John Glenn - Well Said

[ELVIS]

Things that make you think a little........

1. There were 39 combat related killings in Iraq during the month of
January.....

In the fair city of Detroit there were 35 murders in the month of
January.

That's just one American city, about as deadly as the entire war torn
country of Iraq.



2. When some claim President Bush shouldn't have started this war, state
the following ..

FDR...led us into World War II. Germany never attacked us: Japan did.

>From 1941-1945, 450,000 lives were lost, an average of 112,500 per
year.

Truman...finished that war and started one in Korea, North Korea never
attacked us.

>From 1950-1953, 55,000 lives were lost, an average of 18,334 per year.

John F. Kennedy. ..started the Vietnam conflict in 1962. Vietnam never
attacked us.

Johnson...turned Vietnam into a quagmire.

>From 1965-1975, 58,000 lives were lost, an average of 5,800 per year.



Clinton...went to war in Bosnia without UN or French consent, Bosnia
never attacked u s.

He was offered Osama bin Laden's head on a platter three times by Sudan
and did nothing.

Osama has attacked us on multiple occasions.



3. In the two years since terrorists attacked us

President Bush has liberated two countries, crushed the Taliban,
crippled al-Qaida, put nuclear inspectors in Libya, Iran and North Korea
without firing a shot, and captured a terrorist who slaughtered 300,000
of his own people.

The Democrats are complaining about how long the war is taking, but...It
took less time to take Iraq than it took Janet Reno to take the Branch
Davidian compound. That was a 51-day operation.

We've been looking for evidence of chemical weapons in Iraq for less
time than it took Hillary Clinton to find the Rose Law Firm billing
records.

It took less time for the 3rd Infantry Division and the Marines to
destroy the Medina Republican Guard than it took Ted Kennedy to call the
police after his Oldsmobile sank at Chappaquiddick killing a woman.



Wait, there's more.......................



Some people still don't understand why military personnel do what they
do for a living. This exchange between Senators John Glenn and Senator
Howard Metzenbaum is worth reading. Not only is it a pretty impressive
impromptu speech, but it's also a good example of one man's explanation
of why men and women in the armed services do what they do for a living.
This is a typical, though sad, example of what some who have never
served think of our military.



JOHN GLENN ON THE SENATE FLOOR

Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2004 11:13



Senator Howard Metzenbaum to Senator Glenn: "How can you run for Senate
when you've never held a real job?"



Senator Glenn: "I served 23 years in the United States Marine Corps. I
served through two wars. I flew 149 missions. My plane was hit by
anti-aircraft fire on 12 different occasions. I was in the space
program.



It wasn't my checkbook, Howard; it was my life on the line. It was not a
nine-to-five job, where I took time off to take the daily cash receipts
to the bank. I ask you to go with me ... as I went the other day... to a
veteran's hospital and look those men - with their mangled bodies - in
the eye, and tell THEM they didn't hold a job!

You go with me to the Space Program at NASA and go, as I have gone, to
the widows and orphans of Ed White, Gus Grissom and Roger Chaffee... and
you look those kids in the eye and tell them that their Dads didn't hold
a job.

You go with me on Memorial Day and you stand in Arlington National
Cemetery, where I have more friends buried than I'd like to remember,
and you watch those waving flags.



You stand there, and you think about this nation, and you tell ME that
those people didn't have a job? I'll tell you, Howard Metzenbaum; you
should be on your knees every day of your life thanking God that there
were some men - SOME MEN - who held REAL jobs. And they required a
dedication to a purpose - and a love of country and a dedication to duty
- that was more important than life itself. And their self-sacrifice is
what made this country possible.



I HAVE held a job, Howard! What about you?"

For those who don't remember - During W.W.II, Howard Metzenbaum was an
attorney representing the Communist Party in the USA



If you can read this, thank a teacher.... If you are reading it in
English thank a Veteran.

Please keep this circulating.




:elvis:

[Dr. Love]

LOL, "if you are reading it in English..."

Nice touch. :D

[FORD]

What John Glenn said was correct, but the rest is mostly propaganda bullshit.

And JFK didn't start the Vietnam war. The BCE did, under the Eisenhower administration.

[DrMaddVibe]

http://www.historyplace.com/unitedstates/vietnam/index-1961.html

[mwsully]

Hey Elvis,

War on Terrorism is just as ludicrous -- and just as costly -- as the War on Drugs. To say that G.W. in his pursuit of "freeing" Iraq, going after Al Queda and the Taliban made the world safer is just plain laughable.

Terrorism will never be controlled or eliminated or even minimalized by strong arm tactics, warring and such.

As long as our administration gets into other countries affairs without full support of those countries' citizens, terrorism is here to stay.

[ELVIS]

Originally posted by mwsully
Terrorism will never be controlled or eliminated or even minimalized by strong arm tactics, warring and such.



So terrorism should just be ignored ??

[BigBadBrian]

Originally posted by mwsully
Hey Elvis,

War on Terrorism is just as ludicrous -- and just as costly -- as the War on Drugs. To say that G.W. in his pursuit of "freeing" Iraq, going after Al Queda and the Taliban made the world safer is just plain laughable.

Terrorism will never be controlled or eliminated or even minimalized by strong arm tactics, warring and such.

As long as our administration gets into other countries affairs without full support of those countries' citizens, terrorism is here to stay.

That's just plain stupid. I suppose we shouldn't try to curb rape or murder also because we can never eliminate it? :rolleyes:

[FORD]

Originally posted by ELVIS
So terrorism should just be ignored ??

Terrorism is local. There is no such thing as a "global terrorist network".

There are terrorists in this country as well. Tim McVeigh and Terry Nichols were terrorists. So is Eric Rudolph. So was Paul Hill and the other fools like him who bomb abortion clinics or set them on fire or assassinate those who work there. The DC snipers could be considered "terrorists" because they certainly DID terrorize, but they weren't trying to gain anything from their actions like all of those listed above, they were just fucking crazy.

But I don't believe the BCE propaganda about an Islamic terraist hiding behind every bush (er... no pun intended), nor do I believe their ridiculous account of what happenned on 9-11-01. There is NO direct evidence that foreign terrorists are active in this country.

[ELVIS]

Hahaha...:rolleyes:

[BigBadBrian]

Originally posted by FORD
Terrorism is local. There is no such thing as a "global terrorist network".



So al-Qaeda is an illusion then? You're willing to state that for the record for all to see? ;)

[FORD]

Originally posted by BigBadBrian
So al-Qaeda is an illusion then? You're willing to state that for the record for all to see? ;)

Al Qaeda - whatever they are in reality - was created by the BCE/CIA. So do you really want to go there?

[Nickdfresh]

Modern History Sourcebook:
President Eisenhower:
Letter to Ngo Dinh Diem, October 23, 1954

Letter from President Eisenhower to Ngo Dinh Diem, President of the Council of Ministers of Vietnam, October 23, 1954

DEAR MR. PRESIDENT: I have been following with great interest the course of developments in Viet-Nam, particularly since the conclusion of the conference at Geneva. The implications of the agreement concerning Viet-Nam have caused grave concern regarding the future of a country temporarily divided by an artificial military grouping, weakened by a long and exhausting war and faced with enemies without and by their subversive collaborators within.

Your recent requests for aid to assist in the formidable project of the movement of several hundred thousand loyal Vietnamese citizens away from areas which are passing under a de facto rule and political ideology which they abhor, are being fulfilled. I am glad that the United States is able to assist in this humanitarian effort.

We have been exploring ways and means to permit our aid to Viet-Nam to be more effective and to make a greater contribution to the welfare and stability of the Government of Viet-Nam. I am, accordingly, instructing the American Ambassador to Viet-Nam to examine with you in your capacity as Chief of Government, bow an intelligent program of American aid given directly to your Government can serve to assist Viet-Nam in its present hour of trial, provided that your Government is prepared to give assurances as to the standards of performance it would be able to maintain in the event such aid were supplied.

The purpose of this offer is to assist the Government of Viet-Nam in developing and maintaining a strong, viable state, capable of resisting attempted subversion or aggression through military means. The Government of the United States expects that this aid will be met by performance on the part of the Government of Viet-Nam in undertaking needed reforms. It hopes that such aid, combined with your own continuing efforts, will contribute effectively toward an independent Viet-Nam endowed with a strong government. Such a government would, I hope, be so responsive to the nationalist aspirations of its people, so enlightened in purpose and effective in performance, that it will be respected both at home and abroad and discourage any who might wish to impose a foreign ideology on your free people.

Sincerely,

Dwight D. Eisenhower

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/1954-eisenhower-vietnam1.html

We were in Vietnam LONG BEFORE Kennedy, in fact Eisenhower illegally canceled the elections between North and South because he was afraid Ho Chi Minh would win.

[DrMaddVibe]

Ah yes...we did protect our shipments to the region. We did train the locals in how to use them BUT when did we start sending our military into armed conflict?

Anyone?

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by DrMaddVibe
Ah yes...we did protect our shipments to the region. We did train the locals in how to use them BUT when did we start sending our military into armed conflict?

Anyone?

1965 saw the first major deployment of US combat forces. CIA agents had been active with mercenaries since the Truman Administration.

[academic punk]

Bottom line: politics make strange bedfellows. Glkobal politics make even stranger ones.

You ally yourself with who you have to. You don't always love your options, 99.99% of the time the choices are far from ideal, but it solves the most pressing problem. Sometimes - frequently - it creates new ones.

Does that mean that it's right? to have supplied arms and finance to Saddam or whoever back when? Of ocurse not. But sometimes, it's necessary.

there are no simple solutions, and everybody wants something.

Now the talk is of Iran having a nuclear weapoin. To get them to abandon the progrm, what's it goign to take?

MONEY. Money for militia, money for their attempts to spread their version of "propoer, just government, money for POWER.

And the choice is either to fork it over, or to let them continue to have nuclear armaments. Whcih one do you go with? The most immediate threat or one that could mushroom (no pun intended) over the course of the coming years and decades?

[YAWN]

Good stuff, academic punk. :)


"Israel wants us in bed with them. The terrorists are trying to push us there. The Soviets are hoping to catch us there. Iran claims that's where we've been all along. It's Vietnam all over again. Our politicians have gotten sucked into taking sides, so our diplomatic options have evaporated. Now the only American card left is the military one, and sooner or later, Washington is going to play it. Just as sure as shootin'. And the politicians aren't going to do any better than they did in Vietnam. Those people never learn. Everybody but us will have God on their side. And we'll be in the middle."

This was from Stephen Coonts' Final Flight. If you guys remember Flight of the Intruder, this was the sequel (actually book 2 in a fairly decent series). The players change, but the cycle born of global politics continues. Things don't really change a lot in regards to Washington and the Middle East, except for the names involved. As long as there is money and power to be won, the Dark Helmets of the world will continue to maneuver to gain more of each.

[Warham]

We started drafting men into the Army when a Democrat was in office. It wasn't until a Republican was in office that they came home.

How many guys did Johnson send over to Vietnam to die? 55,000?

What did we accomplish there?

We've had 1,000+ die in Afghanistan and Iraq, and good things have already happened since then.

[academic punk]

Completely invalid comparison. Two totally different wars, two totally different circumstances, two totally different political atmosphere and even two totally different political parties.

It's the difference between the 1969 Yankees and todays roster. Sure, the team has the same name, and they're still "located" in the same place, but the team itself is different right down to the coach and the oppostiion's line-up.

Besides, what is this crap about whenever it's conveneient and loks good the right cites historical precedent. Howveer, whenever hte left does, right away it's "Oh, well, 9/11 changed everything."

a little frustrating when you're attempting to have an honest open discussion.

[Warham]

Bullshit...I can compare the 1969 Yankees and the 2001 Yankees and tell you which team did better.

Just like I could tell you which "war" or "conflict" will gain the most significant foreign policy results in the future out of the two, based on current results. Perhaps in the future, this could change, but I'm going by what I see now.

My guess if I had to choose now will be the War in Iraq.

[FORD]

Originally posted by Warham
Bullshit...I can compare the 1969 Yankees and the 2001 Yankees and tell you which team did better.

I can't tell you which one was better, because I hate the Yankees and could really care less. What I can tell you though is that the 1969 Yankees, win or lose, were at least an actual baseball team, and not the corporate mostrosity that they have become today.

Just like the Republican party has become. And just as the DLC is trying to do to the Democratic party.

I prefer teams and honest competition to corporatism, be it professional sports or professional politics.

Just like I could tell you which "war" or "conflict" will gain the most significant foreign policy results in the future out of the two, based on current results. Perhaps in the future, this could change, but I'm going by what I see now.

My guess if I had to choose now will be the War in Iraq.

The only "foreign policy" in Iraq is to launch PNAC's bid for a global fascist empire. And that is something that cannot be allowed to become a "significant result in the future".

Either this will be the end of true freedom and democracy in the world, or it will be the wakeup call for America to take back the system from the hands of corporatist fascists.

And as Malcolm said, by any means neccessary.........

[Warham]

All I know is that I believe the NWO WILL happen, and there's nothing we can do to stop it. I'm sure that the EU, UN, the secret US government and the Vatican are all in on it.

I think the Bible would back up my claim as well.

I read about some of this PNAC that you speak of, and it seems to fit in somewhere.

My contention is...if the US Government has a part it this, whoever you vote for would not be able to stop it. Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Reagan, Bush, and Clinton would all have had a part in it, even unwillingly. The two-party system would be a rouse at best.

[BigBadBrian]

Originally posted by FORD
Al Qaeda - whatever they are in reality - was created by the BCE/CIA. So do you really want to go there?

Yes, let's do.

Let's start off with defining this thing called the BCE. What is it?

Is it an internationally recognized organization?

Who are its members?

What is its mission?

[John Ashcroft]

To push Ford ever so closer to the insane asylum...

[Cathedral]

The BCE is a group made up by Ford that only exists here on this site.
It's the only place I have ever seen it, and it's root source is all speculation.

What i'm really saying is that he has yet to produce any facts that back up his conspiracies, and if he could, Bush would be doing time with the rest of his fictional BCE compadre's
They (Ford and his ilk) claim that they are the smart one's while the rest of voting America is fooled and or decieved by an entity they fear, yet only exists in their minds.

But there is a movement here called the FCE (Ford Conspiracy Empire) that has a mission to spew forth unsubstantiated and to date, unproven lies based on ideas created by people filled with hatred for a man called George Bush.

But he/they are completely right. I mean the group includes such multiple personalities as Jesus Christ and Satan, so how could anything they say be wrong, or whacked, for lack of a better term.

Well, that's my definition anyway, but i'm just a red stater so what do i know, right?
I sometimes get the impression that they'd like to revoke my right to vote or flatten my tires so i can't make it to the polls.

Lobotomy anyone?

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by ELVIS
Things that make you think a little........

1. There were 39 combat related killings in Iraq during the month of
January.....

In the fair city of Detroit there were 35 murders in the month of
January.



I have a problem with the '1,450 killed isn't that bad' connotation of this hijacking of John Glenn's statements. It is that bad! These people didn't have to die, and they died for the shifting foundations of political rationalization. They've died because of poor planning and nonstop errors by the fools that were supposed to lead them. And the outcome is far from certain, and in fact may look dimmer than ever.


PS Not to mention the one and one-third $billion dollars spent each week we could be using to strengthen our borders and ports.

[FORD]

Originally posted by Cathedral
The BCE is a group made up by Ford that only exists here on this site.
It's the only place I have ever seen it, and it's root source is all speculation.

What i'm really saying is that he has yet to produce any facts that back up his conspiracies, and if he could, Bush would be doing time with the rest of his fictional BCE compadre's
They (Ford and his ilk) claim that they are the smart one's while the rest of voting America is fooled and or decieved by an entity they fear, yet only exists in their minds.

But there is a movement here called the FCE (Ford Conspiracy Empire) that has a mission to spew forth unsubstantiated and to date, unproven lies based on ideas created by people filled with hatred for a man called George Bush.

But he/they are completely right. I mean the group includes such multiple personalities as Jesus Christ and Satan, so how could anything they say be wrong, or whacked, for lack of a better term.

Well, that's my definition anyway, but i'm just a red stater so what do i know, right?
I sometimes get the impression that they'd like to revoke my right to vote or flatten my tires so i can't make it to the polls.

Lobotomy anyone?

PNAC 101

From Demopedia
[edit]
RISE OF THE NEOCONS



George W. Bush constantly reminds the nation about the threat of terrorism that began with 9/11 but he leaves out a few important details that you should know.........
[edit]
June 1997

The Project for a New American Century (PNAC) was born. Populated by influential Movers of industry and Shakers of public opinion, the PNAC is an organization united in the vision for a global U.S. empire - "Pax Americana" - through coercion and military domination. Their philosophy can be simply summarized:

* There are countries to plunder and fortunes to be made. You have it, we want it. Do as we say or suffer the consequences.

* The U.S. already has a powerful military but we plan to nurture and grow it until it's massive and we are indomitable. Resistance is futile. We are.......

Dick Cheney, Jeb Bush, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, Steve Forbes, William J. Bennett, Frank Gaffney, and I. Lewis ("Scooter") Libby, signatories - among others - of the PNAC's "Statement of Principles":

"We need to...challenge regimes hostile to our interests and values."

"We need to increase defense spending significantly if we are to carry out
our global responsibilities today and modernize our armed forces for the future."

"It is important to shape circumstances before crises emerge."

http://www.newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm


[edit]
January 1998

The PNAC knew that he who owns the oil also owns the world so they sent a letter to President Clinton urging him to attack Iraq and remove Saddam Hussein from power since he put "a significant portion of the world's supply of oil at hazard". Clinton didn't grant them their wish and the PNAC was disheartened that they couldn't manipulate the military while outside of the White House power structure.

http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqclintonletter.htm
[edit]
March-April 1999

In an effort to capture and control the castle and all its warriors and weapons, the PNAC offered up members Steve Forbes, Dan Quayle and Gary Bauer to run as Republican candidates in the upcoming Presidential election.

http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/election/profile.htm
[edit]
June 1999

Ever-persistent and determined to maximize their potential for success in the Presidential campaign, the PNAC exercised their power of nepotism and member Jeb Bush's brother George stepped up to the plate to join the race.
[edit]
Spring 2000

The PNAC may have felt confident with their candidate's chances for winning the White House but they were absolutely smug over what they saw as a possible Fallback Plan...electronic voting machines with severe security flaws that included hidden backdoors, erasable audit trails and multiple vote totals with the potential to propel vote tampering to new heights through the magic of remote access.

How To Rig An Election In The United States
http://www.scoop.co.nz/mason/stories/HL0307/S00065.htm

Can the votes be changed?
http://www.blackboxvoting.org/access-diebold.htm


Better yet, Chuck Hagel - a fellow Republican loyalist - owned the ES&S voting machine company that counted 60% of all U.S. votes. He had already won one election and was part of the U.S. Senate power team in Washington.

http://www.scoop.co.nz/mason/stories/HL0301/S00166.htm

Assured that the White House would soon be theirs, the PNAC debuted their 76-page blueprint to achieve world domination. "Rebuilding America's Defenses" became the PNAC's manifesto, detailing the ideal level of military power to specifically eliminate the hostile regimes of Iraq, Iran, Syria and North Korea and endorsing preemptive strikes against them, tradition be damned. Iraq was given star billing as Control Central for their Mid-East base of operations.

"At present the United States faces no global rival. America’s grand
strategy should aim to preserve and extend this advantageous position
as far into the future as possible."

"American landpower is the essential link in the chain that translates U.S.
military supremacy into American geopolitical preeminence."

"We cannot allow North Korea, Iran, Iraq or similar states to undermine
American leadership'.

"While the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification,
the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends
the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein."

