Down to the Rapture

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(windstrings @ Feb 27 2007, 06:22 PM) [snapback]397579[/snapback]</div>

I'm relieved to hear it, Windstrings, I was concerned about your personal ethics when you earlier flatly declared NO, one can't be moral without the bible. And when you railed away at the evil of homosexual love, I believed your ethics to be shabby - to openly condemn expressions of love as you did has always struck me as profoundly immoral and unethical.

But even you admit the bible is superfluous to knowing right from wrong, which can be said to be the core of what morality is. Thank you for acknowledging such an obvious and important point: it IS possible to be moral and decent for decency's sake alone.

In fact, as Schmika has repeatedly and vehemently insisted in many of these threads, moral conduct counts for nothing in god's book. It's a big zero no matter how many lives you save, no matter how generous and altruistic you are. Nope, the key to heaven is belief only, nothing more nor less, and with belief even Pol Pot, Hitler, Genghis Khan, all the 9/11 hijackers and the Marquis deSade are consorting pleasantly with the angels in heaven.

So knowing right from wrong HAS to come from something other than devotion to god, as you so plainly state above.

Again, thanks for making the point so succinctly and clearly.

Mark Baird
Alameda CA

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(desynch @ Feb 27 2007, 02:28 PM) [snapback]397482[/snapback]</div>

I don't think this is true. I understand the idea that religious differences are a source of conflict, primarily in the Muslim world today (and in western culture for a brief period in history), but the deadliest wars ... such as the deadliest war in history, WWII ... were not fought over religious issues at all.

What happens in nearly every war is that the state uses the power of religion or patriotism to encourage the soldiers, and that is misinterpreted as being "about religion". But there are very few wars in the last 200 years that were fought because of religion.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(windstrings @ Feb 27 2007, 10:38 PM) [snapback]397591[/snapback]</div>

That is my beef with liberals. When you've got someone threatening your way of life, you must stop them. Ignoring them won't help it or make it better. There is a time for diplomacy and a time for war. Diplomacy doesn't work with Fundamentalist Muslims that want to kill you because their doctrine instructs them to.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(airportkid @ Feb 27 2007, 07:21 PM) [snapback]397472[/snapback]</div>

Hear hear!

TJ Maher


(I have a cousin that gets more hate mail then I ever do, and Bill doesn't stop using his name.)

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(loveit @ Feb 27 2007, 09:05 AM) [snapback]397132[/snapback]</div>

Indeed it does, lovittoomuchwithoutaname.


<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(priusguy04 @ Feb 27 2007, 09:44 AM) [snapback]397138[/snapback]</div>

Yes, yes it does say something. It says that I have something in common with them: I hate religion too. Mucks it all up, religion does. More harm is done in the name of religion then a lot of other things.

It also says that I have something else in common with them: A willingness to think outside the Bible, on many issues.


<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daronspicher @ Feb 27 2007, 11:20 AM) [snapback]397155[/snapback]</div>

No, mine says this:

Title: The Message: The Bible in Contemporary Language
Edition: Third
Copyright: © 2002 by Eugene H. Peterson. All rights reserved.
Author: Peterson, Eugene H.
Publisher: NavPress Publishing
Publisher Location: Colorado Springs, Colorado

Matthew 28:19 –Matthew 28:20 (TMSG)
Go out and train everyone you meet, far and near, in this way of life, marking them by baptism in the threefold name: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
Then instruct them in the practice of all I have commanded you. I’ll be with you as you do this, day after day after day, right up to the end of the age.â€


<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daronspicher @ Feb 27 2007, 11:20 AM) [snapback]397155[/snapback]</div>

Where your heart is, is where your soul is.


If your soul is with God, your heart is there as well. If your soul is not with God, your heart can't be either.


However, where my heart and soul is, is not always where yours is. Or anyone elses, for that matter.


<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Schmika @ Feb 27 2007, 11:50 AM) [snapback]397163[/snapback]</div>

Faith without works is like screen doors on a submarine.


Pointless.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(windstrings @ Feb 27 2007, 12:18 PM) [snapback]397173[/snapback]</div>

Is it morally right to put down others because they don't see your POV? We all do it, from time to time. Everyone does.


(And that scene you paint there windy...have you a secret stash of porn you aren't letting on about?)


B)


<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Dragonfly @ Feb 27 2007, 12:45 PM) [snapback]397189[/snapback]</div>

Thanks. We need more people like you. Willing to talk with others, despite a difference in opinion.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(windstrings @ Feb 27 2007, 01:09 PM) [snapback]397201[/snapback]</div>

Well, we all get into each other business, as a matter of daily living. HOWEVER, I will not tell anyone, bug anyone, disturb anyone who asks me to back off.

In other words, if I am talking about God, and all, and that person has no desire to talk about God, fine and dandy.

