Pages: 1 … 27 28 29 30 31 … 51

Topic closed

2006-04-21 11:20:05
wannabe_tank_whore
Member
+5|7017

Agent_Dung_Bomb wrote:

kkolodsick wrote:

Agent_Dung_Bomb wrote:

That is where you are wrong, and one point that religious groups often don't understand.  While you have freedom of religion, I do in fact have the right to not have religion forced on me, therefore freedom from religion.  If I have a preference of no religion, it has as much right as you to have and practice your religion.
No one is forcing Christianity down this countries throat.  Read my post, the government will not MANDATE a religion.  Of course you have your right to believe or not believe anything you want.  That is what makes this country great.

My point is that if someone thinks that Christian groups shouldn't lobby because of their $ or size it's absolutely crazy.
It's because of their tax exempt status.  If a church wants to relinquish that status and pay taxes, they can be involved in politics all they want.
The NAACP is registered as a 501(c)(3) corporation, which exempts it from paying any federal taxes.

Read the article titled 'NAACP Chair Calls For Bush Ouster'.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/07/ … 8254.shtml

Marconius wrote:

The church is an extremely rich and well-backed organization that doesn't have to pay taxes, where very low-income families have no money to pay taxes with.  A corporation that does not give back to the government that houses them in this country should NOT be influencing the legislative and political outcomes of the very same government.  That means a powerful outside source is trying to force their lobbying ideals while the rest of tax-paying Americans may or may not agree with what is being influenced.  You are ok with this type of lobbying?
How much influence is there not to change the income tax laws?

Skruples wrote:

Archaeological evidence shows creationism to be completely wrong, but apparently that branch of archaeology is all bunk. You have to remember that while parts of the Bible may have been written before Jesus was born, it was edited for centuries afterword. I would be much more inclined to believe this 'God inspired people to write' story if Jesus' birth had been predicted in writing that had never been touched or edited after his birth. As it stands, there is no independent verification that anything in the bible is what was originally written. For all we know, the parts of the Bible that depict Jesus' birth were written in the early AD's.
How do archaeologists date their findings?

Last edited by wannabe_tank_whore (2006-04-21 11:49:18)

2006-04-21 12:03:28
wannabe_tank_whore
Member
+5|7017

Marconius wrote:

Wrong.  People initially believed the Earth was flat because of their lack of science, perception, and knowhow.  Once a scientific study was performed by intelligent people, they determined the world was round.  Science is engineered to be constantly questioned and subjected to the scientific process in order to determine the true understanding of a phenomenon or an observed event.  Such as the recent uncovering of a 'transitional' fish fossil shows progress in the field regarding evolution, while creationists/bible literalists will not budge or think outside of what is written in their books.
Wrong.  "Contrary to what most people think, the Earth was known to be spherical in ancient times. The ancient Greeks even calculated its circumferance with surprising accuracy."

Eratosthenes of Cyrene (276-200 B.C.).. Greek astronomer and mathematician. Calculated the circumference of the Earth and finds a figure of 46,000 km which is close to the present measured value. Also lays down the first lines of longitude on a map of Earth. He also developed a method for calculating all prime numbers: the sieve of Eratosthenes.

-The New Encyclopaedia Britannica (1985)
-Colliers Encyclopaedia (1984)
-The Encyclopedia Americana (1987)
-The World Book for Children (1989)

All state that Christianity did not invent or promote the myth of the flat Earth.  Why do you do so?

You question Fox News as bias source and you post links to Jason Blair's home terf?  Dishonesty!
2006-04-21 12:06:22
Agent_Dung_Bomb
Member
+302|6976|Salt Lake City

wannabe_tank_whore wrote:

The NAACP is registered as a 501(c)(3) corporation, which exempts it from paying any federal taxes.

Read the article titled 'NAACP Chair Calls For Bush Ouster'.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/07/ … 8254.shtml
You still don't get it.  He can say that, just as many church leaders have said on news reports how they expect bush to make changes based on the conservative church goers they got to vote for him.  However, they may not, and did not, utilize any NAACP resources to actually try and force such a thing to happen.

A church congregation can hold a fund raiser for a political candidate, so long as they don't do it on church grounds, or utilize the churches tax excempt status to purchase items needed for said fund raiser.