What is particularly foreboding and chilling in view of events to later unfold, is this statement bemoaning the lengthy process of rebuilding the existing U.S. military according to the heightened standards and specifications the PNAC aspired to:

“...the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is
likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event - like
a new Pearl Harbor."

http://cryptome.org/rad.htm
[edit]
November 2000

Saddam may have sensed an ill wind in the air when he made the first strike, turned his back on the U.S. Dollar and accepted only Euros as payment for his oil. This had the potential of seriously destabilizing the U.S. economy and the PNAC considered this an hostile act of aggression towards their personal and business interests. The heat was on for them to make their first move.

http://www.rferl.org/nca/features/2000/11/01112000160846.asp


[edit]
December 2000

In a highly contentious Presidential vote battle on the home turf of PNAC member Jeb Bush, the Supreme Court decided that George Bush was the new President.

How George W. Bush Won the 2004 Presidential Election
http://www.infernalpress.com/Columns/election.html

Bush now had the green light to seamlessly merge members of the PNAC into his Administration with no one the wiser. PNAC members elevated to the Bush hierarchy include, among others:

Donald Rumsfeld - Secretary of Defense
Paul Wolfowitz - Deputy Secretary of Defense
Elliott Abrams - Member of the National Security Council
John Bolton - Undersecretary for Arms Control and International Security
Richard Perle - Chairman of the advisory Defense Policy Board
Richard Armitage - Deputy Secretary of State
John Bolton - Undersecretary of State for Disarmament
Zalmay Khalilzad - White House liaison to the Iraqi opposition


An Honorable Mention was awarded to Condoleezza Rice - National Security Advisor - who is a former oil-company consultant having been on the board of directors of Chevron as its main expert on Kazakhstan.

The PNAC agenda had now passed "Go". The most powerful military machine in the world stood at their ready and Saddam was in the crosshair.

Wasting no time, Cheney secretly assembled an advisory panel of oil and gas executives from Enron, Dynergy, Shell Oil, Chevron/Texaco and British Petroleum under the direction of James Baker (former Secretary of State under George Bush Sr.) to help shape our national energy policy and justify the PNAC's anticipated war with Iraq.

Contributing substantially to the task force discussions and recommendations was a shadowy group of unidentified observers who still remain unknown. Sheikh Saud Al Nasser Al Sabah, the former Kuwaiti oil minister, also made a contribution to the group's final report which was funded through Khalid Al-Turki (a Saudi Arabian oil and gas enterprise) and the Arthur Ross Foundation (a non-profit organization that - on the surface - appears to be a supporter of the Arts.)

http://www.yuricareport.com/PoliticalAnalysis/FraudinWhiteHouse.htm
[edit]
March 2001

Cheney closely guarded the details surrounding his energy task force but documents released through the Freedom of Information Act reveal a map of Iraqi oilfields, pipelines, refineries and terminals, as well as 2 charts detailing Iraqi oil and gas projects, and “Foreign Suitors for Iraqi Oilfield Contracts.”

http://www.judicialwatch.org/071703.c_.shtml

As one Internet poster pointed out:

"The Iraq map is not a map, it's a plan.

"There are several areas marked 'earmarked for production sharing' (look at
'the map legend), which means privatized oil fields. Iraq did not have
privatized oil fields and production sharing agreements before the US took
it over.

"There are also parcels marked on the Iraq oil field and exploration map
(numbered 'Block 1' through '9'). Iraq did not have an active, privatized oil
exploration program going on before it was conquered by the US.

"If you read the footnotes and entire contents of the other documents,
there is a heavy emphasis on business concerns, such as contracts and
vendors over items one might think would be more important in a
government discussion, such as capacity, long term reserves, etc...

"One footnote (in UAEOilProj.pdf) even contains investment advice for the
participants at the meeting, suggesting opportunities in downstream
projects, such as power desalination and pipeline projects.

"These are not 'just maps'. Read them."

It can be argued that the spoils of war were being doled out two years before Iraq once again became a household word. Perhaps this explains why Cheney worked so hard and so long to keep this information suppressed until Iraq was under U.S. military control...by then it would be too late for the public to object to the invasion.

Iraq, circa March 2001, painted a completely different picture than the Evil Empire the Bush Administrations tried to portray in their determined rush to war.

"Iraq was one of the more progressive Islamic countries in the region. It
provided full rights for women and public education for its citizens who
enjoyed a decent standard of living."

"Despite the years of bombings and the even greater toll on human life
taken by the sanctions, visitors to Baghdad don't see a city in ruins.
Much of the wreckage has been cleared away, much has been repaired.

"In our hotel, there's running water throughout the day, hot water in the
morning. Various streets in Baghdad are lined with little stores, surprisingly
well-stocked with household appliances, hardware goods, furniture, and
clothes (much of which has a second-hand look).

"We see no derelicts or homeless people on the streets, no prostitutes or
ragged bands of abandoned children, though there are occasional
youngsters eager to shine shoes or solicit spare change. But even they
seem to be well-fed and decently clothed. ......large swaths of the city
used to be shrouded in complete darkness; today, there are lights just
about everywhere

"People used to feel hopelessly isolated and now there seems to be more
people and better morale. Sadly though, "more and more children are
turning up with leukemia" (a result of the tons of depleted uranium the
U.S. military used and left behind after Gulf War I.)

"The Iraqi leadership could turn US policy completely around by uttering
just two magic words: "free market." All they have to do is invite the
International Monetary Fund and World Bank into Iraq, eliminate free
education and free medical care, abolish the minimal food ration that goes
to every Iraqi, abolish the housing and transportation subsidies, and hand
over the country's oil industry to the corporate cartels. To lift the
sanctions, Iraq must surrender to the tender mercies of the free-market
paradise....

"Until then, Iraq will continue to be designated a "rogue nation" by those
policy makers in Washington who themselves are the meanest profit-
driven, power-mongering rogues on earth."

http://www.towardfreedom.com/2001/mar01/iraq.htm

The issue of trade sanctions against Iraq put the Bush Administration in a bind - the sanctions had been designed to punish Saddam for not conceding to U.S. demands but it ended up handicapping U.S. corporations and undermining the PNAC's drive for U.S. economic supremacy. The Bush Administration was on a tight four year schedule to oust Saddam and launch the PNAC's Grand Plan for World Domination but they still didn't have a viable script to sell to the public. Yet.
It is important to shape circumstances ....... - PNAC Statement of Principles
[edit]
May 2001

The U.S. State Department met with Iran, German and Italian officials to discuss Afghanistan. It was decided that the ruling Taliban would be toppled and a "broad-based government" would control the country so a gas pipeline could be built there.

http://fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/7969.pdf
http://www.gasandoil.com/goc/features/fex20867.htm

Even as plans were being made to remove the Taliban rulers from power, Colin Powell announced a $43 million "gift" to Afghanistan.

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/editorials/la-091701scheer.column
http://www.cato.org/dailys/08-02-02.html

Meanwhile, the U.S. Embassy in the UAE received a call that Bin Laden supporters were in the U.S. planning attacks with explosives. It was rumored that Bin Laden was interested in hijacking U.S. aircraft.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/images/04/10/whitehouse.pdf
[edit]
June 2001

The decades-old procedure for a quick response by the nation’s air defense was changed. NORAD’s military commanders could no longer issue the order to launch fighter jets because approval had to be sought from the civilian Defense Secretary, PNAC-member Donald Rumsfeld.

http://www.9-11commission.gov/hearings/hearing7/for_the_record_ashley.pdf
[edit]
July 2001

The private plot formulated in May for toppling the Taliban was divulged during the G8 summit in Genoa, Italy. Immediately after the conference, American, Russian, German and Pakistani officials secretly met in Berlin to finalize the strategy for military strikes against the Taliban, scheduled to begin before mid-October 2001

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/1550366.stm
http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,556254,00.html
[edit]
September 2001

The "catastrophic and catalyzing" modern-day Pearl Harbor envisioned years earlier by the PNAC came to pass when the WTC and Pentagon were attacked as Rumsfeld sat passive and unresponsive. The finger of blame was pointed at Osama bin Laden, a former CIA operative with ties to Afghanistan. Suddenly, the U.S. "gift" of $43 million to the Taliban in May was cast in a new light. Coincidentally, Pakistan had participated in the plan to attack Afghanistan and the chief of Pakistan's Inter Service Intelligence (ISI) agency was later linked to a 911 hijacker after wiring him $100,00 just days before the WTC fell. Pakistan's ISI also had a long-standing working relationship with the CIA.

http://cryptome.org/rad.htm
http://www.observer.com/pages/story.asp?ID=8830
http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO109C.html
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/cms.dll/html/uncomp/articleshow?msid=1454238160
http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,1266317,00.html

The PNAC had scored a home run with the bases loaded with the 911 event: shock, horror and fear gripped the nation, the war on "terrorism" had been established in no uncertain terms, attacking Afghanistan with public approval was a foregone conclusion and the stage was set for building a public case against Saddam.

Not one to let a good attack go to waste, Defense Secretary/PNAC-member Donald H. Rumsfeld sprung into action.

* He told his aides to come up with plans for striking Iraq, even though Saddam wasn't linked to the attacks.

* PNAC-James Woolsey, former CIA director, was dispatched to London to look for and 'firm up' evidence of Iraqi involvement in the 911 attacks.

* PNAC-member and Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz was authorized to create the Office of Special Plans.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/09/04/september11/main520830.shtml
"It is important to shape circumstances..........." - PNAC Statement of Principles

The Office of Special Plans (OSP) was a secret group of analysts and policy advisors with no status in the intelligence community. Nevertheless they reported directly to the White House and National Security office with cherry-picked intelligence from questionable sources to support the case for invading Iraq. The OSP circumvented formal, well-established oversight procedures, ignored intelligence that didn't further their agenda, expanded the intelligence on weapons beyond what was justified and over-emphasized the national security risk. They became more influential than the C.I.A. or the Defense Intelligence Agency who didn't even know the ultra-secret OSP existed for at least a year.

Because they were based in the Pentagon, it was assumed that the OSP was an intelligence-gathering agency that was second-guessing the C.I.A. but in actuality it was the White House Military Marketing Machine charged with the task of writing the PNAC's "Get Saddam" sales pitch for the public. Shading and bending reality to suit their own purpose, it wasn't important for the OSP's stories about Saddam to be factual, only that the average American believed them to be - in true Hollywood fashion.

http://www.newyorker.com/printable/?fact/030512fa_fact

While the nation was stripped to the emotional bone and painfully vulnerable, the White House capitalized on the opportunity to reshape public perceptions and responses to conform with the PNAC's new American agenda. Rather than buoy the "can do" American spirit with optimism and hope for the future as Presidents before him had done in times of crisis, Bush spoke with an alarmist and pessimistic tone that served to perpetuate the high anxiety, excitability and fear in the populace.

To hear him speak, the world was a dark, evil and dangerous place....terrorism was here to stay....it would be a long struggle....America was helpless without the military might of the Government to keep the nation safe. The intent was to create a psychologically broken, weary and docile populace that would be easier to lead into war.

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/130534_focusecond13.html

Fear became the Administration's strategic tactic for reprogramming the public into accepting the PNAC's militaristic designs. Still shell-shocked and exhausted from the enormity of the WTC and Pentagon tragedies, the public's panic shifted into frenzied over-drive when anthrax-laced envelopes arrived in government and media offices, killing five people. A perpetrator was never identified but the investigation eventually centered around the Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases at Fort Detrick, one of the nation's main anthrax research centers.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,126244,00.html

Using classic "operant learning" techniques from the realm of consumer psychology, the public was purposely kept on High Alert and continually "shaped" with ominous sound bites on the nightly news and "Level Orange Terror Alerts" at regularly scheduled but discrete intervals.

http://www.consumerpsychologist.com/#Perception
[edit]
October 2001

With flags waving, crowds cheering, and anthems playing, the "War On Terror" and the hunt for Osama began when Afghanistan was attacked right on schedule of July's secret meeting.

Immediately afterwards the PNAC and White House collaboration of "GET SADDAM" played relentlessly on televisions and in newspapers across the nation and the World as the "War on Terror" waged on and the litany of lies began.

The only terrorists we have to fear are those that occupy the White House.

[Cathedral]

I rest my case.
Hey, I still luv ya, big guy. ;)

[FORD]

Originally posted by Cathedral
I rest my case.
Hey, I still luv ya, big guy. ;)

The case is there. Do the research, or accept the lies the corporate media tells you. Your choice.

But don't say you were never warned.

Maybe it's time to re-write the famous poem by Rev Martin Niemoller....

First they came for the Muslims
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Muslim
Then they came for the homosexuals
and I did not speak out
because I was not a homosexual.
Then they came for the trade unionists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for the liberals
and I did not speak out
because I was not a liberal
Then they came for me
and there was no one left
to speak out for me. :(

[Warham]

FORD does bring up some interesting points in these articles, however crazy they do appear. My only beef with FORD is, he seems to think that somehow this can be avoided, people can take up arms, vote their minds to change the current scenario. Impossible, I say. This is much larger than any one man, like Bush, Clinton, Anon, Sharon, you name it. It's got it's roots back in ancient Babylon and will not stop because some folks believe we can change it. It's a prophetic event that will happen, and you can't stop these things from taking place.

That's ultimately why I don't worry about it too much. I know in my heart that these things are happening for a reason.

[FORD]

Originally posted by Warham
FORD does bring up some interesting points in these articles, however crazy they do appear. My only beef with FORD is, he seems to think that somehow this can be avoided, people can take up arms, vote their minds to change the current scenario. Impossible, I say. This is much larger than any one man, like Bush, Clinton, Anon, Sharon, you name it. It's got it's roots back in ancient Babylon and will not stop because some folks believe we can change it. It's a prophetic event that will happen, and you can't stop these things from taking place.

That's ultimately why I don't worry about it too much. I know in my heart that these things are happening for a reason.

So you're saying Junior is the Antichrist??

Because that would be the only circumstance in which you could write this all off as "prophecy".

Ezekiel 37 said that the nation of Israel would be reborn from "a valley of dry bones", but that doesn't let Hitler off the hook for this.....
http://www.picturehistory.com/images/products/0/7/8/prod_7807.jpg

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by Nickdfresh
I have a problem with the '1,450 killed...

I read in the paper this morning that we're up to 1,492 deaths in Iraq. So it's closer to 1,500.

BTW, we also have over 10,000 wounded, a number which shall be a strain on Veterans healthcare for the next 50-60 years.

[Warham]

Originally posted by FORD
So you're saying Junior is the Antichrist??

Because that would be the only circumstance in which you could write this all off as "prophecy".

Ezekiel 37 said that the nation of Israel would be reborn from "a valley of dry bones", but that doesn't let Hitler off the hook for this.....
http://www.picturehistory.com/images/products/0/7/8/prod_7807.jpg

No, FORD, Junior isn't charismatic enough to be the Antichrist. Bill Clinton IS, but I don't think he's the Antichrist either.It's part of a much larger picture. You have to view prophecy as not just one event to look for, but what happens on the way to that event.

[Mr Grimsdale]

Originally posted by ELVIS
Things that make you think a little........

1. There were 39 combat related killings in Iraq during the month of
January.....

In the fair city of Detroit there were 35 murders in the month of
January.

That's just one American city, about as deadly as the entire war torn
country of Iraq.

I've heard figures like that before and still find them quite shocking.

The figures are skewed because they only count combat related killings in Iraq (who knows how many Iraqis get wiped out each month), however if your own citizens are killing nearly as many of your own citizens in one month in ONE city as are killed in a war zone don't you think there's a problem somewhere?

How many of your own citizens are killed each year by fellow citizens?

[Pontius Pilate]

Originally posted by Mr Grimsdale
I've heard figures like that before and still find them quite shocking.

The figures are skewed because they only count combat related killings in Iraq (who knows how many Iraqis get wiped out each month), however if your own citizens are killing nearly as many of your own citizens in one month in ONE city as are killed in a war zone don't you think there's a problem somewhere?

How many of your own citizens are killed each year by fellow citizens?

Give the Dump a free hand and Detroit will be brought to its knees!

[ODShowtime]

Originally posted by ELVIS
It took less time for the 3rd Infantry Division and the Marines to
destroy the Medina Republican Guard than it took Ted Kennedy to call the
police after his Oldsmobile sank at Chappaquiddick killing a woman.


This is just despicable. Your arguments are pathetic Elvis.

[LoungeMachine]

Originally posted by ODShowtime
This is just despicable. Your arguments are pathetic Elvis.

What arguments?

I've never actually witnessed anything from him I'd classify as an "argument"

He'll just roll his eyes and say "whatever" when confronted with facts that don't jive with his VooDoo.....:rolleyes:

[Big Train]

Originally posted by FORD
What John Glenn said was correct, but the rest is mostly propaganda bullshit.

And JFK didn't start the Vietnam war. The BCE did, under the Eisenhower administration.

Ford, I have printed the above out, gone to Aaron Bros. and had it framed for my office. Whenever my day is getting too serious, I look up at it and smile...

The numbers are bullshit? C,mon now..less of our people are dying in these conflicts now than ever before. If you want to give me your high minded "One is too many" speech, spare me. People die in armed struggle, thats the way it is.

The reasons we get into these struggles are muddled and complex and not as simple as a three letter acronym some would like to use to describe the history of the world...

[ELVIS]

Originally posted by FORD

And JFK didn't start the Vietnam war.

He may not have started it, but he believed that Vietnam was a test of America's ability to defeat communism...

He was speaking in the context of winning a was against Communism when he said the following:

Let every nation know...that we shal pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe to assure the survival and success of liberty.


Sound familiar ??


:elvis:

[John Ashcroft]

Originally posted by ELVIS
It took less time for the 3rd Infantry Division and the Marines to
destroy the Medina Republican Guard than it took Ted Kennedy to call the
police after his Oldsmobile sank at Chappaquiddick killing a woman.
:elvis:


Originally posted by ODShowtime
This is just despicable. Your arguments are pathetic Elvis.

But is it true or not??? :confused:

[ODShowtime]

Originally posted by John Ashcroft
But is it true or not??? :confused:

Who knows? It's just the most apples to oranges pile of crap I've read in awhile. And I don't give two shits about TK.

[BigBadBrian]

Originally posted by John Ashcroft
But is it true or not??? :confused:

http://www.strangepolitics.com/images/content/13085.jpg

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by ELVIS
He may not have started it, but he believed that Vietnam was a test of America's ability to defeat communism...

He was speaking in the context of winning a was against Communism when he said the following:

Let every nation know...that we shal pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe to assure the survival and success of liberty.

Sound familiar ??

:elvis:

And he did help defeat "communism" by astutely winning the Cuban Missile Crisis.

But he knew when to stop and when to start. Kennedy, as did Eisenhower and Truman, knew that military power had it's limitations.

[ODShowtime]

Originally posted by Nickdfresh
But he knew when to stop and when to start. Kennedy, as did Eisenhower and Truman, knew that military power had it's limitations.

Isn't it unfortunate that this lesson needs to be re-learned every 50 years or so? :rolleyes:

[Warham]

According to FORD, Eisenhower was part of the BCE.

Actually, if you tie in all the links, there are some 6 billion members of the BCE globally.

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by Warham
According to FORD, Eisenhower was part of the BCE.

Actually, if you tie in all the links, there are some 6 billion members of the BCE globally.

I thought FORD always posts his farewell "Military-Industrial Complex" speech.

[Warham]

I'm still waiting for that interview that Dan Rather conducts where a former member with only his silhouette showing gives a detailed account of his time in the 'service' and tells Rather about the demonic ulterior motives of the Bush Criminal Empire.

[DrMaddVibe]

Originally posted by Nickdfresh
And he did help defeat "communism" by astutely winning the Cuban Missile Crisis.


Whew, I'm glad that damn Fidel is out of power! The Bay of Pigs thingy...wow, that really showed them.

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by DrMaddVibe
Whew, I'm glad that damn Fidel is out of power! The Bay of Pigs thingy...wow, that really showed them.