'For they have ears and don't listen', is a good way of putting it. Look. I get it. I know that speaking out about god is not too cool for a lot of people. And I know a thing or two about being able to put up or shut up. I once had this big man, who when he found out I was preacher, said to me, 'If I punch your face on the left side, what will you do?' and I answered, 'Offer you the right side.' So he rears back his fist, and wallops me. I fall to the floor, and some other people at the bar, help pick me up. I stand there, bleeding, and he rears back his hand, and wallops me on the other side. I once again get up, and stand there. Now he rears back again, and this time, I stop his hand. He says, 'I thought you were going to turn the other cheek. ' I said to him, as I turned his hand down in a move I learned while I was in the NAVY, and as he fell to the floor, in pain, I said, 'I turned the other cheek, but the Lord did not raise me to be a fool. '

I let go. He got up. The people at the bar, they laughed, and applauded my courage. The guy left. I stood around, and preached on the Good News for over two hours, while I held some ice to my face. The guy came back, with some buddies, and this time, the others in the bar, defended me. Atheists, and Christians both, stood up for me. One said that I had reached him, with my actions. They spoke louder then words.

I am a street preacher. I do this. So in a way, I do disturb people. Into thinking for themselves. One has to sometimes throw down a bushel full of seeds, in order for one to grow.

Acts 18:9-10

One night Christ spoke to Paul in a dream: “Keep it up, and don’t let anyone intimidate or silence you. No matter what happens, I’m with you and no one is going to be able to hurt you. You have no idea how many people I have on my side in this.


Words I live by.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(windstrings @ Feb 27 2007, 01:09 PM) [snapback]397201[/snapback]</div>

I don't want to offend anyone, but I may by accident. Can't be helped. But I won't go out of my way to offend them.


<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(windstrings @ Feb 27 2007, 01:09 PM) [snapback]397201[/snapback]</div>

No, I don't think Jesus worried about that, in a sense, but I do think He did not want to alienate people too much either. It's a balancing act.

I am not afraid to get into other's business, but I do try to be courteous.

And I do get persecuted, often by those who say they are 'Christians'. In fact, I would say that I rock their little life boat, and they would wish me to drown with the sharks, so they can live.


<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(windstrings @ Feb 27 2007, 01:37 PM) [snapback]397212[/snapback]</div>

Matthew 10:34 –Matthew 10:39
“Don’t think I’ve come to make life cozy. I’ve come to cut—not cut like a knife like Bryan Adams, but to cut-cut through these crazy times and free you for God.

If you prefer father or mother over me, you don’t deserve me. If you prefer son or daughter over me, you don’t deserve me. Which is saying, that I am what you dig first, then family.
If you don’t go all the way with me, through thick and thin, you don’t deserve me. Which means, man, stick with me. I'm worth it.

If your first concern is to look after yourself, you’ll never find yourself. But if you forget about yourself and look to me, you’ll find both yourself and me. Ain't that cool? I think it is.

===========

I like my version better.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(windstrings @ Feb 27 2007, 01:37 PM) [snapback]397212[/snapback]</div>

True, idiots do abound. But come on. I asked for FIRST names, or at least I thought I did. Anyway, that would have been enough, and as I pointed out, to piousguy04 I think it was, any name would have worked, and who would have cared? It's not like there is anyway I can prove your name is what you say it is.

It's just a way to have a point of reference, a way to stand behind your beliefs. If you can't here, then what do you do in the real world? Do you never bring up your zealous faith with others then?

I even put my last name out there. It's not too hard to find anyway. And I have had the nut or two try to do stupid nice person stuff to me, and I suppose I will again. It's a bit scary, the Wacky World Web, but you know, I could get shot randomly in my world. I spend time in Miami, in less then desirable neighborhoods, speaking about Christ. SO, I have to Fully Rely On God there.

Or I could get hit by the bus today. No one knows when it's time to check out, or when stupid things will happen. I'm not asking for banking numbers, or phone numbers...but first names? Sheesh. I know Mark's full name. Yet I don't know many, if any, of the names of the True Believers here, which I think goes a long way to showing how fragile their beliefs are.

Stand up, and be counted, or be left out of the count.

 

We agree? Is that a sign of the End Times?

:lol:
(BTW, thanks for switching to the NKJV...easier to read. It might surprise you I study with that version more often then not).

 

Has anyone else noticed, that it appears only 5% out of 100% posters on all threads acually post their real names on PC.. I guess by your statement anyone on PC that doesnt post thier real names are cowards and their stances are rickity THATS 95% of the members of PC... Dude thats weak...

OMG, I can not believe the two of you are @$#%^&*) whining, because I wont give you my name.
There are plenty of people here that would rather not say their real names, for Privacy & security reasons..
If someone wants to put their personal info out here on the net, more power to them. Not me baby..
I could tell you my first name, 'Fred' but that wouldn't suffice as then you would just say I made it up.
I find it very childish to say the least, to call people names because they wont give you thier name ..

I'll just go back over here, and pway wif my JJ the jetplane airpanes

Mark Birdy
Crystal River Fl.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(airportkid @ Feb 27 2007, 09:24 PM) [snapback]397612[/snapback]</div>

I know you don't realize it, but you are an extremly mixed up person.