Update: This is from a news story, but the quote is from an IRS official.  While it doesn't state the verbatim language of the law as it sits on books, it gives a good outline of conduct for tax exempt groups.

Speaking only generally about IRS guidelines, Mr. Friedland said tax-exempt organizations, including charity groups, educational institutions and churches, are "prohibited from participating or intervening in any political campaign on behalf of any candidate for public office."
    The rules are based on a 1954 federal statute that allows such organizations to comment on political issues, but bars them from endorsing or raising money for a political party or specific candidate.
    "Even activities that encourage people to vote for or against a particular candidate on the basis of nonpartisan criteria violates the political campaign prohibition," Mr. Friedland said.

Last edited by Agent_Dung_Bomb (2006-04-21 12:14:28)

2006-04-21 12:11:39
wannabe_tank_whore
Member
+5|7017

vjs wrote:

the world is flat
This was not science it was observation. Actually if you really want to do into it the world was flat b/c the church said it was flat. (This is where the church is yet again wrong)

Catholics or the catholic church has actually set science back by about 400 years, look at the muslim religion. The muslium should be way way way ahead of us scientifically but their religion holds them back as does christianity, by the will of Allah. (Err, that's because you didn't understand or won't accept a scientific observation)

Fact, Leonardo Da vinchi was put in jail, a devote catholic, b/c his scientific observations. His actual purpose was to show the pope of the time that the church was wrong. The church being a very old organization which is reluctant to change, they don't want to admit fault or incorrect conclusions. So they won't accept scientific fact.

Why has christianity set us back 400 years? Well in the begining God created earth and said it was good. Then god created the (Sun, stars, sky) said it was good.

Later science proved that the earth revolved around the sun. This was contractory to religion at the time, how could the earth revolve around the sun when the earth was created first???

BURN HIM BURN THE WITCH

Well science didn't prove god wrong, not in the slightest, what it proved was man was wrong about the interpretation. They assumed since god said he created the earth first that later it couldn't rotate around the sun.

This one point stop science for 400 years, it wasn't until kepler that the church allowed science to let earth revolve around the sun. Shortly after that a numerous number of physical properties and scientific laws came about. Why b/c publishing this scientific commandments were previously held back by the church.

How can we man... expect to ever understand god. We should be smart enough to know that we can't interpret the word of god and must change our interpretation based upon observation.

The soul... yes it exists it's actually somewhat scientifically proven. The body once it dies takes some time before tit starts loosing heat. Well what is keeping the body warm? Also where does all the entropy go?

Is the ordering of energy in the universe simply the will of god/probablility chance? Absolutely...

If your scientific you are certainly religous, you take specific commandments and apply them to your observations. You also assume things that you can't explain and take them as the truth.

A good analogy is the agruement of good and evil vs darkness and light.

Perhaps does dark exist? no it's simply the absence of light.
Does evil exist? I say no it's simply the absence of good.

Major problem is it's difficult to keep light around it requires energy which wants to be distributed. Same goes for evil if things are left alone unfortunately they tend towards the absence of good.

If you want to get even more deep into this scientifically, what is containted in a bottle of nothing/vaccum/space etc.  People say nothing... well this is and isn't true.

Between the earth and the sun, people think it's an vaccum with the odd atom running around. If this were true how does light propagate from the sun to the earth... there is no medium.

O.K. Light duality... non-sence... light waves are particles with wave a nature. What are they propigating through??? Dead non energetic light... Like religion science has yet to accept this, but we will and once we do we will understand alot more.

Religion should do the same, God is not against science, the church is against science. The church is people not god, science has never been against god only the churches interpretation of god. If religions can change rewrite the bible science should be able to continue without interference from the church.

How can we as people be so self centered as to actually believe that we can understand the will of the creator. I personally think this is blastfamy.

Sorry for all the spelling errors I'm a little pissed that the church can make it's way into a BF2 forum.