Yes, but he kicked Kruschev in the nuts and DIDN'T blow up the world like crazy SAC General Curtis LeMay wanted too.

http://www.briansdriveintheater.com/beefcake/sterlinghayden30thumb.jpg

[Warham]

Reagan's the one who finally polished off the Ruskies for good.

When Reagan met Gorbachev, Gorbie told Reagan, "We've got 20,000 nuclear warheads, comrade Reagan!"

Reagan fired back, "We've got 20,001, with another 10,000 on the way!"

Gorbachev..."Oy vey!"

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by Warham
Reagan's the one who finally polished off the Ruskies for good.

When Reagan met Gorbachev, Gorbie told Reagan, "We've got 20,000 nuclear warheads, comrade Reagan!"

Reagan fired back, "We've got 20,001, with another 10,000 on the way!"

Gorbachev..."Oy vey!"

The Soviet economy did most of Reagan's work. We could afford the weapons, they couldn't.

[DrMaddVibe]

Star wars....nothing but star wars....nothing but star wars....That and a dominant military that had superior weapons in each and every class, a armed force that was trained to "kill a commie for mommy" to every conscript .

You can try and attempt to re-write history in your mind but it doesn't work for people that lived in it!

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by DrMaddVibe
Star wars....nothing but star wars....nothing but star wars....That and a dominant military that had superior weapons in each and every class, a armed force that was trained to "kill a commie for mommy" to every conscript .

You can try and attempt to re-write history in your mind but it doesn't work for people that lived in it!

Um...That is history. We could afford a military build-up. They couldn't. Also, this guy had a lot to do with the downfall of Communism.
http://www.randomchaos.com/images/scrapbook/pope.jpg
http://www.crwflags.com/art/miscflags/solidarity.gif

[FORD]

Originally posted by DrMaddVibe
Whew, I'm glad that damn Fidel is out of power! The Bay of Pigs thingy...wow, that really showed them.

You can thank the CIA agent in charge of that mission for fucking it up.

And this would be him.........
http://www.austincollege.edu/images/1/Academics%20Leadership%20Institute/gbush.jpg

[FORD]

Originally posted by Warham
Reagan's the one who finally polished off the Ruskies for good.

When Reagan met Gorbachev, Gorbie told Reagan, "We've got 20,000 nuclear warheads, comrade Reagan!"

Reagan fired back, "We've got 20,001, with another 10,000 on the way!"

Gorbachev..."Oy vey!"

Bullshit. The soviet economy was mortally wounded by the mid-70's and Afghanistan finished them off.

The BCE knew this to be the case when Ford (no relation) was in the White House, but members of his cabinet instead chose to exaggerate the Soviet threat and keep the arms race going in order to keep the military industrial complex going.

Those members of Jerry's cabinet who lied, BTW, were named Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, and Paul Wolfowitz. The more things change, the more the BCE stays the same.

[JCOOK]

Originally posted by FORD
Bullshit. The soviet economy was mortally wounded by the mid-70's and Afghanistan finished them off.

The BCE knew this to be the case when Ford (no relation) was in the White House, but members of his cabinet instead chose to exaggerate the Soviet threat and keep the arms race going in order to keep the military industrial complex going.

Those members of Jerry's cabinet who lied, BTW, were named Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, and Paul Wolfowitz. The more things change, the more the BCE stays the same.

" Ford (no relation)" Hmmmmmmmm..............:D

[ELVIS]

FORD, no relation to reality...;)

[LoungeMachine]

Originally posted by ELVIS
FORD, no relation to reality...;)

Hello Pot........meet Kettle :rolleyes:

[LoungeMachine]

Originally posted by ELVIS
FORD, no relation to reality...;)

Your whole reason for being is based on a 2,000 year old snuff film:rolleyes:

You wouldn't know "reality" if it bit you in the basement

[Warham]

snuff film? Makes no sense.

[LoungeMachine]

Originally posted by Warham
snuff film? Makes no sense.

exactly:D

[Warham]

No, your view makes no sense.

[BigBadBrian]

Originally posted by LoungeMachine
Hello Pot........meet Kettle :rolleyes:

And LoungeMachine says Elvis posts no worthwhile arguments. Hypocrisy at its finest here, folks. :gulp:

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by BigBadBrian
And LoungeMachine says Elvis posts no worthwhile arguments. Hypocrisy at its finest here, folks. :gulp:

Hello pot...meet tea kettle!

[diamondD]

Originally posted by BigBadBrian
And LoungeMachine says Elvis posts no worthwhile arguments. Hypocrisy at its finest here, folks. :gulp:


No shit, the changing the topic to picking a fight about religion every thread is getting old.

[Warham]

Blame the liberals for that.

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by Warham
No, your view makes no sense.


Originally posted by Warham
Blame the liberals for that.

You're a liberal?

[Warham]

I'm not the one who attacks the Bible every time it's brought up, Nick.

I blame the godless liberal minds on this board for that.

[FORD]

Godless? :confused:

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by Warham
I'm not the one who attacks the Bible every time it's brought up, Nick.

I blame the godless liberal minds on this board for that.

I don't really attack the Bible, just the literal interpretation of it and I attack the hypocracy some organized religion and the notion that "religious conservatives" have a monopoly on God. The Bible certainely has it's value, but in a metaphorical sense.

I caught a bit of the Bible Code II on the 'History Channel' last night, boy was it scary.:confused:

[ELVIS]

Metaphorical sense ??

Explain that to me, and if you don't mind, the value you believe the Bible has in such a sense...

[ODShowtime]

Originally posted by Nickdfresh
I don't really attack the Bible, just the literal interpretation of it and I attack the hypocracy some organized religion and the notion that "religious conservatives" have a monopoly on God. The Bible certainely has it's value, but in a metaphorical sense.

I caught a bit of the Bible Code II on the 'History Channel' last night, boy was it scary.:confused:


Well said. I don't think anyone here looks down on people of faith. It's what some do with their faith that bothers me.

[Warham]

I think folks here do look down on people of faith.

May I reference a post by one Lounge Machine where he refers to Christianity as a 2000 year old snuff film. Hardly tolerant of a liberal.

[LoungeMachine]

Boo FUCKING Hoo

What bunch of panty-waist whining......

Don't like what I post, Don't read it.

Care to comment?, by all means please do. At least Brie came back with a shot.

Only want to read/hear what you want/believe? tough shit.


I don't look down on PEOPLE of faith. I look down on certain PEOPLE who are hypocritical about it. Especially when their views are DRIPPING with irony. Like when they castigate others for believing EXACTLY as they believe......

There's too much this.... There's too much that on these boards....blah, blah

IT'S A GOD DAMN MESSAGE BOARD FOR CHRIST'S SAKE.

If I have to put up w/ Joe Thunder, Katydid, [another bible thumper] et al, then it must mean all is fair in here......

Godless Liberals???

Bwahahahahahahahhahahahahaha

fucking priceless

[LoungeMachine]

Originally posted by Warham
I think folks here do look down on people of faith.

May I reference a post by one Lounge Machine where he refers to Christianity as a 2000 year old snuff film. Hardly tolerant of a liberal.

Want to talk "tolerant"????

How about ELVIS' claim that ALL Muslims are inherintly EVIL, and that every person on this earth, regardless of character, morals, or deeds, will GO TO HELL unless he believes EXACTLY as ELVIS believes

[ sound familiar?]

All that's missing from ELVIS' story is the 28 virgins waiting for him:rolleyes:

[ODShowtime]

It's about whether you can really think for yourself or not.

[Warham]

I don't think you know what the word hypocritical means, Lounge.

[ODShowtime]

Originally posted by Warham
I don't think you know what the word hypocritical means, Lounge.

Hey, what the hell are you doing in your living room at 9:30 in the AM on a Wednesday?

[LoungeMachine]

Originally posted by Warham
I don't think you know what the word hypocritical means, Lounge.

Ah,
good old plan 2 in the neo con handbook,,,,,,,,

Talk down to your foe, insinuate he's stupid:rolleyes:

You don't know what I know. Now you're just typing to hear yourself type:rolleyes:

[Warham]

Originally posted by LoungeMachine
Want to talk "tolerant"????

How about ELVIS' claim that ALL Muslims are inherintly EVIL, and that every person on this earth, regardless of character, morals, or deeds, will GO TO HELL unless he believes EXACTLY as ELVIS believes

[ sound familiar?]

All that's missing from ELVIS' story is the 28 virgins waiting for him:rolleyes:

So what, Lounge?

All of mankind is inherently evil!

You want to pick one specifically?

I think we've all been over what Christians believe. I think you just can't accept what they believe. That's your problem.

[ODShowtime]

Originally posted by Warham
All of mankind is inherently evil!

I do agree with that...

[LoungeMachine]

Originally posted by ODShowtime
It's about whether you can really think for yourself or not.

Exactly.:cool:

And also NOT judging others. [ after all, isnt that Someone else's job according to your Book?}

[Warham]

Originally posted by ODShowtime
Hey, what the hell are you doing in your living room at 9:30 in the AM on a Wednesday?

It's my day off, OD.

I work five days a week, and have Wednesdays and Sundays off.

Answer your question?

[Warham]

Originally posted by LoungeMachine
Exactly.:cool:

And also NOT judging others. [ after all, isnt that Someone else's job according to your Book?}

No, that's not what the Bible says.

[LoungeMachine]

I like Catherdral's take on all this......

He's strong in his faith, yet doesn't shove it down other's throats, and tell them they're going to Hell for not following him.

He's not a self-righteous hypocrite. He's a good debater, and discusses rather than preaches.....

[LoungeMachine]

Originally posted by Warham
So what, Lounge?

All of mankind is inherently evil!

You want to pick one specifically?

I

No, thank you.

[Warham]

Originally posted by LoungeMachine
I like Catherdral's take on all this......

He's strong in his faith, yet doesn't shove it down other's throats, and tell them they're going to Hell for not following him.

He's not a self-righteous hypocrite. He's a good debater, and discusses rather than preaches.....

Christians aren't supposed to shove it in others throats, and I don't think Elvis does it either. He's posting at the Roth Army, for God's sake.

I think what happens is you guys ask or refer to his beliefs, he says what he believes, then you have a fit and make cracks about his faith. And then you go off and say he's being a close-minded and hypocritical Christian.

That's what I think really happens around here.

Elvis has shown to be a good debator and makes clear points.

[LoungeMachine]

Those are YOUR view and I respect them, Ham

Just as I have MY views on him and others.......which was my point all along after reading your guy's whine fest...

Enjoy your day off.

AND HAPPY BIRTHDAY TODAY TO OD,,,,,,,

[Warham]

I'm not whining at all. I'm just pointing out your bashing of Elvis' faith.

[Seshmeister]

John Glenn is on another planet...:)

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by ELVIS
Metaphorical sense ??

Explain that to me, and if you don't mind, the value you believe the Bible has in such a sense...

The Bible was written by MEN, yet is quoted by men with such certaindy that it's the word of God. Their points are made for as much political expediency and power as they are to be "the word of God." The Bible was selectively composed of "books" while other books were rejected. The Bible is fraught with contradictions and is selectively quoted, and is selectively "metaphorically" interpreted to meets one's political agenda (i.e Revelations, "the Rapture"...). It is also selectively literally interpreted for same said reason by fundamentalists (on homosexuality).

[ODShowtime]

Originally posted by LoungeMachine
Just as I have MY views on him and others.......which was my point all along after reading your guy's whine fest...

Enjoy your day off.

AND HAPPY BIRTHDAY TODAY TO OD,,,,,,,


:D

[LoungeMachine]

Once again.....NICKD makes perfect sense....

[Warham]

Originally posted by Nickdfresh
The Bible was written by MEN, yet is quoted by men with such certaindy that it's the word of God. Their points are made for as much political expediency and power as they are to be "the word of God." The Bible was selectively composed of "books" while other books were rejected. The Bible is fraught with contradictions and is selectively quoted, and is selectively "metaphorically" interpreted to meets one's political agenda (i.e Revelations, "the Rapture"...). It is also selectively literally interpreted for same said reason by fundamentalists (on homosexuality).

Men inspired by the Holy Spirit, to be more specific.

The Bible as we know it today was carefully put together by the Council of Nicea in the 300's AD.

The Bible is not fraught with contradictions.

I'll give you one for instance:

Post-Resurrection Discrepancies
Question
Why do the post-Resurrection accounts seem to have so many discrepancies?

Answer
I suspect you are wondering who saw Jesus first, how many angels there were, etc.

According to John 20:1ff., the order of events was as follows:

Mary Magdalene went to the empty tomb.
Mary Magdalene told the disciples Jesus' body was missing.
Simon Peter and John went to the empty tomb.
Simon Peter and John left.
Mary Magdalene returned to the tomb and saw two angels and Jesus.
Mary Magdalene told the disciples she had seen Jesus.
The disciples didn't believe Mary Magdalene's report.

Luke 24:1ff. lists the order of events as follows:
Mary Madgalene, Joanna, Mary the mother of James, and other women who had come from Galilee with Joseph of Arimathea went to the empty tomb and saw two angels.
Mary Madgalene, Joanna, Mary the mother of James, and other women who had come from Galilee with Joseph of Arimathea told the disciples what they had seen. Matthew 28:1ff. lists the following order of events:
Mary Magdalene and the other Mary went to the empty tomb and saw an angel.
Mary Magdalene and the other Mary encountered Jesus.
Mary Magdalene and the other Mary told the disciples.

Mark 16:1-8 lists this order of events:
Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome went to the empty tomb and saw and angel.
Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome did not tell the disciples.
Mark 16:9ff. is probably not original to the text, but notice that it does not contradict Mark 16:1-8. The addition of Mark 16:9ff. indicates one possible reading of Mark 16:1-8: those verses describe Mary Magdalene's first visit to the tomb, not her second (compare John's account). John's account, in turn, does not deny that Mary Magdalene had company. He merely tells the story from her perspective without listing the other women. John also does not deny that Mary may have seen an angel during her first.

The details of Luke's and Matthew's accounts correspond without difficulty to the details of Mary's Magdalene's second visit to the tomb listed by John. The fact that some accounts mention one angel while others mention two is easily explained by saying that there were two angels, but that Matthew and Mark wrote only of the angel who spoke these particular words. Neither Matthew nor Mark denied that any other angels were present.

The details of Mark's account correspond without difficulty to Mary Magdalene's first visit to the tomb mentioned by John, except for the statement that the women didn't tell anyone what they had seen. John claims that Mary told the disciples about her first visit to the tomb, while Mark says that she told no one. It is certainly possible, however, that Mary at first told no one, but then told the disciples after her fear had left her. The fact that Mary's first report to Peter does not match the angel's report to her may simply reflect the fact that Mary did not believe the angel at first.

There are other possible solutions to these apparent discrepancies as well. The important thing to keep in mind is that all these accounts are very short, and none attempts to give us the full picture. Moreover, none of these accounts contradicts another. For example, "there was an angel" does not contradict "there were two angels." To establish a contradiction, one must first establish that two accounts speak of the same visit to the tomb, and then establish that one account denies what another affirms. If one account said "there was only ever one angel at the tomb," while another said "there were two angels at the tomb," that would establish a contradiction -- but such is not the case.

The burden of proof in these instances is on the critic of the Bible. The critic must demonstrate that the only possible reading of the texts necessitates a contradiction. No critic has ever been able to do this. The most they have been able to do is to insist that the correct interpretations of the passages are contradictory. Their fatal flaw is that they cannot prove that these contradictory interpretations are correct.

http://www.thirdmill.org/answers/answer.asp/file/99822.qna/category/nt/page/questions/site/iiim

There are MANY MANY more that can be looked at in a similar manner.

As for homosexuality, I'm still waiting for someone to post a scripture from the Bible where it promotes that kind of behavior.

[academic punk]

any rational argument is out the window once the premise of the Hand of God is involved.

We can all agree on that, right? Belief in God is faith in the unseen hand, and that's beyond "rational, scientific" thought and research.

[LoungeMachine]

Once again, AP makes perfect sense

[Warham]

Actually, I agree with him in a sense.

[academic punk]

I wasn't trying to create friction, Warham, just to be clear. You were responidng to Nick's comments, which were directly about the Bible, so your comments were "in-line".

But for the most part this has been an interesting thread, and I don't want to see it morph into something that can't be discussed beyond "The bible is this" and "no, the Bible is that."

etc.

[LoungeMachine]

Dammit, now I'm agreeing wih 'Ham too?????

wtf?

[BigBadBrian]

Originally posted by academic punk
Belief in God is faith in the unseen hand, and that's beyond "rational, scientific" thought and research.

You mean like man eminating from amoeboe and turning into reptiles and then apes and then humans? :rolleyes:

[WACF]

LOL....

[Seshmeister]

Originally posted by BigBadBrian
You mean like man eminating from amoeboe and turning into reptiles and then apes and then humans? :rolleyes:

No because that can be proved scientifically.

Do you think god turned around one day a hundred years ago and said fuckit I think I'll turn this wolf into a poodle for a laugh?

[JCOOK]

Originally posted by FORD
Terrorism is local. There is no such thing as a "global terrorist network".

There are terrorists in this country as well. Tim McVeigh and Terry Nichols were terrorists. So is Eric Rudolph. So was Paul Hill and the other fools like him who bomb abortion clinics or set them on fire or assassinate those who work there. The DC snipers could be considered "terrorists" because they certainly DID terrorize, but they weren't trying to gain anything from their actions like all of those listed above, they were just fucking crazy.

But I don't believe the BCE propaganda about an Islamic terraist hiding behind every bush (er... no pun intended), nor do I believe their ridiculous account of what happenned on 9-11-01. There is NO direct evidence that foreign terrorists are active in this country.

What would it take to convince you Ford?.....

[DrMaddVibe]

Originally posted by Seshmeister
No because that can be proved scientifically.

It can? Part of proving science is replicating the experiments. I don't recall them making men out of pond scum, but if you want to hold onto Darwin's "theories" by all means don't jump people that believe otherwise!

[ELVIS]

The Bible is the inspired word of God, period...

Point me to a contradiction in the Bible...

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by ELVIS
The Bible is the inspired word of God, period...

Point me to a contradiction in the Bible...

