their hearts" as he did with Pharoah in the Old Testament so over time, they would could never see the truth.
Bush believed his actions would help aid Israel against the coming attacks of godless countries and people by bringing peace and stability to the Middle East, but the problem with that is... if he truly believes that, then he has to believe the WHOLE story which says only the Antichrist would take over the world and make peace with Israel, protecting them for seven years, then breaking a truce in the middle of it and attacking Israel.
So that means Bush, if he made world peace would have been the Antichrist. I don't know why the evangelists didn't tell him that part of the story though.
"TO MICHAEL!"
Didn't mean to be "pushing the Bible at you". I was merely asking questions. I have no idea what you believe but we were talking about the thread, which goes right in with.. the Bible. I was trying to ascertain if you believe the story of Revealation or not regarding an inevitable final battle.
The reason was as I said, if you did believe such a thing then you could never stop it. Anything you did would directly affect it going forward, not halting it. Some people believe that because the Bible talks about knowledge increasing in the last days that things as you said you see in the ER would begin to happen with frequency. A wave of people all thinking the same thing would eventually begin to spread. Then the world would be split into two camps:
Those that believed without a doubt it was happening because of all the signs, and those who would be moved further and further away from seeing it happening.
The former were the Chosen, saved by God, because they were being clued in to the signs of the Coming. That latter would be the Unsaved, because God was "hardening their hearts" as he did with Pharoah in the Old Testament so over time, they would could never see the truth.
Bush believed his actions would help aid Israel against the coming attacks of godless countries and people by bringing peace and stability to the Middle East, but the problem with that is... if he truly believes that, then he has to believe the WHOLE story which says only the Antichrist would take over the world and make peace with Israel, protecting them for 3 1/2 years, then breaking a truce in the middle of it and attacking Israel.
So that means Bush, if he made world peace would have been the Antichrist. I don't know why the evangelists didn't tell him that part of the story though.
I do not listen to evangelists, I argue with pastors.
First, you are off because the antichrist would not come until the " one world government " was in place for him to sit at the throne.
SO there is NO WAY possible he could even be remotely confused with such.
My beliefs fall more in line with my Native American Ancestry. That we are here to protect and take care of the earth and all that dwell upon it. That we are "all brothers" ( or all sisters in my case)
all related and that there will be a time come that we all realize this. I do not search for an all might God to tell me what is right and worng. I believe the God that everyone seeks is the energy that makes up all things. That is the only way it can be the first and the last, all seeing and all knowing. When you break down an atom, you have protons, neutrons and electrons. When you break those down you have tinier particles. Break them down some more and you will find this " energy" . I do believe in " life after death", because energy can be transformed but not detroyed. Our "energy" is our lifeforce, and this would explain the loss in weight at the time of death when the lifeforce leaves the body. Whteher it is Heaven or hell you seek, I believe that is created in your own mind, by your own thoughts. You can have positive, or negative thoughts just as you have positve or negative energy. Take it or leave it that is how I feel about it.
NOw as for people "making things happen". They do, and it has shown throughout history that history will repeat itself if we fail to learn from it. As long as there has been "history" as we know it there have been wars over God, Gods, religion... Wars and conquests to force their belief and rule over someone else. Massive destruction of historic documents because they wanted to control the information. Control over information as a means to control the masses has been used longer in our history than just about ANY tactic for control of power. It does not surprise me a bit that it is so frequently used today. People pushing forward their own agendas, their own desire for power has been the strongest force to be reckoned with in the history of mankind. Learning from these things is the only defense we have to keep history from repeating itself, and building self fulfilling prophecies. If mankind cannot get past that and see it for what it is, the cycle will keep repeating itself.
If Bush invaded Iraq for religious reasons or not really doesn't matter to me, I never agreed with his views anyways but I do not hate him. But Jesus was IMHO the ultimate pacifist, he said if someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.. So you can't justify killing someone in Jesus name no matter what. Jesus was totally against violence even in self defense or retaliation.
He was teaching things that went against all other ideas and beliefs that were being taught at the time and a lot of people got mad at him for it. I guess you could say he was a mix between conservative and libertarian. Hes kinda like an super old school hippie. He loved everyone and wanted everyone to love one another, yet he was against homosexuality not the people themselves but the act of homosexuality. The reason why I am and I think Jesus was against it too is he wanted to preserve his creation. You can't procreate naturally if your having sex with the same sex. Now I don't hate gay's and lesbians, and as a matter of fact I've had a few friends that were one or the other. I didn't agree with there actions but I still loved them and didn't look down upon them.