Screw the anti-darwin, screw darwinists, they are both wrong. It's puncated equilbrium!!! Call it spikes of creation followed by evolution of the creation. This goes with gods teaching, something is created then it evolves. Does man not do this himself, if you disagree don't bother typing simply throw your computer out the window and turn out the lights.  Get a oil lamp and sit in your goat skin, since science must be a sin.
"Jeffrey Burton Russell is a professor of history at the University of California in Santa Barbara. He says in his book Inventing the Flat Earth (written for the 500th anniversary of Christopher Columbus's journey to America in 1492) that through antiquity and up to the time of Columbus, "nearly unanimous scholarly opinion pronounced the earth spherical."

Russell says there is nothing in the documents from the time of Columbus or in early accounts of his life that suggests any debate about the roundness of the earth. He believes a major source of the myth came from the creator of the Rip Van Winkle story-Washington Irving-who wrote a fictitious account of Columbus's defending a round earth against misinformed clerics and university professors.

But Russell says the flat earth mythology flourished most between 1870 and 1920, and had to do with the ideological setting created by struggles over evolution. He says the flat-earth myth was an ideal way to dismiss the ideas of a religious past in the name of modern science."
2006-04-21 12:14:07
wannabe_tank_whore
Member
+5|7017

Rygar wrote:

vjs wrote:

the world is flat
This was not science it was observation.
Someone decided to 'prove' observation to be science around here (on a thread, possibly this one) somewhere....
sci·ence (sī'əns)
n.

1 The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena.
Such activities restricted to a class of natural phenomena.
Such activities applied to an object of inquiry or study.
2 Methodological activity, discipline, or study: I've got packing a suitcase down to a science.
3 An activity that appears to require study and method: the science of purchasing.
4 Knowledge, especially that gained through experience.

It's a part of science.
2006-04-21 12:35:57
wannabe_tank_whore
Member
+5|7017

kkolodsick wrote:

Why is it so hard to believe, or at least entertain the though that there is a maker of the earth? 

Creation is real my friends sorry to burst your bubble.
You mean we should just drop everything and take your word from it?

I hope (probably wrongly) that this is not a typical creationist response:

'Creation happened because I said so. I say so because the bible says so.'

Like a lot of rational, reasoning people are going to believe that.
--------------------

Come on Spark, you know that's now what I meant.

Everyone keeps talking about science vs. observation but at that time it was the cutting edge scientists so who is to say that cutting edge scientists are correct today? 
I have still seen no concrete evidence of evolution.  Please enlighten me.  Is this survival of the fittest or evolution that you guys speak of?
Spark, answer one question for me and I'll believe in evolution.  How did living organisms come from non living matter?

PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE do some research before making a claim.
2006-04-21 12:41:05
wannabe_tank_whore
Member
+5|7017

Agent_Dung_Bomb wrote:

wannabe_tank_whore wrote:

The NAACP is registered as a 501(c)(3) corporation, which exempts it from paying any federal taxes.

Read the article titled 'NAACP Chair Calls For Bush Ouster'.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/07/ … 8254.shtml
You still don't get it.  He can say that, just as many church leaders have said on news reports how they expect bush to make changes based on the conservative church goers they got to vote for him.  However, they may not, and did not, utilize any NAACP resources to actually try and force such a thing to happen.

A church congregation can hold a fund raiser for a political candidate, so long as they don't do it on church grounds, or utilize the churches tax excempt status to purchase items needed for said fund raiser.

Update: This is from a news story, but the quote is from an IRS official.  While it doesn't state the verbatim language of the law as it sits on books, it gives a good outline of conduct for tax exempt groups.

Speaking only generally about IRS guidelines, Mr. Friedland said tax-exempt organizations, including charity groups, educational institutions and churches, are "prohibited from participating or intervening in any political campaign on behalf of any candidate for public office."
    The rules are based on a 1954 federal statute that allows such organizations to comment on political issues, but bars them from endorsing or raising money for a political party or specific candidate.
    "Even activities that encourage people to vote for or against a particular candidate on the basis of nonpartisan criteria violates the political campaign prohibition," Mr. Friedland said.
I'm afraid it's the other way around.  He can't say that.
http://www.irs.gov/charities/charitable … 99,00.html

"In addition, it may not attempt to influence legislation as a substantial part of its activities and it may not participate at all in campaign activity for or against political candidates."