Theological doctrines:

1. God is satisfied with his works
Gen 1:31
God is dissatisfied with his works.
Gen 6:6
2. God dwells in chosen temples
2 Chron 7:12,16
God dwells not in temples
Acts 7:48
3. God dwells in light
Tim 6:16
God dwells in darkness
1 Kings 8:12/ Ps 18:11/ Ps 97:2
4. God is seen and heard
Ex 33:23/ Ex 33:11/ Gen 3:9,10/ Gen 32:30/ Is 6:1/
Ex 24:9-11
God is invisible and cannot be heard
John 1:18/ John 5:37/ Ex 33:20/ 1 Tim 6:16
5. God is tired and rests
Ex 31:17/ Jer 15:6
God is never tired and never rests
Is 40:28
6. God is everywhere present, sees and knows all things
Prov 15:3/ Ps 139:7-10/ Job 34:22,21
God is not everywhere present, neither sees nor knows all
things
Gen 11:5/ Gen 18:20,21/ Gen 3:8
7. God knows the hearts of men
Acts 1:24/ Ps 139:2,3
God tries men to find out what is in their heart
Deut 13:3/ Deut 8:2/ Gen 22:12
8. God is all powerful
Jer 32:27/ Matt 19:26
God is not all powerful
Judg 1:19
9. God is unchangeable
James 1:17/ Mal 3:6/ Ezek 24:14/ Num 23:19
God is changeable
Gen 6:6/ Jonah 3:10/ 1 Sam 2:30,31/ 2 Kings 20:1,4,5,6/
Ex 33:1,3,17,14
10. God is just and impartial
Ps 92:15/ Gen 18:25/ Deut 32:4/ Rom 2:11/ Ezek 18:25
God is unjust and partial
Gen 9:25/ Ex 20:5/ Rom 9:11-13/ Matt 13:12
11. God is the author of evil
Lam 3:38/ Jer 18:11/ Is 45:7/ Amos 3:6/ Ezek 20:25
God is not the author of evil
1 Cor 14:33/ Deut 32:4/ James 1:13
12. God gives freely to those who ask
James 1:5/ Luke 11:10
God withholds his blessings and prevents men from receiving
them
John 12:40/ Josh 11:20/ Is 63:17
13. God is to be found by those who seek him
Matt 7:8/ Prov 8:17
God is not to be found by those who seek him
Prov 1:28
14. God is warlike
Ex 15:3/ Is 51:15
God is peaceful
Rom 15:33/ 1 Cor 14:33
15. God is cruel, unmerciful, destructive, and ferocious
Jer 13:14/ Deut 7:16/ 1 Sam 15:2,3/ 1 Sam 6:19
God is kind, merciful, and good
James 5:11/ Lam 3:33/ 1 Chron 16:34/ Ezek 18:32/ Ps 145:9/
1 Tim 2:4/ 1 John 4:16/ Ps 25:8
16. God's anger is fierce and endures long
Num 32:13/ Num 25:4/ Jer 17:4
God's anger is slow and endures but for a minute
Ps 103:8/ Ps 30:5
17. God commands, approves of, and delights in burnt offerings,
sacrifices ,and holy days
Ex 29:36/ Lev 23:27/ Ex 29:18/ Lev 1:9
God disapproves of and has no pleasure in burnt offerings,
sacrifices, and holy days.
Jer 7:22/ Jer 6:20/ Ps 50:13,4/ Is 1:13,11,12
18. God accepts human sacrifices
2 Sam 21:8,9,14/ Gen 22:2/ Judg 11:30-32,34,38,39
God forbids human sacrifice
Deut 12:30,31
19. God tempts men
Gen 22:1/ 2 Sam 24:1/ Jer 20:7/ Matt 6:13
God tempts no man
James 1:13
20. God cannot lie
Heb 6:18
God lies by proxy; he sends forth lying spirits t deceive
2 Thes 2:11/ 1 Kings 22:23/ Ezek 14:9
21. Because of man's wickedness God destroys him
Gen 6:5,7
Because of man's wickedness God will not destroy him
Gen 8:21
22. God's attributes are revealed in his works.
Rom 1:20
God's attributes cannot be discovered
Job 11:7/ Is 40:28
23. There is but one God
Deut 6:4
There is a plurality of gods
Gen 1:26/ Gen 3:22/ Gen 18:1-3/ 1 John 5:7


Moral Precepts

24. Robbery commanded
Ex 3:21,22/ Ex 12:35,36
Robbery forbidden
Lev 19:13/ Ex 20:15
25. Lying approved and sanctioned
Josh 2:4-6/ James 2:25/ Ex 1:18-20/ 1 Kings 22:21,22
Lying forbidden
Ex 20:16/ Prov 12:22/ Rev 21:8
26. Hatred to the Edomite sanctioned
2 Kings 14:7,3
Hatred to the Edomite forbidden
Deut 23:7
27. Killing commanded
Ex 32:27
Killing forbidden
Ex 20:13
28. The blood-shedder must die
Gen 9:5,6
The blood-shedder must not die
Gen 4:15
29. The making of images forbidden
Ex 20:4
The making of images commanded
Ex 25:18,20
30. Slavery and oppression ordained
Gen 9:25/ Lev 25:45,46/ Joel 3:8
Slavery and oppression forbidden
Is 58:6/ Ex 22:21/ Ex 21:16/ Matt 23:10
31. Improvidence enjoyed
Matt 6:28,31,34/ Luke 6:30,35/ Luke 12:3
Improvidence condemned
1 Tim 5:8/ Prov 13:22
32. Anger approved
Eph 4:26
Anger disapproved
Eccl 7:9/ Prov 22:24/ James 1:20
33. Good works to be seen of men
Matt 5:16
Good works not to be seen of men
Matt 6:1
34. Judging of others forbidden
Matt 7:1,2
Judging of others approved
1 Cor 6:2-4/ 1 Cor 5:12
35. Christ taught non-resistance
Matt 5:39/ Matt 26:52
Christ taught and practiced physical resistance
Luke 22:36/ John 2:15
36. Christ warned his followers not to fear being killed
Luke 12:4
Christ himself avoided the Jews for fear of being killed
John 7:1
37. Public prayer sanctioned
1 Kings 8:22,54, 9:3
Public prayer disapproved
Matt 6:5,6
38. Importunity in prayer commended
Luke 18:5,7
Importunity in prayer condemned
Matt 6:7,8
39. The wearing of long hair by men sanctioned
Judg 13:5/ Num 6:5
The wearing of long hair by men condemned
1 Cor 11:14
40. Circumcision instituted
Gen 17:10
Circumcision condemned
Gal 5:2
41. The Sabbath instituted
Ex 20:8
The Sabbath repudiated
Is 1:13/ Rom 14:5/ Col 2:16
42. The Sabbath instituted because God rested on the seventh day
Ex 20:11
The Sabbath instituted because God brought the Israelites
out of Egypt
Deut 5:15
43. No work to be done on the Sabbath under penalty of death
Ex 31:15/ Num 15:32,36
Jesus Christ broke the Sabbath and justified his disciples in
the same
John 5:16/ Matt 12:1-3,5
44. Baptism commanded
Matt 28:19
Baptism not commanded
1 Cor 1:17,14
45. Every kind of animal allowed for food.
Gen 9:3/ 1 Cor 10:25/ Rom 14:14
Certain kinds of animals prohibited for food.
Deut 14:7,8
46. Taking of oaths sanctioned
Num 30:2/ Gen 21:23-24,31/ Gen 31:53/ Heb 6:13
Taking of oaths forbidden
Matt 5:34
47. Marriage approved
Gen 2:18/ Gen 1:28/ Matt 19:5/ Heb 13:4
Marriage disapproved
1 Cor 7:1/ 1 Cor 7:7,8
48. Freedom of divorce permitted
Deut 24:1/ Deut 21:10,11,14
Divorce restricted
Matt 5:32
49. Adultery forbidden
Ex 20:14/ Heb 13:4
Adultery allowed
Num 31:18/ Hos 1:2; 2:1-3
50. Marriage or cohabitation with a sister denounced
Deut 27:22/ Lev 20:17
Abraham married his sister and God blessed the union
Gen 20:11,12/ Gen 17:16
51. A man may marry his brother's widow
Deut 25:5
A man may not marry his brother's widow
Lev 20:21
52. Hatred to kindred enjoined
Luke 14:26
Hatred to kindred condemned
Eph 6:2/ Eph 5:25,29
53. Intoxicating beverages recommended
Prov 31:6,7/ 1 Tim 5:23/ Ps 104:15
Intoxicating beverages discountenanced
Prov 20:1/ Prov 23:31,32
54. It is our duty to obey our rulers, who are God's ministers
and punish evil doers only
Rom 13:1-3,6
It is not our duty to obey rulers, who sometimes punish the
good and receive unto themselves damnation therefor
Ex 1:17,20/ Dan 3:16,18/ Dan 6:9,7,10/ Acts 4:26,27/
Mark 12:38,39,40/ Luke 23:11,24,33,35
55. Women's rights denied
Gen 3:16/ 1 Tim 2:12/ 1 Cor 14:34/ 1 Pet 3:6
Women's rights affirmed
Judg 4:4,14,15/ Judg 5:7/ Acts 2:18/ Acts 21:9
56. Obedience to masters enjoined
Col 3:22,23/ 1 Pet 2:18
Obedience due to God only
Matt 4:10/ 1 Cor 7:23/ Matt 23:10
57. There is an unpardonable sin
Mark 3:29
There is not unpardonable sin
Acts 13:39


Historical Facts

58. Man was created after the other animals
Gen 1:25,26,27
Man was created before the other animals
Gen 2:18,19
59. Seed time and harvest were never to cease
Gen 8:22
Seed time and harvest did cease for seven years
Gen 41:54,56/ Gen 45:6
60. God hardened Pharaoh's heart
Ex 4:21/ Ed 9:12
Pharaoh hardened his own heart
Ex 8:15
61. All the cattle and horses in Egypt died
Ex 9:3,6/ 14:9
All the horses of Egypt did not die
Ex 14:9
62. Moses feared Pharaoh
Ex 2:14,15,23; 4:19
Moses did not fear Pharaoh
Heb 11:27
63. There died of the plague twenty-four thousand
Num 25:9
There died of the plague but twenty-three thousand
1 Cor 10:8
64. John the Baptist was Elias
Matt 11:14
John the Baptist was not Elias
John 1:21
65. The father of Joseph, Mary's husband was Jacob
Matt 1:16
The father of Mary's husband was Heli
Luke 3:23
66. The father of Salah was Arphaxad
Gen 11:12
The father of Salah was Cainan
Luke 3:35,36
67. There were fourteen generations from Abraham to David
Matt 1:17
There were but thirteen generations from Abraham to David
Matt 1:2-6
68. There were fourteen generations from the Babylonian captivity
to Christ.
Matt 1:17
There were but thirteen generations from the Babylonian
captivity to Christ
Matt 1:12-16
69. The infant Christ was taken into Egypt
Matt 2:14,15,19,21,23
The infant Christ was not taken into Egypt
Luke 2:22, 39
70. Christ was tempted in the wilderness
Mark 1:12,13
Christ was not tempted in the wilderness
John 2:1,2
71. Christ preached his first sermon on the mount
Matt 5:1,2
Christ preached his first sermon on the plain
Luke 6:17,20
72. John was in prison when Jesus went into Galilee
Mark 1:14
John was not in prison when Jesus went into Galilee
John 1:43/ John 3:22-24
73. Christ's disciples were commanded to go forth with a staff
and sandals
Mark 6:8,9
Christ's disciples were commanded to go forth with neither
staffs nor sandals.
Matt 10:9,10
74. A woman of Canaan besought Jesus
Matt 15:22
It was a Greek woman who besought Him
Mark 7:26
75. Two blind men besought Jesus
Matt 20:30
Only one blind man besought Him
Luke 18:35,38
76. Christ was crucified at the third hour
Mark 15:25
Christ was not crucified until the sixth hour
John 19:14,15
77. The two thieves reviled Christ.
Matt 27:44/ Mark 15:32
Only one of the thieves reviled Christ
Luke 23:39,40
78. Satan entered into Judas while at supper
John 13:27
Satan entered into him before the supper
Luke 22:3,4,7
79. Judas committed suicide by hanging
Matt 27:5
Judas did not hang himself, but died another way
Acts 1:18
80. The potter's field was purchased by Judas
Acts 1:18
The potter's field was purchased by the Chief Priests
Matt 27:6,7
81. There was but one woman who came to the sepulchre
John 20:1
There were two women who came to the sepulchre
Matt 28:1
82. There were three women who came to the sepulchre
Mark 16:1
There were more than three women who came to the sepulchre
Luke 24:10
83. It was at sunrise when they came to the sepulchre
Mark 16:2
It was some time before sunrise when they came.
John 20:1
84. There were two angels seen by the women at the sepulchre, and
they were standing up.
Luke 24:4
There was but one angel seen, and he was sitting down.
Matt 28:2,5
85. There were two angels seen within the sepulchre.
John 20:11,12
There was but one angel seen within the sepulchre
Mark 16:5
86. Christ was to be three days and three nights in the grave
Matt 12:40
Christ was but two days and two nights in the grave
Mark 15:25,42,44,45,46; 16:9>
87. Holy ghost bestowed at pentecost
Acts 1:8,5
Holy ghost bestowed before pentecost
John 20:22
88. The disciples were commanded immediately after the
resurrection to go into Galilee
Matt 28:10
The disciples were commanded immediately after the
resurrection to go tarry at Jerusalem
Luke 24:49
89. Jesus first appeared to the eleven disciples in a room at
Jerusalem
Luke 24:33,36,37/ John 20:19
Jesus first appeared to the eleven on a mountain in Galilee
Matt 28:16,17
90. Christ ascended from Mount Olivet
Acts 1:9,12
Christ ascended from Bethany
Luke 24:50,51
91. Paul's attendants heard the miraculous voice, and stood
speechless
Acts 9:7
Paul's attendants heard not the voice and were prostrate
Acts 26:14
92. Abraham departed to go into Canaan
Gen 12:5
Abraham went not knowing where
Heb 11:8
93. Abraham had two sons
Gal 4:22
Abraham had but one son
Heb 11:17
94. Keturah was Abraham's wife
Gen 25:1
Keturah was Abraham's concubine
1 Chron 1:32
95. Abraham begat a son when he was a hundred years old, by the
interposition of Providence
Gen 21:2/ Rom 4:19/ Heb 11:12
Abraham begat six children more after he was a hundred years
old without any interposition of providence
Gen 25:1,2
96. Jacob bought a sepulchre from Hamor
Josh 24:32
Abraham bought it of Hamor
Acts 7:16
97. God promised the land of Canaan to Abraham and his seed
forever
Gen 13:14,15,17; 17:8
Abraham and his seed never received the promised land
Acts 7:5/ Heb 11:9,13
98. Goliath was slain by Elhanan
2 Sam 21:19 *note, was changed in translation to be
correct. Original manuscript was incorrect>
The brother of Goliath was slain by Elhanan
1 Chron 20:5
99. Ahaziah began to reign in the twelfth year of Joram
2 Kings 8:25
Ahaziah began to reign in the eleventh year of Joram
2 Kings 9:29
100. Michal had no child
2 Sam 6:23
Michal had five children
2 Sam 21:8
101. David was tempted by the Lord to number Israel
2 Sam 24:1
David was tempted by Satan to number the people
1 Chron 21:1
102. The number of fighting men of Israel was 800,000; and of
Judah 500,000
2 Sam 24:9
The number of fighting men of Israel was 1,100,000; and of
Judah 470,000
1 Chron 21:5
103. David sinned in numbering the people
2 Sam 24:10
David never sinned, except in the matter of Uriah
1 Kings 15:5
104. One of the penalties of David's sin was seven years of
famine.
2 Sam 24:13
It was not seven years, but three years of famine
1 Chron 21:11,12
105. David took seven hundred horsemen
2 Sam 8:4
David took seven thousand horsemen
1 Chron 18:4
106. David bought a threshing floor for fifty shekels of silver
2 Sam 24:24
David bought the threshing floor for six hundred shekels of
gold
1 Chron 21:25
107. David's throne was to endure forever.
Ps 89:35-37
David's throne was cast down
Ps 89:44


Speculative Doctrines

108. Christ is equal with God
John 10:30/ Phil 2:5
Christ is not equal with God
John 14:28/ Matt 24:36
109. Jesus was all-powerful
Matt 28:18/ John 3:35
Jesus was not all-powerful
Mark 6:5
110. The law was superseded by the Christian dispensation
Luke 16:16/ Eph 2:15/ Rom 7:6
The law was not superseded by the Christian dispensation
Matt 5:17-19
111. Christ's mission was peace
Luke 2:13,14
Christ's mission was not peace
Matt 10:34
112. Christ received not testimony from man
John 5:33,34
Christ did receive testimony from man
John 15:27
113. Christ's witness of himself is true.
John 8:18,14
Christ's witness of himself is not true.
John 5:31
114. Christ laid down his life for his friends
John 15:13/ John 10:11
Christ laid down his life for his enemies
Rom 5:10
115. It was lawful for the Jews to put Christ to death
John 19:7
It was not lawful for the Jews to put Christ to death
John 18:31
116. Children are punished for the sins of the parents
Ex 20:5
Children are not punished for the sins of the parents
Ezek 18:20
117. Man is justified by faith alone
Rom 3:20/ Gal 2:16/ Gal 3:11,12/ Rom 4:2
Man is not justified by faith alone
James 2:21,24/ Rom 2:13
118. It is impossible to fall from grace
John 10:28/ Rom 8:38,39
It is possible to fall from grace
Ezek 18:24/ Heb 6:4-6, 2 Pet 2:20,21
119. No man is without sin
1 Kings 8:46/ Prov 20:9/ Eccl 7:20/ Rom 3:10
Christians are sinless
1 John 3: 9,6,8
120. There is to be a resurrection of the dead
1 Cor 15:52/ Rev 20:12,13/ Luke 20:37/ 1 Cor 15:16
There is to be no resurrection of the dead
Job 7:9/ Eccl 9:5/ Is 26:14
121. Reward and punishment to be bestowed in this world
Prov 11:31
Reward and punishment to be bestowed in the next world
Rev 20:12/ Matt 16:27/ 2 Cor 5:10
122. Annihilation the portion of all mankind
Job 3: 11,13-17,19-22/ Eccl 9:5,10/ Eccl 3:19,20
Endless misery the portion of all mankind
Matt 25:46/ Rev 20:10,15/ Rev 14:11/ Dan 12:2
123. The Earth is to be destroyed
2 Pet 3:10/ Heb 1:11/ Rev 20:11
The Earth is never to be destroyed
Ps 104:5/ Eccl 1:4
124. No evil shall happen to the godly
Prov 12:21/ 1 Pet 3:13
Evil does happen to the godly
Heb 12:6/ Job 2:3,7
125. Worldly good and prosperity are the lot of the godly
Prov 12:21/ Ps 37:28,32,33,37/ Ps 1:1,3/ Gen 39:2/
Job 42:12
Worldly misery and destitution the lot of the godly
Heb 11:37,38/ Rev 7:14/ 2 Tim 3:12/ Luke 21:17
126. Worldly prosperity a reward of righteousness and a blessing
Mark 10:29,30/ Ps 37:25/ Ps 112:1,3/ Job 22:23,24/
Prov 15:6
Worldly prosperity a curse and a bar to future reward
Luke 6:20,24/ Matt 6:19,21/ Luke 16:22/ Matt 19:24/
Luke 6:24
127. The Christian yoke is easy
Matt 11:28,29,30
The Christian yoke is not easy
John 16:33/ 2 Tim 3:12/ Heb 12:6,8
128. The fruit of God's spirit is love and gentleness
Gal 5:22
The fruit of God's spirit is vengeance and fury
Judg 15:14/ 1 Sam 18:10,11
129. Longevity enjoyed by the wicked
Job 21:7,8/ Ps 17:14/ Eccl 8:12/ Is 65:20
Longevity denied to the wicked
Eccl 8:13/ Ps 55:23/ Prov 10:27/ Job 36:14/ Eccl 7:17
130. Poverty a blessing
Luke 6:20,24/ Jams 2:5
Riches a blessing
Prov 10:15/ Job 22:23,24/ Job 42:12
Neither poverty nor riches a blessing
Prov 30:8,9
131. Wisdom a source of enjoyment
Prov 3:13,17
Wisdom a source of vexation, grief and sorrow
Eccl 1:17,18
132. A good name is a blessing
Eccl 7:1/ Prov 22:1
A good name is a curse
Luke 6:26
133. Laughter commended
Eccl 3:1,4/ Eccl 8:15
Laughter condemned
Luke 6:25/ Eccl 7:3,4
134. The rod of correction a remedy for foolishness
Prov 22:15
There is no remedy for foolishness
Prov 27:22
135. A fool should be answered according to his folly
Prov 26:5
A fool should not be answered according to his folly
Prov 26:4
136. Temptation to be desired
James 1:2
Temptation not to be desired
Matt 6:13
137. Prophecy is sure
2 Pet 1:19
Prophecy is not sure
Jer 18:7-10
138. Man's life was to be one hundred and twenty years
Gen 6:3/ Ps 90:10
Man's life is but seventy years
Ps 90:10
139. The fear of man was to be upon every beast
Gen 9:2
The fear of man is not upon the lion
Prov 30:30
140. Miracles a proof of divine mission
Matt 11:2-5/ John 3:2/ Ex 14:31
Miracles not a proof of divine mission
Ex 7:10-12/ Deut 13:1-3/ Luke 11:19
141. Moses was a very meek man
Num 12:3
Moses was a very cruel man
Num 31:15,17
142. Elijah went up to heaven
2 Kings 2:11
None but Christ ever ascended into heaven
John 3:13
143. All scripture is inspired
2 Tim 3:16
Some scripture is not inspired
1 Cor 7:6/ 1 Cor 7:12/ 2 Cor 11:17