But ok to get back on topic, what I would have done with the "9/11 Attack" would have just beefed up our borders security. The reason why I put quotation marks around 9/11 is because I believe it was actually set up by our government not by Bush himself he may not even known about it but he took advantage of the situation and striped us from some of our freedoms in sake of security. Think I'm crazy watch Zero: An Investigation into 9/11 with an open mind and decide for yourself. Here is a link its legit its my myspace blog....... if you dont' trust myspace just google it.
blogs.myspace.com/index.cfm
Thank you Cunkimangi(sorry if I mispelled that really tired) for proving that just because your beliefs say one thing that you aren't blinded into hate.
Personally except for that one minor view I think you made an extremely valid point there.
As for what you said about 9/11, personally I go a few steps further, I think Bush was directly involved in 9/11, facts about the terrorists could have just as easily been manufactured. I say this because Bush went from one of the most unpopular presidents in history to one of the most popular in the week on either side of that date. If he could (allegedly) have rigged the election, both times, that he could easily concoct the whole tragedy to allow him to gain the wars he wanted to fight and put the populace into the mindset that he wanted.
Additionally, I personally find it interesting that of the three attacks, the towers were hit at 8:45 in the morning, rather than 11 or 12 when they would have had a higher body account, and the one attack against an actual government building, the Pentagon caused no damage and took no lives. Face it that place is MASSIVE far larger than the towers themselves, how could they truly miss a target that big. Also, why did it take so many years for the pentagon attack video to be revealed?
Disagree with me if you want, nay-say me all you want, but until someone could provide me with definitive proof that I am wrong I will continue to see the truth in my arguements.
I'm not the least bit offended. Mildly amused, but not offended at all. I enjoy and welcome differences of opinion. Please, let's see one that isn't laced with childish vitriol.
At any rate, I am always open to change, and have changed my opinions on a great many things over the years. However, schoolyard attacks and other such nonsense never did the trick. Cogent arguments and evidence are more what I am after.
You are the exact opposite of open minded. You have never ever even considered the fact that you might be wrong about something. You even attempted to change the definition of a word because you didn't agree with it. Go argue with a wall, it's obvious you don't want to hear anyone else's opinion, no matter how many times you say you do.
The Official God FAQ
I'm not the least bit offended. Mildly amused, but not offended at all. I enjoy and welcome differences of opinion. Please, let's see one that isn't laced with childish vitriol.
At any rate, I am always open to change, and have changed my opinions on a great many things over the years. However, schoolyard attacks and other such nonsense never did the trick. Cogent arguments and evidence are more what I am after.
You are the exact opposite of open minded. You have never ever even considered the fact that you might be wrong about something. You even attempted to change the definition of a word because you didn't agree with it. Go argue with a wall, it's obvious you don't want to hear anyone else's opinion, no matter how many times you say you do.
Actually, I long for my opinion to be changed. Before I even come to an opinion on anything, I seek out the best arguments against my tentative position, and test them. Then, after my position is more cogent and reasonable than the best arguments against it, I actually TAKE a position.
I only want to know the truth, and be cloer to the truth, and more in line with reality. Anytime someone corrects me, I owe them.
Why do you always have to make every position I take about ME and my mindset and not about my position? I don't understand how in thread after thread you can attempt to argue in this shabby manner.
fishermage.blogspot.com
I just think there are better ways of dicussing this information rather than
"Look what a Christian did now! Christianity is dumb" posts are getting annoying.
you can't judge the whole, by one individual.
- Air
I have another thread here about a group of 600 something Arcitects and Engineers that are calling for a revisited investigation on World Trade Building 7 as well as the other two. They seem to believe what you believe, but they are all actually in the related field to the evidence (unless you're an engineer/arcitect as well).
You might want to skip over and check it. The lead guy just gave a television interview in Fresno, CA a few days ago. This link is here if you didn't see the interview. It's pretty interesting and the female host was clearly getting spooked, lol. (She kept putting her hand on her head in amazement)
"TO MICHAEL!"