In fact, they are being reviewed now to have their tax exempt status removed.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington … -irs_x.htm
2006-04-21 13:09:58
Agent_Dung_Bomb
Member
+302|6976|Salt Lake City

wannabe_tank_whore wrote:

Agent_Dung_Bomb wrote:

wannabe_tank_whore wrote:

The NAACP is registered as a 501(c)(3) corporation, which exempts it from paying any federal taxes.

Read the article titled 'NAACP Chair Calls For Bush Ouster'.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/07/ … 8254.shtml
You still don't get it.  He can say that, just as many church leaders have said on news reports how they expect bush to make changes based on the conservative church goers they got to vote for him.  However, they may not, and did not, utilize any NAACP resources to actually try and force such a thing to happen.

A church congregation can hold a fund raiser for a political candidate, so long as they don't do it on church grounds, or utilize the churches tax excempt status to purchase items needed for said fund raiser.

Update: This is from a news story, but the quote is from an IRS official.  While it doesn't state the verbatim language of the law as it sits on books, it gives a good outline of conduct for tax exempt groups.

Speaking only generally about IRS guidelines, Mr. Friedland said tax-exempt organizations, including charity groups, educational institutions and churches, are "prohibited from participating or intervening in any political campaign on behalf of any candidate for public office."
    The rules are based on a 1954 federal statute that allows such organizations to comment on political issues, but bars them from endorsing or raising money for a political party or specific candidate.
    "Even activities that encourage people to vote for or against a particular candidate on the basis of nonpartisan criteria violates the political campaign prohibition," Mr. Friedland said.
I'm afraid it's the other way around.  He can't say that.
http://www.irs.gov/charities/charitable … 99,00.html

"In addition, it may not attempt to influence legislation as a substantial part of its activities and it may not participate at all in campaign activity for or against political candidates."

In fact, they are being reviewed now to have their tax exempt status removed.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington … -irs_x.htm
First and foremost, you'll notice the article describes compaigns.  This means taking sides to influence who gets voted for.  Bush is already in office.  I would also point you to the last couple of paragraphs in the article you linked.

Tax law prohibits charities organized under section 501(c)(3) from taking sides in political campaigns. The law restricts these organizations because donations are tax-deductible for the donor and in effect are subsidized by the government.
^^What I've been saying all along.
Frances Hill, an authority on non-profit groups at the University of Miami Law School, called it "amazing" that the IRS would audit a group based on a public speech.
"Usually you would look for some activity other than disagreeing with policies," she said.
Lastly, I would like to point you to part of your own quote.  It says the entity may not attempt to influence legislation as substantial part of its activity.  This means it isn't strictly prohibited, only that it can't the major function of the group.  The only thing that is stictly prohibited is campaign activity.

His speaking out against current policy isn't influencing legislation any more than a church's preacher, priest, padre, pastor, etc. from speaking out against abortion or gay marriage.

Last edited by Agent_Dung_Bomb (2006-04-21 13:10:32)

2006-04-21 13:29:12
GunSlinger OIF II
Banned.
+1,860|6884
what you gotta say to that
2006-04-21 13:36:46
wannabe_tank_whore
Member
+5|7017

Agent_Dung_Bomb wrote:

wannabe_tank_whore wrote:

Agent_Dung_Bomb wrote:

wannabe_tank_whore wrote:

The NAACP is registered as a 501(c)(3) corporation, which exempts it from paying any federal taxes.

Read the article titled 'NAACP Chair Calls For Bush Ouster'.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/07/ … 8254.shtml
You still don't get it.  He can say that, just as many church leaders have said on news reports how they expect bush to make changes based on the conservative church goers they got to vote for him.  However, they may not, and did not, utilize any NAACP resources to actually try and force such a thing to happen.

A church congregation can hold a fund raiser for a political candidate, so long as they don't do it on church grounds, or utilize the churches tax excempt status to purchase items needed for said fund raiser.

Update: This is from a news story, but the quote is from an IRS official.  While it doesn't state the verbatim language of the law as it sits on books, it gives a good outline of conduct for tax exempt groups.


I'm afraid it's the other way around.  He can't say that.
http://www.irs.gov/charities/charitable … 99,00.html

"In addition, it may not attempt to influence legislation as a substantial part of its activities and it may not participate at all in campaign activity for or against political candidates."