Think not that I come to send peace on earth: I came not to send
peace, but a sword.
- Matthew 10:34

... all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword.
- Matthew 26:52



For wrath killeth the foolish man...
- Job 5:2

... let not the sun go down on your wrath.
- Ephesians 4:26



And no man hath ascended up to heaven, even the Son of man which
is in heaven.
- John 3:13

... and Elijah went up by a whirlwind into heaven.
- 2 Kings 2:11



If I bear witness of myself, my witness is not true.
- John 5:31

I am one that bear witness of myself...
- John 8:18
[Jesus was the speaker in both of these quotes]



A good man leaveth an inheritance to his children's children...
- Proverbs 13:22

Sell that ye have and give alms...
- Luke 12:33



Blessed is the man that feareth the Lord... Wealth and riches
shall be in his house...
- Psalms 112:1-3

It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than
for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.
- Matthew 19:24



I and my father are one.
- John 10:30

... I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I.
- John 14:28
[Jesus was the speaker in both of these quotes]



Thou shalt not kill
- Exodus 20:13

Thus saith the Lord God of Israel, Put every man his sword by his
side... and slay every man his brother...
- Exodus 32:27



Remember the sabbath day to keep it holy.
- Exodus 20:8

The new moons and sabbaths, the calling of assemblies, I cannot
away with: it is iniquity.
- Isaiah 3:22



Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness
of anything that is in heaven... earth... [or] water.
- Leviticus 26:11

And thou shalt make two cherubims of gold, of beaten work shalt
thou make them.
- Exodus 25:18



For by grace are ye saved through faith... not of works.
- Ephesians 2:8-9

Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by
faith only.
- James 2:24



God is not a man, that he should lie: neither the son of man,
that he should repent.
- Numbers 23:19

And the Lord repented of the evil which he thought to do unto his
people.
- Exodus 32:14



... the hour is coming, in which all that are in the graves shall
hear his voice, and come forth...
- John 5:28-29

As the cloud is consumed and vanisheth away: so he that goeth
down to the grave shall come up no more.
- Job 7:9



... thou shalt give life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth,
hand for hand, foot for foot, burning for burning, wound for
wound, stripe for stripe.
- Exodus 21:23-25

... resist not evil; but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right
cheek, turn to him the other also.
- Matthew 5:39



Honor thy father and mother.
- Exodus 20:12

If any man come to me, and hate not his father and mother, and
wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own
life also, he cannot be my disciple.
- Luke 14:26



Lay not up for yourself treasures upon the earth...
- Matthew 6:19

In the house of the righteous is much treasure...
- Proverbs 15:6



I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved.
- Genesis 32:30

No man hath seen God at any time.
- John 1:18



The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father.
- Ezekiel 18:20

... I the lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of
the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth
generation.
- Exodus 20:5



Happy is the man that findeth wisdom, and the man that getteth
understanding.
- Proverbs 3:13

For in much wisdom is much grief; and he that increaseth
knowledge increaseth sorrow.
- Ecclesiastes 1:18



The Lord is good to all.
- Psalm 145:6

I make peace and create evil. I the Lord do all these things.
- Isaiah 45:7



Whosoever shall say Thou fool, shall be in danger of hellfire.
- Matthew 5:22

[Jesus said] Ye fools and blind.
- Matthew 23:17



For all have sinned.
- Romans 3:23

There was a man... whose name was Job; and that man was perfect
and upright.
- Job 1:1



Two and twenty years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign.
- 2 Kings 8:26

Forty and two years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign.
- 2 Chronicles 22:2



If a man vow a vow unto the Lord or swear an oath... he shall do
according to all that proceedeth out of his mouth.
- Numbers 30:2

But I say unto you, swear not at all; neither by heaven... nor by
earth.
- Matthew 5:34-35



... the earth abideth forever.
- Ecclesiastes 1:4

... the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and
the works that are therein shall be burned up.
- 2 Peter 3:10



... for I am merciful, saith the Lord, and I will not keep anger
forever.
- Jeremiah 3:12

Ye have kindled a fire in mine anger, which shall burn forever.
- Jeremiah 17:4



... God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man.
- James 1:13

And it came to pass after these things, that God did tempt
Abraham.
- Genesis 22:1



And God saw everything that he made, and behold it was very good.
- Genesis 1:31

And it repented the Lord that he had made man on earth, and it
grieved him at his heart
- Genesis 6:6



For now have I chosen and sanctified this house that my name be
there forever; and mine eyes and my heart shall be there
perpetually.
- II Corinthians 7:16

Howbeit the most high dwelleth not in temples made with hands.
- Acts 7:48



[God dwells] in the light which no man can approach unto.
- I Timothy 6:16

The Lord said that he would dwell in the thick darkness.

- I Kings 8:12



And the Lord called unto Adam, and said unto him, Where art thou?
And he said, I heard thy voice in the garden, and I was afraid.
- Genesis 3:9,10

Ye hath neither heard his voice, at any time, nor seen his shape.
- John 5:37



Then went up Moses and Aaron, Nadab and Abihu, and seventy of the
elders of Israel. And they saw the God of Israel... They saw
God, and did eat and drink.
- Exodus 24: 9-11

Whom no man hath seen nor can see.
- I Timothy 6:16



With God all things are possible.
- Matthew 29:26

And the Lord was with Judah, and he drove out the inhabitants of
the mountain; but could not drive out the inhabitants of the
valley, because they had chariots of iron.
- Judges 1:19



God is not the author of confusion.
- I Corinthians 24:33

Out of the mouth of the most high proceedeth not evil and good?
- Lamentations 3:38



Those that seek me early shall find me.
- Proverbs 8:17

Then shall they call upon me but I will not answer; they shall
seek me early, but shall not find me.
- Proverbs 1:28



On the tenth day of this seventh month there shall be a day of
atonement; it shall be a holy convocation unto you; and ye shall
afflict your souls and offer an offering made by fire unto the
Lord.
- Leviticus 23:27

For I spake not unto your fathers, nor commanded them in the day
that I brought them out of the land of Egypt, concerning burnt
offering or sacrifices.
- Jeremiah 7:22



And the priest shall burn all on the altar to be a burnt
sacrifice, an offering made by fire, of a sweet savor unto the
Lord.
- Leviticus 1:9

Your burnt offering are not acceptable, nor your sacrifices sweet
unto me.
- Jeremiah 7:20



God is not a man, that he should lie
- Numbers 23:19

And if the prophet be deceived when he hath spoken a thing, I the
Lord have deceived that prophet.
- Ezekiel 24:9



There is none other God but one.
- I Corinthians 8:4

And God said, Let us make man in our image.
- Genesis 1:26



When ye go, ye shall not go empty; but every woman shall borrow
of her neighbor, and of her that sojourneth in her house, jewels
of silver and jewels of gold, and raiment; and ye shall put them
on your sons and upon your daughters; and ye shall spoil the
Egyptians.
- Exodus 3:21,22

Thou shalt not defraud thy neighbor, nether rob him.
- Leviticus 19:13



At the hand of every man's brother will I require the life of
man. Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed.
- Genesis 4:5,6

And the Lord set a mark upon Cain, lest any finding him should
kill him.
- Genesis 4:15



Consider the lilies of the field, how they grow; they toil not,
neither do they spin... if God so clothe the grass of the
field... shall he not much more clothe you? Therefore, take no
thought, saying what shall we eat? or what shall we drink? or
wherewithal shall we be clothed?... Take, therefore, no thought
for the morrow.
- Matthew 6:28, 30-34

But if any provideth not for his own, especially for those of his
own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an
infidel.
- I Timothy 5:8



Be ye angry and sin not.
- Ephesians 4:26

Be not hasty in they spirit to be angry; for anger resideth in
the bosom of fools.
- Ecclesiastes 7:9



Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good
works.
- Matthew 5:16

Take heed that ye do not your alms before men, to be seen of
them.
- Matthew 6:1



And Solomon stood before the alter of the Lord, in the presence
of all the congregation of Israel, and spread forth his hands
toward heaven...
- I Kings 7:22

When thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are; for
they love to pray standing in the synagogues, and in the corners
of the streets, that they may be seen of men...
- Matthew 6:5



And no razor shall come on his head; for the child shall be a
Nazarite unto God from the womb.
- Judges 8:5

Doth not even nature itself teach you, that if a man hath long
hair, it is a shame unto him?
- I Corinthians 6:14



Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy.
- Exodus 20:8

One man esteemeth one day above another; another esteemeth every
day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind.
- Romans 14:5



For in the six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and
all that in them is, and rested the seventh day; wherefore the
Lord blessed the Sabbath day and hallowed it.
- Exodus 20:11

And remember that thou wast a servant in the land of Egypt, and
that the Lord thy God brought the out thence through a mighty
hand and by a stretched-out arm; therefore the Lord thy God
commanded the to keep the Sabbath day.
- Deuteronomy 5:15



There is nothing unclean of itself.
- Romans 14:14

Nevertheless, these shall ye not eat, of them that chew the cud
or of them that divide the cloven hoof; as the camel and the
hare, and the coney; for they chew the cud, but divide not the
hoof, therefore they are unclean unto you. And the swine,
because it divideth the hoof, yet cheweth not the cud, it is
unclean unto you; ye shall not eat of their flesh, nor touch
their dead carcass.
- Deuteronomy 14:7,8



Cursed is he that lieth with his sister, the daughter of his
father, or the daughter of his mother.
- Deuteronomy 27:22

And Abraham said... She is my sister; she is the daughter of my
father, but not the daughter of my mother; and she became my
wife.
- Genesis 20:11,12



If brethren dwell together, and one of them die and have no
child, the wife of the dead shall not marry without unto a
stranger; her husband's brother shall go in unto her, and take
her to him to wife.
- Deuteronomy 25:5

If a man shall take his brother's wife, it is an unclean thing...
they shall be childless.
- Leviticus 20:21



He that shall blaspheme against the Holy Ghost hath never
forgiveness.
- Mark 3:29

And by him that believe are justified from all things.
- Acts 13:39



[John the Baptist] is Elias which was for to come.
- Matthew 11:14

And they asked him, what then? Art thou [John the Baptist] Elias?
And he saith, I am not.
- John 1:21



Now, after that John was put in prison, Jesus came into Galilee,
preaching the gospel of the kingdom of God.
- Mark 1:14

After these things came Jesus and his disciples into the land of
Judea... and John was also baptizing Enon... for John was not yet
cast into prison.
- John 3:22-24



And it was in the third hour, and they crucified him.
- Mark 25:3-4

And it was the preparation of the passover, and about the sixth
hour; and he saith unto the Jews, behold your king... Shall I
crucify your king?
- John 19:14-15



They gave him vinegar to drink, mingled with gall.
- Matthew 27:34

And they gave him to drink, wine mingled with myrrh.
- Mark 15:23
[Jesus was the thirsty chap in both verses.]



And the men which journeyed with [Paul] stood speechless, hearing
a voice, but seeing no man.
- Acts 9:7

And they that were with me [Paul] saw indeed the light and were
afraid; but they heard not the voice of him that spake to me.
- Acts 22:9



Abraham had two sons; one by a bonds-maid, the other by a free
woman.
- Galatians 4:22

By faith, Abraham when he was tried offered up Isaac... his only
begotten son.
- Hebrews 11:17



Therefore Michal, the daughter of Saul, had no child unto the day
of her death.
- II Samuel 6:23

The five sons of Michal, the daughter of Saul.
- II Samuel 21:8



And the anger of the Lord was kindled against Israel, and he
moved David against them to say, Go, number Israel.
- II Samuel 24:1

And Satan stood up against Israel, and provoked David to number
Israel.
- I Chronicles 21:1



All power is given unto [Jesus] in heaven and in earth.
- Matthew 28:18

And [Jesus] could there do no mighty work, save that he laid his
hands on a few sick folk and healed them.
- Mark 6:5



There shall no evil happen to the just.
- Proverbs 12:21

Whom the Lord loveth he chasteneth, and scourgeth every son whom
he receiveth.
- Hebrews 12:6

[Warham]

Originally posted by Seshmeister
No because that can be proved scientifically.

Do you think god turned around one day a hundred years ago and said fuckit I think I'll turn this wolf into a poodle for a laugh?

Actually, it hasn't been proven scientifically.

[Warham]

Originally posted by Nickdfresh
Theological doctrines:



Did you do the research Nick to see if those were indeed contradictions, or did you just copy and paste that list from some athiest's website?

I gave you an example of a 'contradiction' which really isn't.

I'm sure we could go over this list you copy and pasted one by one, if you like, to show that many of these can be easily explained with rationale thinking.

Care to do that?

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by Warham
Did you do the research Nick to see if those were indeed contradictions, or did you just copy and paste that list from some athiest's website?

I gave you an example of a 'contradiction' which really isn't.

I'm sure we could go over this list you copy and pasted one by one, if you like, to show that many of these can be easily explained with rationale thinking.

Care to do that?

Sure, they can be explained away freely by those that make excuses as to why parts of the Bible are "gospel" and others are ignored, yet it's all the "word of God."

Where do you get your Christian stuff? A cut and paste web site?

[academic punk]

So much for this thread not turning into another Bible forum...

[ELVIS]

I like how these Liberals who have a foundation in nothing, claim the Bible contradicts itself, then have nothing to back up such a claim...

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by ELVIS
I like how these Liberals who have a foundation in nothing, claim the Bible contradicts itself, then have nothing to back up such a claim...

I like how so-called "Christians" know about everybody elses' "foundations," then completely deny posted information because it doesn't fit into their literal Bible paradigm.

[ELVIS]

Let's hear about your foundation Nick...

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by ELVIS
Let's hear about your foundation Nick...

My foundation is just fine Elvis. Let's not worry about it.

[academic punk]

When we say "foundation", we are talking about "ability to get and maintain erections", right?

[ELVIS]

Originally posted by Nickdfresh
My foundation is just fine Elvis. Let's not worry about it.

Sounds pretty solid...

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by ELVIS
Sounds pretty solod...

I don't know what solod is.:D

[ELVIS]

I fixed it...

[academic punk]

Did ELVIS just threaten to toss your salad? WTF???

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by academic punk
Did ELVIS just threaten to toss your salad? WTF???

Now that would be a horrible foundation!:confused:

[ELVIS]

What do you base your life on ??

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by ELVIS
What do you base your life on ??

I base it on the oversoul! I am an American Transcendentalist!



Nature
by Ralph Waldo Emerson (1836)

A subtle chain of countless rings The next unto the farthest brings; The eye reads omens where it goes, And speaks all languages the rose; And, striving to be man, the worm Mounts through all the spires of form.

Introduction

Our age is retrospective. It builds the sepulchres of the fathers. It writes biographies, histories, and criticism. The foregoing generations beheld God and nature face to face; we, through their eyes. Why should not we also enjoy an original relation to the universe? Why should not we have a poetry and philosophy of insight and not of tradition, and a religion by revelation to us, and not the history of theirs? Embosomed for a season in nature, whose floods of life stream around and through us, and invite us by the powers they supply, to action proportioned to nature, why should we grope among the dry bones of the past, or put the living generation into masquerade out of its faded wardrobe? The sun shines to-day also. There is more wool and flax in the fields. There are new lands, new men, new thoughts. Let us demand our own works and laws and worship.

Undoubtedly we have no questions to ask which are unanswerable. We must trust the perfection of the creation so far, as to believe that whatever curiosity the order of things has awakened in our minds, the order of things can satisfy. Every man's condition is a solution in hieroglyphic to those inquiries he would put. He acts it as life, before he apprehends it as truth. In like manner, nature is already, in its forms and tendencies, describing its own design. Let us interrogate the great apparition, that shines so peacefully around us. Let us inquire, to what end is nature?

All science has one aim, namely, to find a theory of nature. We have theories of races and of functions, but scarcely yet a remote approach to an idea of creation. We are now so far from the road to truth, that religious teachers dispute and hate each other, and speculative men are esteemed unsound and frivolous. But to a sound judgment, the most abstract truth is the most practical. Whenever a true theory appears, it will be its own evidence. Its test is, that it will explain all phenomena. Now many are thought not only unexplained but inexplicable; as language, sleep, madness, dreams, beasts, sex.

Philosophically considered, the universe is composed of Nature and the Soul. Strictly speaking, therefore, all that is separate from us, all which Philosophy distinguishes as the NOT ME, that is, both nature and art, all other men and my own body, must be ranked under this name, NATURE. In enumerating the values of nature and casting up their sum, I shall use the word in both senses; -- in its common and in its philosophical import. In inquiries so general as our present one, the inaccuracy is not material; no confusion of thought will occur. Nature, in the common sense, refers to essences unchanged by man; space, the air, the river, the leaf. Art is applied to the mixture of his will with the same things, as in a house, a canal, a statue, a picture. But his operations taken together are so insignificant, a little chipping, baking, patching, and washing, that in an impression so grand as that of the world on the human mind, they do not vary the result.
<
Chapter I NATURE

To go into solitude, a man needs to retire as much from his chamber as from society. I am not solitary whilst I read and write, though nobody is with me. But if a man would be alone, let him look at the stars. The rays that come from those heavenly worlds, will separate between him and what he touches. One might think the atmosphere was made transparent with this design, to give man, in the heavenly bodies, the perpetual presence of the sublime. Seen in the streets of cities, how great they are! If the stars should appear one night in a thousand years, how would men believe and adore; and preserve for many generations the remembrance of the city of God which had been shown! But every night come out these envoys of beauty, and light the universe with their admonishing smile.

The stars awaken a certain reverence, because though always present, they are inaccessible; but all natural objects make a kindred impression, when the mind is open to their influence. Nature never wears a mean appearance. Neither does the wisest man extort her secret, and lose his curiosity by finding out all her perfection. Nature never became a toy to a wise spirit. The flowers, the animals, the mountains, reflected the wisdom of his best hour, as much as they had delighted the simplicity of his childhood.

When we speak of nature in this manner, we have a distinct but most poetical sense in the mind. We mean the integrity of impression made by manifold natural objects. It is this which distinguishes the stick of timber of the wood-cutter, from the tree of the poet. The charming landscape which I saw this morning, is indubitably made up of some twenty or thirty farms. Miller owns this field, Locke that, and Manning the woodland beyond. But none of them owns the landscape. There is a property in the horizon which no man has but he whose eye can integrate all the parts, that is, the poet. This is the best part of these men's farms, yet to this their warranty-deeds give no title.

To speak truly, few adult persons can see nature. Most persons do not see the sun. At least they have a very superficial seeing. The sun illuminates only the eye of the man, but shines into the eye and the heart of the child. The lover of nature is he whose inward and outward senses are still truly adjusted to each other; who has retained the spirit of infancy even into the era of manhood. His intercourse with heaven and earth, becomes part of his daily food. In the presence of nature, a wild delight runs through the man, in spite of real sorrows. Nature says, -- he is my creature, and maugre all his impertinent griefs, he shall be glad with me. Not the sun or the summer alone, but every hour and season yields its tribute of delight; for every hour and change corresponds to and authorizes a different state of the mind, from breathless noon to grimmest midnight. Nature is a setting that fits equally well a comic or a mourning piece. In good health, the air is a cordial of incredible virtue. Crossing a bare common, in snow puddles, at twilight, under a clouded sky, without having in my thoughts any occurrence of special good fortune, I have enjoyed a perfect exhilaration. I am glad to the brink of fear. In the woods too, a man casts off his years, as the snake his slough, and at what period soever of life, is always a child. In the woods, is perpetual youth. Within these plantations of God, a decorum and sanctity reign, a perennial festival is dressed, and the guest sees not how he should tire of them in a thousand years. In the woods, we return to reason and faith. There I feel that nothing can befall me in life, -- no disgrace, no calamity, (leaving me my eyes,) which nature cannot repair. Standing on the bare ground, -- my head bathed by the blithe air, and uplifted into infinite space, -- all mean egotism vanishes. I become a transparent eye-ball; I am nothing; I see all; the currents of the Universal Being circulate through me; I am part or particle of God. The name of the nearest friend sounds then foreign and accidental: to be brothers, to be acquaintances, -- master or servant, is then a trifle and a disturbance. I am the lover of uncontained and immortal beauty. In the wilderness, I find something more dear and connate than in streets or villages. In the tranquil landscape, and especially in the distant line of the horizon, man beholds somewhat as beautiful as his own nature.

The greatest delight which the fields and woods minister, is the suggestion of an occult relation between man and the vegetable. I am not alone and unacknowledged. They nod to me, and I to them. The waving of the boughs in the storm, is new to me and old. It takes me by surprise, and yet is not unknown. Its effect is like that of a higher thought or a better emotion coming over me, when I deemed I was thinking justly or doing right.

Yet it is certain that the power to produce this delight, does not reside in nature, but in man, or in a harmony of both. It is necessary to use these pleasures with great temperance. For, nature is not always tricked in holiday attire, but the same scene which yesterday breathed perfume and glittered as for the frolic of the nymphs, is overspread with melancholy today. Nature always wears the colors of the spirit. To a man laboring under calamity, the heat of his own fire hath sadness in it. Then, there is a kind of contempt of the landscape felt by him who has just lost by death a dear friend. The sky is less grand as it shuts down over less worth in the population.

Cont'd (http://oregonstate.edu/instruct/phl302/texts/emerson/nature-emerson-b.html#Chapter%20V)

[Nickdfresh]

I think that makes me a Unitarian.

[ELVIS]

Or a Satanist...

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by ELVIS
Or a Satanist...

Hey, some Satanists (http://hitchworld1969.com/CIRCLEofTRUST/topic.cgi?forum=8&topic=2) are very moral people aparently! Who'd a thunk it?

[ELVIS]

Doesn't matter...

[LoungeMachine]

Nick 5
Elvis 0



Damn, leave this place for a day and Nick sets the Neocon Bible Thumpers on their ear!

Well done, Nick. Damn fine work.

Damn fine work, indeed

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by LoungeMachine
Nick 5
Elvis 0



Damn, leave this place for a day and Nick sets the Neocon Bible Thumpers on their ear!

Well done, Nick. Damn fine work.

Damn fine work, indeed

Such good sport!

[academic punk]

I myself am an abolitionist.

[LoungeMachine]

Originally posted by academic punk
I myself am an abolitionist.





--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Imagine

Imagine there's no heaven,
It's easy if you try,
No hell below us,
Above us only sky,
Imagine all the people
living for today...

Imagine there's no countries,
It isnt hard to do,
Nothing to kill or die for,
No religion too,
Imagine all the people
living life in peace...

Imagine no possesions,
I wonder if you can,
No need for greed or hunger,
A brotherhood of man,
Imagine all the people
Sharing all the world...

You may say Im a dreamer,
but Im not the only one,
I hope some day you'll join us,
And the world will live as one.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Writen by: John Lennon
© Bag productions inc.



I do believe The Apostle John said it best.........
:D

[academic punk]

You are aware that some church attmpted to buy the rights to the tune back inthe 80s, and Yoko refused to sell it b/c they wanted to change the lyric to "imagine ONE religion"?

I'm not kidding.

[LoungeMachine]

Originally posted by academic punk
You are aware that some church attmpted to buy the rights to the tune back inthe 80s, and Yoko refused to sell it b/c they wanted to change the lyric to "imagine ONE religion"?

I'm not kidding.

The odassity:D


Seriously, that's been my whole beef. It seems like the most fervent religious zealots, whether they be muslim, christian, etc ALL have one thing in common.......

THEY ALL BELIEVE THEIR WAY IS THE ONLY WAY, ALL OTHERS ARE EVIL, AND EVERYONE BUT THEM ARE GOING TO HELL.

And it PISSES them off to bring this glaring fact up.:D

[academic punk]

yes. meanwhile, everyone knows the only truly saved people are the episcolpalians.

[LoungeMachine]

Originally posted by ELVIS
What do you base your life on ??

You want to know what disgusts me about people like YOU, Elvis?

Tough, I'm going to tell you anyway.

You can sit there, anD ask your smug, self righteous, rhetorical question, and any one of us could honestly answer the following.......

I/ WE base my life on the fact that ALL men are created equal, and that no man is better or worse based on his race, nationality, or beliefs

That all [viable] life is sacred, and should be respected

That we should be judged by others on how we treat the less fortunate

That we should all live our lives as if everyone were brothers. Because we are.



But the fact of the matter is, even if we said this, you'd simply roll your eyes and say it's not enough. That unless we follow what YOU believe in, we are all evil and damned........

And to that, I respectfully say......FUCK YOU

[academic punk]

LM -

is this about ELVIS' spiritual and political stance towards the lobsters? be honest.

[LoungeMachine]

Originally posted by academic punk
LM -

is this about ELVIS' spiritual and political stance towards the lobsters? be honest.

Are you mocking the plight of the Lobster?

Does this need to get ugly?


They came for the Lobster........and I did nothing:mad:



Only when the Lobsters are truly free, can there be real Peace in the Middle East.

Don't you forget that, my brother.

[academic punk]

pass the butter, indeed.

[LoungeMachine]

Originally posted by academic punk
pass the butter, indeed.

drawn......

with chilled lemon wedges :D

[LoungeMachine]

But I digest.....

[BigBadBrian]

Originally posted by Nickdfresh
I think that makes me a Unitarian.


I think it makes you an Idiot. :gulp:

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by BigBadBrian
I think it makes you an Idiot. :gulp:

Well you're forgetting something, no one gives a shit what you think fool.;)

[LoungeMachine]

Originally posted by Nickdfresh
Well you're forgetting something, no one gives a shit what you think fool.;)

:D

[BigBadBrian]

Originally posted by LoungeMachine


THEY ALL BELIEVE THEIR WAY IS THE ONLY WAY, ALL OTHERS ARE EVIL, AND EVERYONE BUT THEM ARE GOING TO HELL.

And it PISSES them off to bring this glaring fact up.:D

It doesn't piss me off...and that's basically what I believe. I could give a flying fuck if you call me a religious zealot for it or not.

One doesn't believe in their own faith with all of their heart and soul if they believe other religions are also possible.

Flame on.

[BigBadBrian]

Originally posted by Nickdfresh
Well you're forgetting something, no one gives a shit what you think fool.;)

Clever comeback. :rolleyes:

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by BigBadBrian
Clever comeback. :rolleyes:

Thanks o' theologian!:)

[LoungeMachine]

Sorry, Brie....But truth be told I wasn't even thinking of you in this regard.
Or any regard for that matter.

But if the shoe fits.....

[LoungeMachine]

Originally posted by BigBadBrian
Clever comeback. :rolleyes:

The truth works every time:D

[BigBadBrian]

Originally posted by LoungeMachine
Sorry, Brie....But truth be told I wasn't even thinking of you in this regard.
Or any regard for that matter.

But if the shoe fits.....

Good. Then don't respond to my posts. You lack the intellectual capacity to form a logical response anyway.

:gulp:

[LoungeMachine]

I shall not recover......

[ODShowtime]

Originally posted by ELVIS
I like how these Liberals who have a foundation in nothing, claim the Bible contradicts itself, then have nothing to back up such a claim...

It's about LOGIC damn it! If I'm more like spock than kirk than fuck that's where I'm at. The world should run on logic but it does not.

[ELVIS]

Originally posted by LoungeMachine
That we should be judged by others on how we treat the less fortunate



Define "less fortunate"...

..and why do you get so defensive ??

Especially when you have nothing to defend...

[ODShowtime]

Originally posted by ELVIS
why do you get so defensive ??

Especially when you have nothing to defend...

Elvis, some people can make their own way in the world without having their hand held.

[ELVIS]

For a little while...

[LoungeMachine]

Originally posted by ELVIS
Define "less fortunate"...

..and why do you get so defensive ??

Especially when you have nothing to defend...

I don't get defensive, simp. That's you.

And why bother asking for a definition??

It's just another excuse to roll your sanctimonious eyes.

If you need a definition of "less fortunate" than you're a bigger fraud than previously thought.....

[LoungeMachine]

Originally posted by ODShowtime
Elvis, some people can make their own way in the world without having their hand held.

exactly......

And others need to be led because they cannot handle life on their own.....

[Warham]

Originally posted by LoungeMachine
Nick 5
Elvis 0



Damn, leave this place for a day and Nick sets the Neocon Bible Thumpers on their ear!

Well done, Nick. Damn fine work.

Damn fine work, indeed

Nick hasn't done any fine work except for cut and pastes.

I'd like to hear some valid, thought provoking posts, instead of going to an athiest's website to do his dirty work.

You need to learn how to score.

[Warham]

If you have a problem with someone believing in Christ to be saved, I suggest you bring it up to Jesus, not to Elvis.

[DrMaddVibe]

About the whole "score" thing...didn't know there were rules for scoring? What are they? Are they the same for everyone?

If we're "scoring" opinions changed or swayed, then Nick has NEVER changed or altered a belief that I've held personally.

[academic punk]

Can we just go back to talkng abut lobsters? PLEASE??

[BigBadBrian]

Originally posted by academic punk
Can we just go back to talkng abut lobsters? PLEASE??

Not until people learn how to cook them correctly.

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by Warham
Warham hasn't done any fine work except for cut and pastes.

I'd like to hear some valid, thought provoking posts, instead of going to an Christian's website to do his dirty work.

You need to learn how to score.

[BigBadBrian]

Originally posted by Nickdfresh
Originally posted by Warham
Warham hasn't done any fine work except for cut and pastes.

I'd like to hear some valid, thought provoking posts, instead of going to an Christian's website to do his dirty work.

You need to learn how to score.

Lame. :rolleyes:

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by BigBadBrian
Lame. :rolleyes:

Truth.;)

[ELVIS]

Originally posted by Warham
If you have a problem with someone believing in Christ to be saved, I suggest you bring it up to Jesus, not to Elvis.

That's right, although I don't mind being a messenger...

BTW non-believers...

God's children cannot and will not be defeated, In the name of Jesus Christ...

I boldly put on the full armor of God - the breastplate of righteousness, the helmet of salvation, the girdle of truth, the shoes of the Gospel of peace, the shield of faith, and the sword of the spirit!


:elvis:

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by Warham
If you have a problem with someone believing in Christ to be saved, I suggest you bring it up to Jesus, not to Elvis.

I have no problem with most anyone's beliefs. It is just when they try to codefy them as absolute truth to the point they feel they have the right to a jihad, and begin playing fast and hard with logic and history.

[LoungeMachine]

Originally posted by Warham
Nick hasn't done any fine work except for cut and pastes.

I'd like to hear some valid, thought provoking posts, instead of going to an athiest's website to do his dirty work.

You need to learn how to score.

fucking priceless:D

[Seshmeister]

Originally posted by ELVIS
That's right, although I don't mind being a messenger...

BTW non-believers...

God's children cannot and will not be defeated, In the name of Jesus Christ...

I boldly put on the full armor of God - the breastplate of righteousness, the helmet of salvation, the girdle of truth, the shoes of the Gospel of peace, the shield of faith, and the sword of the spirit!


:elvis:

Don't forget the high heels of hypocrisy and the bra of bullshit...:)

[Seshmeister]

Originally posted by DrMaddVibe
It can? Part of proving science is replicating the experiments. I don't recall them making men out of pond scum, but if you want to hold onto Darwin's "theories" by all means don't jump people that believe otherwise!

The first step in demonstrating the truth of evolution is to make the claim that all living creatures must have a living parent. This point has been overwhelmingly established in the past century and a half, ever since the French scientist Louis Pasteur demonstrated how fermentation took place and thus laid to rest centuries of stories about beetles arising spontaneously out of dung or gut worms being miraculously produced from non-living material. There is absolutely no evidence for this ancient belief. Living creatures must come from other living creatures. It does no damage to this point to claim that life must have had some origin way back in time, perhaps in a chemical reaction of inorganic materials (in some primordial soup) or in some invasion from outer space. That may well be true. But what is clear is that any such origin for living things or living material must result in a very simple organism. There is no evidence whatsoever (except in science fiction like Frankenstein) that inorganic chemical processes can produce complex, multi-cellular living creatures (the recent experiments cloning sheep, of course, are based on living tissue from other sheep).

The second important point in the case for evolution is that some living creatures are very different from some others. This, I take it, is self-evident. Let me cite a common example: many animals have what we call an internal skeletal structure featuring a backbone and skull. We call these animals vertebrates. Most animals do not have these features (we call them invertebrates). The distinction between vertebrates and invertebrates is something no one who cares to look at samples of both can reasonably deny, and, so far as I am aware, no one hostile to evolution has ever denied a fact so apparent to anyone who observes the world for a few moments.

The final point in the case for evolution is this: simple animals and plants existed on earth long before more complex ones (invertebrate animals, for example, were around for a very long time before there were any vertebrates). Here again, the evidence from fossils is overwhelming. In the deepest rock layers, there are no signs of life. The first fossil remains are of very simple living things. As the strata get more recent, the variety and complexity of life increase (although not at a uniform rate). In all the countless geological excavations and inspections (for example, of the Grand Canyon), no one has ever come up with a genuine fossil remnant which goes against this general principle (and it would only take one genuine find to overturn this principle).

Well, if we put these three points together, the case for evolution is air tight. If all living creatures must have a living parent, if living creatures are different, and if simpler forms were around before the more complex forms, then the more complex forms must have come from the simpler forms (e.g., vertebrates from invertebrates). There is simply no other way of dealing reasonably with the evidence we have. Of course, one might deny (as some do) that the layers of the earth represent a succession of very lengthy epochs and claim, for example, that the Grand Canyon was created in a matter of days, but this surely violates scientific observation as much as does the claim that, say, vertebrates just, well, appeared one day out of a spontaneous combination of chemicals.

To make the claim for the truth of evolution in this way is to assert nothing about how it might occur. Darwin provides one answer (through natural selection), but others have been suggested, too (including some which see a divine agency at work in the transforming process). The above argument is intended, however, to demonstrate that the general principle of evolution is, given the scientific evidence, logically unassailable and that, thus, the concept is a law of nature as truly established as is, say, gravitation. To deny evolution (as defined here) is on the same level of logic as to deny the fact that if someone jumps off the balcony of a high rise apartment and carries no special apparatus, she will fall towards the ground. That scientific certainty makes the widespread rejection of evolution in our modern age something of a puzzle (but that's a subject for another essay). In a modern liberal democracy, of course, one is perfectly free to reject that conclusion, but one is not legitimately able to claim that such a rejection is a reasonable scientific stance.

[ELVIS]

That's bull...

The fossil record would reveal countless species in mid-evoloution...

It does not...

Fish, mammals and dinosaurs suddenly appear in the fossil record clearly disproving evoloution...

There are no transition species per se...

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by ELVIS
That's bull...

The fossil record would reveal countless species in mid-evoloution...

It does not...

Fish, mammals and dinosaurs suddenly appear in the fossil record clearly disproving evoloution...

There are no transition species per se...

That's NOT TRUE! Animals evolved into dinosaurs (for instance) and several eras of dinosaur species evolved and changed as some died out and others arose. Again, you alter or deny the evidence that doesn't fit your extremist Christian paradigm!

[Seshmeister]

Originally posted by ELVIS
That's bull...

The fossil record would reveal countless species in mid-evoloution...

It does not...

Fish, mammals and dinosaurs suddenly appear in the fossil record clearly disproving evoloution...

There are no transition species per se...

It completely does in numerous cases like in the evolution of dinosaurs into birds.

http://www.origins.tv/darwin/dinobirds2.gif

I'm only still arguing with you after my last post in case someone who has an unclosed mind is reading this.

You've just swapped one drug for another with this fundamentalist born again bullshit.

Cheers!

:gulp:

[LoungeMachine]

Arguing truth, science, logic, and facts with people who believe in burning bushes, 40 days of rain, 2 animals per in the Ark, immaculate conception, and the resurrection is pointless.

Fairy tales can come true, it can happen to you.......if you're young at heart

[ODShowtime]

Originally posted by ELVIS
That's bull...

The fossil record would reveal countless species in mid-evoloution...

It does not...

Fish, mammals and dinosaurs suddenly appear in the fossil record clearly disproving evoloution...

There are no transition species per se...

Jesus H Christ! I'm just glad someone is around here to teach your dumb ass what the fuck's really going on!

Shesh, that was a great explanation and diagram.

[academic punk]

I myself am a fan of the way lobsters evolve into a delectable half of a God-blessed and seasoned surf and turf dinner.

[DrMaddVibe]

Originally posted by ODShowtime
Jesus H Christ! I'm just glad someone is around here to teach your dumb ass what the fuck's really going on!

Shesh, that was a great explanation and diagram.

My personal favorite is that man has evolved from primates but there are still primates on the earth. If you've evolved you don't leave remanents around. You either evolve or you don't! Crocodiles, alligators, sharks and elephants are for the most part the same animal as one we'd expect to dig up bones on but low and behold...they're still in their form!

Until they actually make a guy from pond scum I'll continue to believe Darwin's "theory" is scum!

[FORD]

Originally posted by DrMaddVibe
My personal favorite is that man has evolved from primates but there are still primates on the earth. If you've evolved you don't leave remanents around. You either evolve or you don't! Crocodiles, alligators, sharks and elephants are for the most part the same animal as one we'd expect to dig up bones on but low and behold...they're still in their form!

Until they actually make a guy from pond scum I'll continue to believe Darwin's "theory" is scum!

AssVibe, I'm no Darwinist, but that has to be the single most dumbass post in this entire thread

Evolution - to whatever extent it actually exists, which is debatable - is a process of genetic mutations which occur over time. However, unless there is only one pair of such creatures on the planet, and the mutated offspring represents the only genetic blueprint which all future generations will come from, then a mutation represents a fork in the road, not a sharp turn.

So in theory one branch of primates could have begun the mutations that would eventually become humanity, while another branch of the same family of apes continued to be normal apes. One does not exclude the other at all. Even more likely would be that neither the modern human OR the modern gorilla had much in common with ancestors who lived a million years ago.

Again, it's a theory and one that would take a long time to actually transpire, but your dismissal of it was completely ridiculous.

[Warham]

Originally posted by Nickdfresh


Nice, Nick.

I asked you if you wanted to go through one by one, and you don't want to.

Why?

Because you are afraid you will be wrong, like you are on most issues.

[Warham]

Originally posted by Nickdfresh
I have no problem with most anyone's beliefs. It is just when they try to codefy them as absolute truth to the point they feel they have the right to a jihad, and begin playing fast and hard with logic and history.

Who here is trying to start a jihad?

We think the Bible is absolute truth, yes, but we are not trying to start a war.

The Bible is quite logical, Nick.

[Warham]

Originally posted by Nickdfresh
That's NOT TRUE! Animals evolved into dinosaurs (for instance) and several eras of dinosaur species evolved and changed as some died out and others arose. Again, you alter or deny the evidence that doesn't fit your extremist Christian paradigm!

Why the Missing Link Is Still Missing
The missing link - The fossil record vs.
the Charles Darwin theory of evolution

by Charles Colson



Email article to a friend
A store specializing in vintage political paraphernalia displays a campaign button that reads, "Ronald Reagan is the missing link." It's a joke that scientists can appreciate, because a century and a half after Darwin, the missing links in the fossil record are still...missing. The missing link is the big hole in Darwinism.