In fact, they are being reviewed now to have their tax exempt status removed.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington … -irs_x.htm
First and foremost, you'll notice the article describes compaigns.  This means taking sides to influence who gets voted for.  Bush is already in office.  I would also point you to the last couple of paragraphs in the article you linked.

Tax law prohibits charities organized under section 501(c)(3) from taking sides in political campaigns. The law restricts these organizations because donations are tax-deductible for the donor and in effect are subsidized by the government.
^^What I've been saying all along.
Frances Hill, an authority on non-profit groups at the University of Miami Law School, called it "amazing" that the IRS would audit a group based on a public speech.
"Usually you would look for some activity other than disagreeing with policies," she said.
Lastly, I would like to point you to part of your own quote.  It says the entity may not attempt to influence legislation as substantial part of its activity.  This means it isn't strictly prohibited, only that it can't the major function of the group.  The only thing that is stictly prohibited is campaign activity.

His speaking out against current policy isn't influencing legislation any more than a church's preacher, priest, padre, pastor, etc. from speaking out against abortion or gay marriage.
Actually, "In contrast to the "pure issue message" an IRC 501(c)(3) organization may avail itself of the opportunity to intervene in a political campaign in a rather surreptitious manner.  The concern is that an IRC 501(c)(3) organization may support or oppose a particular candidate in a political campaign without specifically naming the candidate by using code words to substitute for the candidate's name in its messages, such as "conservative," "liberal," "pro-life," "pro-choice," "anti-choice," "Republican," "Democrat," etc., coupled with a discussion of the candidacy or the election.  When this occurs, it is quite evident what is happening-- an intervention is taking place."
-Judith Kendall and John Francis Reilly, two IRS representatives

And it is a case by case basis as an activity is a specific event.  In this case, his speech.
2006-04-21 14:03:27
SilentNoise105
Member
+5|6837
Wow, you guys are still here? How'd you get to the NAACP? I thought we were discussing religion. Nevertheless, just thought I'd throw out that I'm still around, waiting for a good moment to make an actual comment.

But here's some of my stuff for now:

I don't know why you say its so bizarre that we just happened to fit into being in existence. If any other combination of things would have happened, a different lifeform would have shown up (or maybe none at all), but the combination for humans and earth showed up so here we are. Just because you have a low chance of winning the lottery doesn't mean that no one ever wins the lottery ever.

A CD has 20 tracks. You play the cd and shuffle the tracks. This gives you a unique order of tracks. The odds of having this unique order is 0.0000000000000000411032% (the odds of getting any order of 20 tracks, played only once). So this is your chance of getting it at random. Now this number is very, very small and yet it happened. Now guess what the odds of this happening are if a "higher power" picks them in that same order. Well the chance of that happening with someone choosing is also 0.0000000000000000411032%. This is because even though the person chose the certain order, the person had that many other possibilities to choose from. So if you don't believe it could randomly happen that we just existed out of nothing, well then your pretty much saying we don't exist. The odds of ANY OTHER POSSIBILITY are the same as us appearing and being created from the big bang.

If god does exist, he cannot be both a creator and a judge.This would cause god to be an unjust being and as god is apparently a pure and good fellow, this would result in the implosion of existence.
God created EVERYTHING. Our ability to choose to be evil is an ability HE GAVE US. Our ability to go against him is one HE GAVE US. Our ability to sin is one that HE GAVE US. He cannot be a just being if he punishes for abilities he hands out to us and ones that he KNOWS will make us become sinners (because he knows the past, present and future).

And one last thing. Jamdude said something about believing in god being justified by the idea that millions of people do it, so it must be right, and I just want to state that I think that is really crappy reasoning. If everyone believed that bashing yourself over the head with a watermelon would allow you to breathe underwater, does that justify it? No, that just means we have a lot of people who believe what others say.
2006-04-21 14:06:50
Daysniper
Member
+42|6875

JaMDuDe wrote:

I didnt say its wicked complex, i said there arent books as complex as it. Like books written with no technology, over hundreds of years with prophets that said things that would come true hundreds of years later.
Things have come true? In the bible??