And a book by biologist Jeffrey Schwartz recommends ditching Darwin altogether, and looking for a new explanation of how life developed.

The standard Darwinian theory is that new species arise by the gradual accumulation of tiny mutations. The theory predicts that the fossil record will reveal hundreds of thousands of transitional fossils linking each species to the next one.

But the fossil record shows no such thing. Instead, new species appear suddenly--virtually overnight. As Schwartz puts it, fins turn into legs suddenly, without a trail of intermediate forms. Similarly, he says, "You don't see gradual evolution of feathers. You either have feathers or you don't."

Even eyes appear out of nowhere. The Darwinian idea "that an eye evolves slowly over countless generations through painstaking accumulations of tiny mutations--that's wrong," Schwartz says.

No wonder he entitles his book Sudden Origins. And no wonder he's in hot water in the scientific community. Ever since Darwin, many biologists have clung to the hope that the gaps in the fossil record would eventually be filled in, the missing links discovered. But Schwartz is saying that the gaps will never be filled in--because the missing links never existed. He urges biologists to start searching for a new theory to explain the sudden origins of organic structures.

Schwartz himself thinks that he has found such a theory based on the action of so-called "homeobox" genes--regulatory genes that switch on and off during the development of embryos. The theory is that even a small mutation in a homeobox gene at early stages of development would lead to major changes later on, as the organism grows.

But most biologists find Schwartz's theory implausible. "It seems a pretty wild hypothesis," says biologist William McGinnis. Mutations in the homeobox genes do result in drastically different forms within a species, McGinnis says, but most often these animals die or are very sick.

You see, to originate a new species by mutations would require a huge number of coordinated changes all at once. A fish that suddenly develops lungs, for example, had better develop legs at the same time or it will simply drown. A giraffe that develops a long neck must at the same time develop a specialized heart to pump blood up its long neck.

But in Schwartz's naturalistic theory, there's no directing force to coordinate all those changes, so the new forms of life would go nowhere--except to a graveyard.

Schwartz does do us a favor by pointing out the failure of Darwinism, but his substitute theory of evolution is no better. Living things exhibit levels of engineering and design that scientists are only beginning to grasp--which logically suggests that they are the creation of a great Engineer, a Divine Designer.

The theory that best fits the facts is one that starts with an intelligent cause behind the wonderful complexity of living things.

[Warham]

Originally posted by ODShowtime
Jesus H Christ! I'm just glad someone is around here to teach your dumb ass what the fuck's really going on!

Shesh, that was a great explanation and diagram.

I hope you read the article above, OD.

[Warham]

The rock strata finds (layers of buried fossils) are better explained by a universal flood than by evolution.

The Rock Strata is better explained by a universal flood than by gradual normal death of organisms over millions of years recorded in the rock as evolutionists assert. A large flood is necessary for the formation of fossils in the first place. Fossils require quick and tremendous pressure to be formed. Without this, a carcass not only could not form a fossil over time but would be eaten by scavengers or destroyed by bacteria. The circulating water of a flood (along with gravity) would cause smaller organisms to naturally bury lower and more mobile organisms, with ability to temporarily avoid the flood, would be buried close to the top for this reason. Such things as fish, which are already low in the sea, would also naturally be buried low. A universal flood has been well documented historically as having occurred. Evolutionists have used fossils in rock sediments to say that simpler organisms were at the bottom of the sediment and more complex ones were at the top. They have ignored the great inconsistencies in the finds for which a flood could account but not the evolutionary process. In fact, in some strata, a tree can be seen protruding through several layer which supposedly formed over millions of years.

The columns in the rock strata are actually made up from different regions of the world. The full rock strata is found nowhere in the world. It is made up of columns superimposed from different regions all over the world. The whole strata is 100 miles thick but there is no locality more than one mile and even this locality is the Grand Canyon. ([18], p.35)

The rock strata consists of a plethora of contradictions and reversals. Often the strata that is supposed to be old is found on top and vice versa. Often they are horizontal with one another. ([18], p.35)
"Although sometimes there may be evidences of physical disturbance (leading to faulting and holding) in these `upside down' areas, it is quite often true that they can only be revealed by an `unnatural sequence of fossils,' which means that the fossils are not found in the order presupposed by their evolutionary relationship." ([19], p.54)

Evolutionist Walter E. Lammerts reports, "The actual percentage of area showing this progressive order from the simple to the complex is surprisingly small. Indeed formations with very complex forms of life are often found resting directly on the basic granites. Furthermore, I have in my own files a list of over 500 cases that attest to a reverse order, that is, simple forms of life resting on top of more advanced types." ([19], p.54)

"In order to account for these numerous exceptions to the supposed universal order of evolutionary development as revealed in the fossiliferous rocks, theory has to be piled on top of theory. Thus, the missing ages indicated by a disconformity are explained by a supposed regional uplift and period of erosion. An inverted order of fossils is explained by a regional uplift followed by a horizontal thrust fault followed by a period of erosion, and so forth. One is reminded of Occam's Razor, the principle that cautions against any unnecessary multiplication of hypotheses to explain a given set of phenomena." ([19], p.54)

"...in various parts of the earth there are fossils of trees that protrude through several layers which indicates that these layers were deposited and formed almost simultaneously and not over millions of years..." ([22], p.28)

Rock strata is far better explained by a universal flood rather than millions of years.

"The usual order of deposition of fossils (as noted before, there are many, many exceptions to this usual order) would be such that the simpler fossils would be deposited near the bottom, and the more complex fossils near the top of each local geographic column. The hydrodynamic sorting action of moving water is quite efficient, so that each stratum would tend to contain an assemblage of fossils of similar shapes and sizes. Simple organisms, dwelling at the lower elevations, would normally also be buried at the lower elevations. More complex animals, larger and more mobile, and dwelling at higher levels, would obviously tend to be buried, if caught by the sediments at all, only at higher elevations. Very few birds, higher mammals, and especially men, would be overtaken and buried, but would usually float on the surface until consumed by scavengers or simply decomposed." ([18], p.40) For this reason as well fossil fuels could not have been created as evolutionists state they were; the animals would decompose before they would be buried over years upon years.

A catastrophe such as a universal flood is necessary for fossils to form. "Fossils of animals, for example, are formed when animals are buried quickly and under tremendous pressure so that their bones or imprint are preserved in rock. If living things are not buried quickly and under enormous pressure, they will not be fossilized. Most of the many millions of fossils in the world are found in rock which has been affected by water, and, therefore, the fossils of these animals were formed as a result of the animals being buried suddenly and quickly under tremendous water pressure." ([22], p.27)

An evolutionist geologist wrote, "A carcass after death is almost sure to be torn apart or devoured by carnivores or other scavengers, and if it escapes these larger enemies, bacteria insure the decay of all but the hard parts, and even they crumble to dust after a few years if exposed to the weather. If buried under moist sediment or standing water, however, weathering is prevented, decay is greatly reduced, and scavengers cannot disturb the remains. For these reasons burial soon after death is the most important condition favoring preservation...Water-borne sediments are so much more widely distributed than all other kinds, that they include the great majority of all fossils. Flooded streams drown and bury their victims in the shifting channel sands or in the mud of the valley floor." ([19], p.63)

"For example, there would naturally be a tendency for those sediments and organisms which occupied the lowest elevations before the flood to be buried deepest by the flood. Thus, simple marine organisms and marine sediments would tend to be buried deepest, then fishes and more complex marine creatures, then reptiles and amphibians, then mammals, and finally, man. Another factor controlling to some extent the order of deposition of the sediments and the organisms contained in them would be that of the relation between the specific gravity and the hydrodynamic drag. Each particle of material, as well as the remains of each animal, would tend to fall by gravity out of the aqueous mixture in which it was being carried. This tendency would be resisted by the hydrodynamic drag force of the water acting upward on it. The latter depends on the state of turbulence of the water and also on the shape of the object, being greatest for objects of complex shape and least for objects of streamlined shape. Thus there would be a tendency for organisms of high density and simple structure to settle out most rapidly and, therefore, to be buried deepest. This factor of hydrodynamic selectivity is often highly efficient and would tend to cause rather highly sorted sediments and fossils, with organisms of similar size and shape being buried together. A third factor which would have an important effect, so far as living organisms were concerned, would be their relative abilities to escape the onrushing flood waters by retreating to higher ground. The simpler, less mobile, smaller creatures would thus be caught and trapped first, whereas higher animals, and especially man, would often be able to retreat to the very highest points of the region before being inundated. This too would mean that most men and higher animals would never be buried at all in sediments, but would float on the surface of the waters until decomposed or destroyed by scavenger fish." ([22], p.73)

The flood would have to have been a universal one since local floods would not have produced the pressure that would be needed. ([15], p.27)

An event of a universal flood is accounted for "...by hundreds of reflections of this...great event handed down in the legends and historical records of practically all nations and tribes in the earth." ([19], p.65)

http://emporium.turnpike.net/C/cs/top.htm

[FORD]

Quoting a convicted criminal liar like Chuckie Colson probably isn't the best way to sell your case.

[Warham]

I can quote many more, FORD.

It's just the top of the strata, as the Evolutions like to say.

[LoungeMachine]

Originally posted by DrMaddVibe

Until they actually make a guy from pond scum I'll continue to believe Darwin's "theory" is scum!


See = Joe Thunder

[Jesterstar]

Originally posted by LoungeMachine
See = Joe Thunder

Lounge Machine=Fat Coco Puff Munching Fag.

[Warham]

LMAO!

[Jesterstar]

Honestly if you want to know THE TRUTH™ Humans are a Half Breed of Alien used as Slaves to destroy the planet.

You think I'm joking but I'm not.

[LoungeMachine]

Originally posted by Jesterstar
Lounge Machine=Fat Coco Puff Munching Fag.

Jesterskank = Ignorant, free loading, wannabe


Don't hate me because I'm retired and wealthy, and you'll always be mooching off daddy.


How's your big carrer coming?

Bahahahahahha

[DrMaddVibe]

Originally posted by FORD
AssVibe, I'm no Darwinist, but that has to be the single most dumbass post in this entire thread

Evolution - to whatever extent it actually exists, which is debatable - is a process of genetic mutations which occur over time. However, unless there is only one pair of such creatures on the planet, and the mutated offspring represents the only genetic blueprint which all future generations will come from, then a mutation represents a fork in the road, not a sharp turn.

So in theory one branch of primates could have begun the mutations that would eventually become humanity, while another branch of the same family of apes continued to be normal apes. One does not exclude the other at all. Even more likely would be that neither the modern human OR the modern gorilla had much in common with ancestors who lived a million years ago.

Again, it's a theory and one that would take a long time to actually transpire, but your dismissal of it was completely ridiculous.

After reading the Colson story...I'd have to say...YOUR post is the dumbest one in this thread!

[Warham]

I'm willing to engage ANYONE in a civil, mature one on one discussion of Christianity without copying and pasting, but I doubt I'll find any takers. If someone here is really willing to learn about Christ and the Bible, I'm willing and able to tell them what I have learned (you can never learn enough).

[Jesterstar]

Originally posted by LoungeMachine
Jesterskank = Ignorant, free loading, wannabe


Don't hate me because I'm retired and wealthy, and you'll always be mooching off daddy.


How's your big carrer coming?

Bahahahahahha

Just because your Mother Made 70 Bucks Stripping at the "DRoopy Pigglet" Last night doesn't mean your Rich Fatty.

The New "Career" (Check your SPelling Fatty) is comming along just fine.

[Jesterstar]

Originally posted by Warham
I'm willing to engage ANYONE in a civil, mature one on one discussion of Christianity without copying and pasting, but I doubt I'll find any takers. If someone here is really willing to learn about Christ and the Bible, I'm willing and able to tell them what I have learned (you can never learn enough).

I'll talk to you about it. I have alot of christian Friends. But only if I can talk about real Satanism. Not that shit that the governement is into.

[Warham]

Government is into?

You mean like using Masonic symbols in all their architecture?

[Jesterstar]

Originally posted by Warham
Government is into?

You mean like using Masonic symbols in all their architecture?

the Masons are a a bit ignorant at the lower Degree's. It's the 33erd and higher that are more involved in the Illumnatti agenda. But those symbols are are very signifigant and I'll give you a gold STAR for paying attention.

[Warham]

Sure, the lower order is unaware of what most of those initiation rites and rituals really mean.

You agree with me that it is demonic, right?

[DrMaddVibe]

No man can serve two masters.

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by Warham
Why the Missing Link Is Still Missing
The missing link - The fossil record vs.
the Charles Darwin theory of evolution

by Charles Colson

An article no doubt completely rejected by mainstream science, and one you "cut and paste" from a Creationist web site.

-No Creationist articles are ever submitted to scientific journals.

-No Creationist "scientists" ever attend major conferences, since they would be laughed off the podium.

The Missing link? Because one species remains elusive, that disproves the theory of Evolution? That's like saying the electromagnetism of two magnets disproves Gravity!

Several frauds and hoaxes have been perpretrated by "Creationist Scientists" in hopes of proving that men walked with dinosaurs.

As for the 'Missing Link:'

The Fossil Fallacy
Creationists' demand for fossils that represent "missing links" reveals a deep misunderstanding of science

By Michael Shermer

Nineteenth-century English social scientist Herbert Spencer made this prescient observation: "Those who cavalierly reject the Theory of Evolution, as not adequately supported by facts, seem quite to forget that their own theory is supported by no facts at all." Well over a century later nothing has changed. When I debate creationists, they present not one fact in favor of creation and instead demand "just one transitional fossil" that proves evolution. When I do offer evidence (for example, Ambulocetus natans, a transitional fossil between ancient land mammals and modern whales), they respond that there are now two gaps in the fossil record.

This is a clever debate retort, but it reveals a profound error that I call the Fossil Fallacy: the belief that a "single fossil"--one bit of data--constitutes proof of a multifarious process or historical sequence. In fact, proof is derived through a convergence of evidence from numerous lines of inquiry--multiple, independent inductions, all of which point to an unmistakable conclusion.
ADVERTISEMENT (article continues below)
We know evolution happened not because of transitional fossils such as A. natans but because of the convergence of evidence from such diverse fields as geology, paleontology, biogeography, comparative anatomy and physiology, molecular biology, genetics, and many more. No single discovery from any of these fields denotes proof of evolution, but together they reveal that life evolved in a certain sequence by a particular process.

One of the finest compilations of evolutionary data and theory since Charles Darwin's On the Origin of Species is Richard Dawkins's magnum opus, The Ancestor's Tale: A Pilgrimage to the Dawn of Evolution (Houghton Mifflin, 2004)--688 pages of convergent science recounted with literary elegance. Dawkins traces numerous transitional fossils (what he calls "concestors," the last common ancestor shared by a set of species) from Homo sapiens back four billion years to the origin of heredity and the emergence of evolution. No single concestor proves that evolution happened, but together they reveal a majestic story of process over time.

We know evolution happened because of a convergence of evidence.

Consider the tale of the dog. With so many breeds of dogs popular for so many thousands of years, one would think there would be an abundance of transitional fossils providing paleontologists with copious data from which to reconstruct their evolutionary ancestry. In fact, according to Jennifer A. Leonard, an evolutionary biologist then at the Smithsonian Institution's National Museum of Natural History, "the fossil record from wolves to dogs is pretty sparse." Then how do we know whence dogs evolved? In the November 22, 2002, Science, Leonard and her colleagues report that mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) data from early dog remains "strongly support the hypothesis that ancient American and Eurasian domestic dogs share a common origin from Old World gray wolves."

In the same issue, molecular biologist Peter Savolainen of the Royal Institute of Technology in Stockholm and his colleagues note that even though the fossil record is problematic, their study of mtDNA sequence variation among 654 domestic dogs from around the world "points to an origin of the domestic dog in East Asia" about 15,000 years before the present from a single gene pool of wolves.

Finally, anthropologist Brian Hare of Harvard University and his colleagues describe in this same issue the results of a study showing that domestic dogs are more skillful than wolves at using human signals to indicate the location of hidden food. Yet "dogs and wolves do not perform differently in a nonsocial memory task, ruling out the possibility that dogs outperform wolves in all human-guided tasks," they write. Therefore, "dogs' social-communicative skills with humans were acquired during the process of domestication."

No single fossil proves that dogs came from wolves, but archaeological, morphological, genetic and behavioral "fossils" converge to reveal the concestor of all dogs to be the East Asian wolf. The tale of human evolution is divulged in a similar manner (although here we do have an abundance of fossils), as it is for all concestors in the history of life. We know evolution happened because innumerable bits of data from myriad fields of science conjoin to paint a rich portrait of life's pilgrimage.

Michael Shermer is publisher of Skeptic (www.skeptic.com) and author of The Science of Good and Evil.

[Warham]

Microevolution happened, sure.

I don't agree Macroevolution happened.

When scientists are able to take inorganic substances and convert them to organic substances, or to show such a thing happening, I will convert.

I doubt that will ever happen.

I only cut and paste because you do, Nick.

When you feel you want to get away from the security blanket, I'll gladly stop doing it.

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by Warham
I'm willing to engage ANYONE in a civil, mature one on one discussion of Christianity without copying and pasting, but I doubt I'll find any takers. If someone here is really willing to learn about Christ and the Bible, I'm willing and able to tell them what I have learned (you can never learn enough).

You just copied and pasted an article! WTF??

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by Warham
Microevolution happened, sure.

I don't agree Macroevolution happened.

When scientists are able to take inorganic substances and convert them to organic substances, or to show such a thing happening, I will convert.

Scientists don't have billions of years to replicate things in a lab.


I doubt that will ever happen.

I only cut and paste because you do, Nick.

You've always cut and pasted! Always! You make love to Google!

When you feel you want to get away from the security blanket, I'll gladly stop doing it.

I'm not asking you to do anything except to stop being a flaming hypocrite.

[Jesterstar]

Originally posted by Warham
Sure, the lower order is unaware of what most of those initiation rites and rituals really mean.

You agree with me that it is demonic, right?

MAsons are Luciferian. The NWO and all the men in Boheimains Mens club are all luciferian. It's a Illuminatti concept at least as far as the Bible goes. They beleive that Satan because he was willing to give Adam and Eve the Knowledge that God was hiding from them as the Bringer of light and Illumination or Intellegence as interperted by them. Lucifer is their master.

Pure and True Satanism as conceived by Anton Lavey in my mind is a brilliant relegeion and has nothing to do with what higher level masons and illuminatti are involved in.

[LoungeMachine]

Originally posted by Jesterstar
Just because your Mother Made 70 Bucks Stripping at the "DRoopy Pigglet" Last night doesn't mean your Rich Fatty.

The New "Career" (Check your SPelling Fatty) is comming along just fine.


your

you're

we've covered this nimrod.

You calling out a typo on me is hilarious. You spell at a third grade level, and are proud of it.:rolleyes:

Mama Jokes?

Go back to the dump and "owning" men and wishing they'd blow you, fucknut.

Or go play your shitty acoustic some more and see if you can finally get from C to G without looking:D

[Jesterstar]

Originally posted by LoungeMachine
your

you're

we've covered this nimrod.

You calling out a typo on me is hilarious. You spell at a third grade level, and are proud of it.:rolleyes:

Mama Jokes?

Go back to the dump and "owning" men and wishing they'd blow you, fucknut.

Or go play your shitty acoustic some more and see if you can finally get from C to G without looking:D

Jesterstar does what he wants to do. He's a Profit and I channel him. Wake up dude. I'm going to take so much more risk than you. WAit till you see what I got for THE STAR FANS on the net. Because they've been waiting for it. That is fact. End of story.

[LoungeMachine]

Originally posted by Warham
I'm willing to engage ANYONE in a civil, mature one on one discussion of Christianity without copying and pasting, but I doubt I'll find any takers. If someone here is really willing to learn about Christ and the Bible, I'm willing and able to tell them what I have learned (you can never learn enough).