Show me please...
2006-04-21 14:08:06
JaMDuDe
Member
+69|7017
Its more like like trying to win the lottery and the chances are 1/1,000,000,000,000 and they are only handing out 100 billion tickets. The bible says He is a fair judge, he doesnt give people sin its ALL their choice. Just because we cant understand some things doesnt means hes not there and hes an unfair judge. Silent noise thats not the reason to believe, its just one of the many. I just dont think BILLIONS of people would worship air.

Last edited by JaMDuDe (2006-04-21 14:16:22)

2006-04-21 14:08:07
Daysniper
Member
+42|6875

wannabe_tank_whore wrote:

Rygar wrote:

vjs wrote:


This was not science it was observation.
Someone decided to 'prove' observation to be science around here (on a thread, possibly this one) somewhere....
sci·ence (sī'əns)
n.

1 The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena.
Such activities restricted to a class of natural phenomena.
Such activities applied to an object of inquiry or study.
2 Methodological activity, discipline, or study: I've got packing a suitcase down to a science.
3 An activity that appears to require study and method: the science of purchasing.
4 Knowledge, especially that gained through experience.

It's a part of science.
It's a part, but not it. Read the entire line.
2006-04-21 14:08:17
Agent_Dung_Bomb
Member
+302|6976|Salt Lake City

wannabe_tank_whore wrote:

Agent_Dung_Bomb wrote:

wannabe_tank_whore wrote:


I'm afraid it's the other way around.  He can't say that.
http://www.irs.gov/charities/charitable … 99,00.html

"In addition, it may not attempt to influence legislation as a substantial part of its activities and it may not participate at all in campaign activity for or against political candidates."

In fact, they are being reviewed now to have their tax exempt status removed.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington … -irs_x.htm
First and foremost, you'll notice the article describes compaigns.  This means taking sides to influence who gets voted for.  Bush is already in office.  I would also point you to the last couple of paragraphs in the article you linked.

Tax law prohibits charities organized under section 501(c)(3) from taking sides in political campaigns. The law restricts these organizations because donations are tax-deductible for the donor and in effect are subsidized by the government.
^^What I've been saying all along.
Frances Hill, an authority on non-profit groups at the University of Miami Law School, called it "amazing" that the IRS would audit a group based on a public speech.
"Usually you would look for some activity other than disagreeing with policies," she said.
Lastly, I would like to point you to part of your own quote.  It says the entity may not attempt to influence legislation as substantial part of its activity.  This means it isn't strictly prohibited, only that it can't the major function of the group.  The only thing that is stictly prohibited is campaign activity.

His speaking out against current policy isn't influencing legislation any more than a church's preacher, priest, padre, pastor, etc. from speaking out against abortion or gay marriage.
Actually, "In contrast to the "pure issue message" an IRC 501(c)(3) organization may avail itself of the opportunity to intervene in a political campaign in a rather surreptitious manner.  The concern is that an IRC 501(c)(3) organization may support or oppose a particular candidate in a political campaign without specifically naming the candidate by using code words to substitute for the candidate's name in its messages, such as "conservative," "liberal," "pro-life," "pro-choice," "anti-choice," "Republican," "Democrat," etc., coupled with a discussion of the candidacy or the election.  When this occurs, it is quite evident what is happening-- an intervention is taking place."
-Judith Kendall and John Francis Reilly, two IRS representatives

And it is a case by case basis as an activity is a specific event.  In this case, his speech.
Since I'm not privy to exactly what he said, only what was quoted in the article, which was that he disagreed with the way administration has addressed certain issues, I can only go by what the article said.  This is not a violation for a tax exempt group.  As I said, as the article listed it, what he did is no different that a church leader making known their stance on abortion or gay marriage. 

If he has done other things that have violated the rules pertaining to politics and tax exempt organizations, then they should be penalized for doing so.  It still doesn't change the fact that tax exempt religious organizations are limited in their participation of politics as long as they are tax exempt.  If they relinquish that, there is no limit to how they can be involved in politics.

This isn't a difficult concept.  It is the law, plain and simple.
2006-04-21 14:10:57
JaMDuDe
Member
+69|7017

Daysniper wrote:

JaMDuDe wrote:

I didnt say its wicked complex, i said there arent books as complex as it. Like books written with no technology, over hundreds of years with prophets that said things that would come true hundreds of years later.
Things have come true? In the bible??