No you're not.

What you ARE willing to do is listen ONLY to what you believe already.

I'll tell you what is funny about this whole thread.

You right wing thumpers believe that you follow the ONLY way, and that ALL others are evil and going to hell.

Yet here you are, wasting all of this time and energy on us, knowing full well that you have heaven and 27 virgins waiting for you, and we're all going to hell for all eternity.

Why if you are so certain of this, are you bothering with a couple of kooks on a God Damn DLR message Board???:confused:

I mean seriously, why bother?

It sure seems to get under your skin to have anyone even bring up comparisons to other extremists, or other beliefs and theories.

Perhaps you're not as certain as you wish us to believe;)

[LoungeMachine]

Originally posted by Jesterstar
Jesterstar does what he wants to do. He's a Profit and I channel him. Wake up dude. I'm going to take so much more risk than you. WAit till you see what I got for THE STAR FANS on the net. Because they've been waiting for it. That is fact. End of story.

Profit???????

do you mean Prophet ????????



Profit is what you'll never make.

And speaking in the third person RAMTHA is more proof you're a fucking worthless troll.


You suck. You have no talent.

Go pracitice.

And get a real job and buy a real guitar:rolleyes: You're too old to ask daddy.

[Jesterstar]

Loungemachine It's nice to see you've taken so much time away from your Special blend of Frosted Flakes, Coco Puffs and Cookie Crisp Cerial to respond to me. I know that Eating Suger Frosted Cooked MoistGrain gives you something to get that 2 inces of love that you Threaten Teenage Boys on the net with in Cyber Chat rooms.

Your a fag and will never have one of the two testicals I have you bitch.

[LoungeMachine]

Originally posted by Jesterstar


Your a fag and will never have one of the two testicals I have you bitch.

I take that back......2nd. grade level at best:D

Don't fear education. :D

[Jesterstar]

Originally posted by LoungeMachine
I take that back......2nd. grade level at best:D

Don't fear education. :D

I school you everytime I fucking own you Fat Trailor Prisoner ass.

[academic punk]

Is there some basis to the fat jokes here?

He's calling you stupid, broke, and dependent, and all you've got is fat jokes?

[Jesterstar]

Originally posted by academic punk
Is there some basis to the fat jokes here?

He's calling you stupid, broke, and dependent, and all you've got is fat jokes?


Because I ain't any of those things. Why argue points that are false. My REAL LIFE is going to be up on the net. Real Film of me living my life. Doing my things and Providing the entertainment that I can provide.

End of story. None of you fucks can even come close to this. You haven't and you won't. Owned.

[LoungeMachine]

Originally posted by academic punk
Is there some basis to the fat jokes here?

He's calling you stupid, broke, and dependent, and all you've got is fat jokes?

5' 10" 165 lbs.

Is that even fat at 43? I keep in good shape.

Funny thing is, he KNOWS he's stupid, broke, and dependent.

It doesn't bother him:D

He BRAGS about it:rolleyes:

Welcome to the future = Idiots on Parade

[academic punk]

oh. well, thanks for the update. now i know.

[LoungeMachine]

Originally posted by Jesterstar
Owned.

Ironic considering you rent..........

and even need help paying THAT:D

Keep reaching for the stars, Gump;)

[Jesterstar]

Originally posted by LoungeMachine
5' 10" 165 lbs.

Is that even fat at 43? I keep in good shape.

Funny thing is, he KNOWS he's stupid, broke, and dependent.

It doesn't bother him:D

He BRAGS about it:rolleyes:

Welcome to the future = Idiots on Parade

Your 4'10" and 322 pounds.

Your a FAt fuck With nothing but seamen to drink. Owned 2 times your on your way/

[LoungeMachine]

Originally posted by Jesterstar
Your 4'10" and 322 pounds.

Your a FAt fuck With nothing but seamen to drink. Owned 2 times your on your way/

Fuck, dude. Seriously.

You're just stupid. I mean actually STUPID.

I had roadies with more on the ball than you.:rolleyes:


This can't be real. NO ONE is actually THIS stupid.

[Jesterstar]

Originally posted by LoungeMachine
Fuck, dude. Seriously.

You're just stupid. I mean actually STUPID.

I had roadies with more on the ball than you.:rolleyes:


This can't be real. NO ONE is actually THIS stupid.

I didn't think you could be so fat. But I was wrong.

[Warham]

Originally posted by LoungeMachine
No you're not.

Yet here you are, wasting all of this time and energy on us, knowing full well that you have heaven and 27 virgins waiting for you, and we're all going to hell for all eternity.

Why if you are so certain of this, are you bothering with a couple of kooks on a God Damn DLR message Board???:confused:



I'm not here to preach, Lounge.

And I think you have us confused with Islam. There are no virgins awaiting us in heaven in Christianity.

You are right, you are kooks, especially uneducated kooks.

You like to attack the Bible, but don't know much about it.

[Jesterstar]

Originally posted by Warham
I'm not here to preach, Lounge.

And I think you have us confused with Islam. There are no virgins awaiting us in heaven in Christianity.

You are right, you are kooks, especially uneducated kooks.

You like to attack the Bible, but don't know much about it.

I know stuff about it. It's a positive message that provides alot of excellnet perceptions to live by.

[Warham]

Well, I know you at least have enough respect not to attack it outright without a decent level-headed conversation.

Thanks Jester.

[Jesterstar]

Originally posted by Warham
Well, I know you at least have enough respect not to attack it outright without a decent level-headed conversation.

Thanks Jester.

There aren't enough web pages to present the amount of layers to JESTERSTAR. I've known and researched Christianity for a long time. The Screwtape Letters is a Excellent book for anyone of any beleif.

[Seshmeister]

Originally posted by Warham
And I think you have us confused with Islam. There are no virgins awaiting us in heaven in Christianity.



No sex or booze or rock in heaven.

I think it's overated.

What are you gonna do all day?

[Jesterstar]

Originally posted by Seshmeister
No sex or booze or rock in heaven.

I think it's overated.

What are you gonna do all day?

They don't let you wear dress's in Heaven either. You SCottish Fuck./

[LoungeMachine]

Originally posted by Warham
Well, I know you at least have enough respect not to attack it outright without a decent level-headed conversation.

Thanks Jester.

By all means, 'ham....carry on your level headed discourse with Jesterstar.

If that's what you consider intelligent, I feel sorry for you:D

[Jesterstar]

Hey Fat Machine we are all on the same planet together.

[ELVIS]

Originally posted by LoungeMachine
You right wing thumpers believe that you follow the ONLY way, and that ALL others are evil and going to hell.

That's basically correct, although I wouldn't say all others are evil...

Yet here you are, wasting all of this time and energy on us, knowing full well that you have heaven and 27 virgins waiting for you, and we're all going to hell for all eternity.

Your endless lack of knowledge is amazing for being 43 years old...

You're a product of arrested development...

Why if you are so certain of this, are you bothering with a couple of kooks on a God Damn DLR message Board???:confused:

I like it here, and I was here way before you...





:elvis:

[LoungeMachine]

Fuck off ELVIS

You're a product of being an alcoholic trainwreck in need of brainwashing. Unable to handle life sober or without being told what to think.

You're also a little slow in comprehension. I never asked WHY YOU WERE HERE FUCKNUT. I ASKED WHY YOU BOTHER PEDDLING YOUR SNAKE OIL TO THOSE OF US NOT IN THE MARKET.

Arrested development? Fucking CLASSIC coming from you.

[Warham]

Originally posted by LoungeMachine
By all means, 'ham....carry on your level headed discourse with Jesterstar.

If that's what you consider intelligent, I feel sorry for you:D

Just because he picked on you doesn't mean he can't have an intelligent discourse.

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by Warham
Just because he picked on you doesn't mean he can't have an intelligent discourse.

Ongoing flamewars are not 'intelligent discourse.'

[Jesterstar]

I guess I haven't shown all the Abilities that JESTERSTAR has.

[LoungeMachine]

Originally posted by Jesterstar
I guess I haven't shown all the Abilities that JESTERSTAR has.

All ?

try ANY

[LoungeMachine]

Originally posted by Warham


And I think you have us confused with Islam.


Thanks for pointing that out. The distinctions have been getting muddy lately.

[LoungeMachine]

Originally posted by Jesterstar
Jesterstar does what he wants to do. He's a Profit and I channel him. Wake up dude. I'm going to take so much more risk than you. WAit till you see what I got for THE STAR FANS on the net. Because they've been waiting for it. That is fact. End of story.

The ability to make me laugh is a worthy one.

I still crack up thinking about this classic post:D


He's a "Profit" in the third person no less......and he's Warpig's buddy.

Fans on the net?

Good God Almighty:rolleyes:

[Jesterstar]

Fatty Machine..........Your a Fat Loser whom won't understand it's real.

[LoungeMachine]

Originally posted by Jesterstar
Fatty Machine..........Your a Fat Loser whom won't understand it's real.

Nice try.

Is english your second language?

:D

[Jesterstar]

Originally posted by LoungeMachine
Nice try.

Is english your second language?

:D

Yes Owning your Fat Fucking String Cheese Milkshake drinking ass is my first.

[Warham]

Originally posted by Nickdfresh
Ongoing flamewars are not 'intelligent discourse.'

I don't get involved in them, Nick.

They are a waste of time.

Is that why your post count is so high?

[Warham]

Originally posted by LoungeMachine
Thanks for pointing that out. The distinctions have been getting muddy lately.

Only in a muddy mind like yours.

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by Warham
I don't get involved in them, Nick.

They are a waste of time.

Is that why your post count is so high?

I don't know, but you're on this site as much as I am. You flamed with Demoncunt for a while until he drove you off this site for like three months. Maybe I'll stop posting for a couple weeks, and let you get your self-esteem back.

[Warham]

No, I wasn't gone that long, Nick. I think you spend so much time on here, you lose track of it. I was gone about 5 weeks. It was a well-needed vacation. I have at least proved I can go without this site and not have withdrawals.

I never flamed with cunt. I had an intelligent discourse with him. Of course, he would have none of it. Speaking of somebody disappearing, where is he at?

Your posts actually make me laugh, because you are so silly in the head.

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by Warham
No, I wasn't gone that long, Nick. I think you spend so much time on here, you lose track of it. I was gone about 5 weeks. It was a well-needed vacation. I have at least proved I can go without this site and not have withdrawals.

I never flamed with cunt. I had an intelligent discourse with him. Of course, he would have none of it. Speaking of somebody disappearing, where is he at?/quote]

You never flamed with Cunt? HA! You fought with him constantly.

I don't know where he went too, it wasn't my turn to watch him.

[quote]Your posts actually make me laugh, because you are so silly in the head.

If they're so funny, why are getting personal all of a sudden, actually, you seem pretty pissed.

[Warham]

I'm not pissed. I'm actually smiling most of the time I post here.

It may seem that way, but I am a good amateur actor as well as a sage of politics.

[4moreyears]

Al Qaeda - whatever they are in reality - was created by the BCE/CIA.

I would love to hear your theory on this.

JH

[FORD]

Originally posted by 4moreyears
I would love to hear your theory on this.

JH

It's no theory, it's reality. Al Qaeda evolved from the Mujahadeen which George Bush Sr's CIA trained, armed, and funded to fight the Soviets in Afghanistan. He chose his old friend of the family Osama Bin Laden (CIA alias "Tim Osman") to lead the operation.

You can make a reasonable argument for or against the involvement in Afghanistan, but there's no question that's where Al Qaeda started.

[Seshmeister]

Originally posted by Warham
The rock strata finds (layers of buried fossils) are better explained by a universal flood than by evolution.

The Rock Strata is better explained by a universal flood than by gradual normal death of organisms over millions of years recorded in the rock as evolutionists assert. A large flood is necessary for the formation of fossils in the first place. Fossils require quick and tremendous pressure to be formed. Without this, a carcass not only could not form a fossil over time but would be eaten by scavengers or destroyed by bacteria. The circulating water of a flood (along with gravity) would cause smaller organisms to naturally bury lower and more mobile organisms, with ability to temporarily avoid the flood, would be buried close to the top for this reason. Such things as fish, which are already low in the sea, would also naturally be buried low. A universal flood has been well documented historically as having occurred. Evolutionists have used fossils in rock sediments to say that simpler organisms were at the bottom of the sediment and more complex ones were at the top. They have ignored the great inconsistencies in the finds for which a flood could account but not the evolutionary process. In fact, in some strata, a tree can be seen protruding through several layer which supposedly formed over millions of years.

The columns in the rock strata are actually made up from different regions of the world. The full rock strata is found nowhere in the world. It is made up of columns superimposed from different regions all over the world. The whole strata is 100 miles thick but there is no locality more than one mile and even this locality is the Grand Canyon. ([18], p.35)

The rock strata consists of a plethora of contradictions and reversals. Often the strata that is supposed to be old is found on top and vice versa. Often they are horizontal with one another. ([18], p.35)
"Although sometimes there may be evidences of physical disturbance (leading to faulting and holding) in these `upside down' areas, it is quite often true that they can only be revealed by an `unnatural sequence of fossils,' which means that the fossils are not found in the order presupposed by their evolutionary relationship." ([19], p.54)

Evolutionist Walter E. Lammerts reports, "The actual percentage of area showing this progressive order from the simple to the complex is surprisingly small. Indeed formations with very complex forms of life are often found resting directly on the basic granites. Furthermore, I have in my own files a list of over 500 cases that attest to a reverse order, that is, simple forms of life resting on top of more advanced types." ([19], p.54)

"In order to account for these numerous exceptions to the supposed universal order of evolutionary development as revealed in the fossiliferous rocks, theory has to be piled on top of theory. Thus, the missing ages indicated by a disconformity are explained by a supposed regional uplift and period of erosion. An inverted order of fossils is explained by a regional uplift followed by a horizontal thrust fault followed by a period of erosion, and so forth. One is reminded of Occam's Razor, the principle that cautions against any unnecessary multiplication of hypotheses to explain a given set of phenomena." ([19], p.54)

"...in various parts of the earth there are fossils of trees that protrude through several layers which indicates that these layers were deposited and formed almost simultaneously and not over millions of years..." ([22], p.28)

Rock strata is far better explained by a universal flood rather than millions of years.

"The usual order of deposition of fossils (as noted before, there are many, many exceptions to this usual order) would be such that the simpler fossils would be deposited near the bottom, and the more complex fossils near the top of each local geographic column. The hydrodynamic sorting action of moving water is quite efficient, so that each stratum would tend to contain an assemblage of fossils of similar shapes and sizes. Simple organisms, dwelling at the lower elevations, would normally also be buried at the lower elevations. More complex animals, larger and more mobile, and dwelling at higher levels, would obviously tend to be buried, if caught by the sediments at all, only at higher elevations. Very few birds, higher mammals, and especially men, would be overtaken and buried, but would usually float on the surface until consumed by scavengers or simply decomposed." ([18], p.40) For this reason as well fossil fuels could not have been created as evolutionists state they were; the animals would decompose before they would be buried over years upon years.

A catastrophe such as a universal flood is necessary for fossils to form. "Fossils of animals, for example, are formed when animals are buried quickly and under tremendous pressure so that their bones or imprint are preserved in rock. If living things are not buried quickly and under enormous pressure, they will not be fossilized. Most of the many millions of fossils in the world are found in rock which has been affected by water, and, therefore, the fossils of these animals were formed as a result of the animals being buried suddenly and quickly under tremendous water pressure." ([22], p.27)

An evolutionist geologist wrote, "A carcass after death is almost sure to be torn apart or devoured by carnivores or other scavengers, and if it escapes these larger enemies, bacteria insure the decay of all but the hard parts, and even they crumble to dust after a few years if exposed to the weather. If buried under moist sediment or standing water, however, weathering is prevented, decay is greatly reduced, and scavengers cannot disturb the remains. For these reasons burial soon after death is the most important condition favoring preservation...Water-borne sediments are so much more widely distributed than all other kinds, that they include the great majority of all fossils. Flooded streams drown and bury their victims in the shifting channel sands or in the mud of the valley floor." ([19], p.63)

"For example, there would naturally be a tendency for those sediments and organisms which occupied the lowest elevations before the flood to be buried deepest by the flood. Thus, simple marine organisms and marine sediments would tend to be buried deepest, then fishes and more complex marine creatures, then reptiles and amphibians, then mammals, and finally, man. Another factor controlling to some extent the order of deposition of the sediments and the organisms contained in them would be that of the relation between the specific gravity and the hydrodynamic drag. Each particle of material, as well as the remains of each animal, would tend to fall by gravity out of the aqueous mixture in which it was being carried. This tendency would be resisted by the hydrodynamic drag force of the water acting upward on it. The latter depends on the state of turbulence of the water and also on the shape of the object, being greatest for objects of complex shape and least for objects of streamlined shape. Thus there would be a tendency for organisms of high density and simple structure to settle out most rapidly and, therefore, to be buried deepest. This factor of hydrodynamic selectivity is often highly efficient and would tend to cause rather highly sorted sediments and fossils, with organisms of similar size and shape being buried together. A third factor which would have an important effect, so far as living organisms were concerned, would be their relative abilities to escape the onrushing flood waters by retreating to higher ground. The simpler, less mobile, smaller creatures would thus be caught and trapped first, whereas higher animals, and especially man, would often be able to retreat to the very highest points of the region before being inundated. This too would mean that most men and higher animals would never be buried at all in sediments, but would float on the surface of the waters until decomposed or destroyed by scavenger fish." ([22], p.73)

The flood would have to have been a universal one since local floods would not have produced the pressure that would be needed. ([15], p.27)

An event of a universal flood is accounted for "...by hundreds of reflections of this...great event handed down in the legends and historical records of practically all nations and tribes in the earth." ([19], p.65)

http://emporium.turnpike.net/C/cs/top.htm




LMFAO!

[Redballjets88]

the point is FORD is dillusional plus the only thing gerald ford was good at was playing center for michigan in the 40's

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by Redballjets88
the point is FORD is dillusional plus the only thing gerald ford was good at was playing center for michigan in the 40's

Huh?

[Warham]

Originally posted by Seshmeister
LMFAO!

What are you laughing at?

Besides, didn't I post that article eight to nine months ago?

[FORD]

I swear to God and/or Alan that these fucking threads should just drop off and die after so many weeks of inactivity. This necro-posting is mostly useless.

[scam failin]

warham,exactly as i was thinking the other day."it's" roots go all the way back to egypt/babylon.LOVE BUILT THE PYRAMIDS.and that understanding, THAT POWER and knowledge/awareness, ursurped from LOVE i believe was incorparated into another system which through various reasons was scattered into other groups, religions"christianity", ways of being.the "roots"of what we perceive today as the illuminati/zionist/masons___________fill in the blank, IS LIKE THE TERMINATOR 2 MOVIE WHERE THE COP FROM THE FUTURE MELTS FROM THE HEAT AND COMES BACK TOGETHER FROM THE DRY ICE.ALL THESE GROUPS OF TODAY ARE FINALLY COMING BACK TO TOGETHER TO REINSTATE WHAT WAS ESTABLISHED IN ANCIENT BABYLON.ford is right on too.we can stop this but we would have to have the same thing,only in reverse, what these formations have.......................LOVE.and only extremely few really have love within........true POWER.i gave my all and tried to do this with my brother in merica.but all had fear and would not, refused to give their all toward what they knew was right what they knew was the end of the world and the beginning of a new one.FOR THE LOVE OF MANY WILL GROW COLD IN THE LAST DAYS.

[4moreyears]

Originally posted by FORD
I swear to God and/or Alan that these fucking threads should just drop off and die after so many weeks of inactivity. This necro-posting is mostly useless.

Don't you want anyone to realize how fucking stupid you were 4 or 5 months ago?