Show me please...
http://christiananswers.net/dictionary/ … ecies.html

Those are only the ones about Jesus, there are more.

Last edited by JaMDuDe (2006-04-21 14:15:54)

2006-04-21 14:18:10
kkolodsick
Member
+14|6906
If god does exist, he cannot be both a creator and a judge.This would cause god to be an unjust being and as god is apparently a pure and good fellow, this would result in the implosion of existence.
God created EVERYTHING. Our ability to choose to be evil is an ability HE GAVE US. Our ability to go against him is one HE GAVE US. Our ability to sin is one that HE GAVE US. He cannot be a just being if he punishes for abilities he hands out to us and ones that he KNOWS will make us become sinners (because he knows the past, present and future).
quote]

Silent, this is where you go off.  God made Adam and Eve in His likeness, therefore w/ no sin, perfect.  Mankind went wrong when Eve, after being tempted by the serpent (the devil), at the fruit from the only tree in the garden that God told the not to eat from.  Therefore, bringing the fall.

He originally created us as perfect beings but we fell by not "listening".  We have free will to make our life decisions.  Remember, He is just but will judge us for our actions.
2006-04-21 14:21:05
Agent_Dung_Bomb
Member
+302|6976|Salt Lake City

JaMDuDe wrote:

Daysniper wrote:

JaMDuDe wrote:

I didnt say its wicked complex, i said there arent books as complex as it. Like books written with no technology, over hundreds of years with prophets that said things that would come true hundreds of years later.
Things have come true? In the bible??

Show me please...
http://christiananswers.net/dictionary/ … ecies.html
And so did Nostradamus.  Throw enough shit against the wall, and eventually some of it will stick.  The Bible, like much of Nostradamus' stuff is very cryptic.  So much so that many interpretations can be made of it, and people just tend to use some event to say such a prophecy was/is being fulfilled.
2006-04-21 14:24:05
JaMDuDe
Member
+69|7017
Its 100% their choice to sin, not Gods. Your blaming God for our sins just because He knows.

Give me an example Agent.
2006-04-21 14:29:15
Agent_Dung_Bomb
Member
+302|6976|Salt Lake City

JaMDuDe wrote:

Its 100% their choice to sin, not Gods. Your blaming God for our sins just because He knows.

Give me an example Agent.
Give you an example of what?
2006-04-21 14:34:50
JaMDuDe
Member
+69|7017
Of a prophecy thats cryptic and can be interpeted in many different ways. I dont find them telling the exact city He will be born, His mom a virgin, from the house of David that cryptic. He will perform miracles, talk in parables, jews will reject him, his hands and feet will be pierced... doesnt seem too cryptic. They even told of the EXACT day of His public revealment.

Last edited by JaMDuDe (2006-04-21 14:36:19)

2006-04-21 14:42:41
crockinpb
Member
+0|6821
As i see it the church which ever one u are with says make peace not war, how ever every war that was, was about religion except Iraq that was about oil as we all know. Quote me if im wrong
2006-04-21 14:46:26
Daysniper
Member
+42|6875

JaMDuDe wrote:

Daysniper wrote:

JaMDuDe wrote:

I didnt say its wicked complex, i said there arent books as complex as it. Like books written with no technology, over hundreds of years with prophets that said things that would come true hundreds of years later.
Things have come true? In the bible??

Show me please...
http://christiananswers.net/dictionary/ … ecies.html

Those are only the ones about Jesus, there are more.
Two problems

1) can you please use another website???? 
2) The bible was written what, like a couple centuries after all this supposedly happened? Its a real good prophecy when you write it after the ting happens...
2006-04-21 14:53:26
KEN-JENNINGS
I am all that is MOD!
+2,979|6872|949

JaMDuDe, can you entertain the possibility that there is no God?  Do you believe in Satan as he is portrayed in the bible (Job, etc.)?
2006-04-21 14:53:46
JaMDuDe
Member
+69|7017
two problems,

1 Bible verses dont change depending on the website.

2 It happened hundreds of years before it all happened.

Topic closed

Pages: 1 … 27 28 29 30 31 … 51

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2024 Jeff Minard