David and Jonathan were the best of friends.. the bible says they loved each other above the love of a woman.... meaning it was deeper and more commited than the marriage bond.

But they were not Gay.

There is a difference in love and lust..... I don't know if you ever grew out of your 15yr old adolescent yet or not, but they are not the same.... I'm sorry you have never had love demonstrated to you.

When someone loves thier little daughter and then has sex with her, the love is perverted and overtaken by perverted lust... there is no difference between that and homosexualism other than that society accepts the latter as two concenting adults and its not against the law, but before God and when weighing whats right and wrong, there is no difference.

The Devil has successfully perverted love through Fatherless families and children with perverted Fathers and even Priest that so many have no clue what pure affection is like.

If you love a man and have no affinity for sex too, that beautiful, if you have to have sex with him, thats perversion and substitution of a man for a woman..... there is no thin line between that and using an animal for sex.... both are demonstrations of revelling in lust and satisfaction of perverted affection.

Love gives and delights in the other benifiting.. even if its at a loss to yourself.
Lust takes and resents the other being satisfied unless you are also or first satisfied.

One gives energy, the other takes.

So many relationships are a lust/lust or take/take relationship, instead of give/give.

This is scary,.... truely Jesus said in the last days, right before his coming, evil would be as it was in the days of sodom and gomorrah... thats so hard to believe.. but I hear it right here on this forum and I'm beginning to see it on TV... men kissing men and women kissing women right on national TV endorsed by all the other perverts in Hollywoood!

Indeed we live in a perverted time and this is a perverted generation.. a byproduct of the liberal hippie era.

Peace and love brother.. oh and by the way.. let me have sex with your wife and you can have mine and my friends!... now.. lets make it a family thing and invite the kids!
And if we don't have a wife, we'll just use each other!...anything to get off!...maybe a hampster or two for an added spice?

Gays don't talk openly about what they do in secret yet.. but thats coming too.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lord%27s_Resistance_Army

 

loveit,

I based my last post on this > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Hitler%...dhood_and_youth I'm aware of Wikipedia is online and is imperfect, but this seems a reliable account of his religious upbringing. His reference to a "1000 Year Reich" was a very twisted vision of the Millenium in Revelations. The link I just mentioned, he exploited religion for his own evil purposes.

More in dispute is his ethnic background. He definitely was concerned by his actions he might have some Jewish background, and I've heard opposing viewpoints of whether it was actually so ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hitler#Childhood_and_heritage )

I am concerned with the Muslims that consider bin Laden a folk hero and support this jihad, but I believe there are many that do not agree with him.

Back to the topic at hand, I beleive Rapture will occur and it may or may not be in my lifetime. I'm in agreement with you on that and will speak at more length on that a little later.

 

Mine was based on actual historical health records which including xrays of his teeth, that fact he had severe stomach problems and took many drugs for them, and he only had one testicle. He took cyanide to commit suicide after he saw what happened to Mussolini who was drawn and quarter. He also gave his German shepherds cyanide to make sure that it would work, but then again appointed his valet to open Hitler's mouth after he took the cyanide to shoot him in the mouth to make doubly sure he had died. He definitely didn't want to fall into the hands of his enemies.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(loveit @ Feb 28 2007, 11:42 AM) [snapback]397890[/snapback]</div>

That sounds a lot like what I have read. His health was such it's doubtful he would have lived another ten years.

 

Yes, you are probably right about that.

 

And there fore, by not even giving your first name, you are indeed weak, and less of character, which when it comes to matters of spiritual talking on a thread in the middle of cyberspace: your argument is destroyed.

If you truly believe what you are saying, then the devil knows your name already, and will mess with your life already...and if you truly believe God will protect you, then you would have given your first name at the very least.

For the devil will work against those who work for God; no need to waste time on those who work with him.

As I pointed out, you could have made a name up, that no one would have doubted. Instead, you find it easy to pick an argument in cyberspace, to walk around with steel balls protected by the anomonity of it all, when in reality, you fold like a house of cards. You would not last five minutes if you had to preach on your faith to a crowd who did not believe as you do, say, in a crowded bar on the wrong side of town.

A shame, really, because for those who find my take on Christ not their liking, and prefer yours, they will find it full of holes, and not as convincing an argument.

I will try to drop this now, since it's clear on the issue of names, and allowing ones faith to be stronger then the devil, and what the devil may bring you if you share your first name, you who don't, are weak children.

Nah nah nah, I called you children! (sticks out tongue 'sppppppft!')

 

Hope the bird doesn't poop on your tongue TJ! :lol:

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(TJandGENESIS @ Feb 28 2007, 10:57 AM) [snapback]397940[/snapback]</div>

This notion of "god's protection" is troubling on several fronts. Foremost is that it makes any concept of "free will" nonsense. But let's look at it.

If there is actually "god's protection" as a working force of nature, then the level of calamity the world is currently experiencing would increase if this "protection" were to cease. Now, let's for argument's sake say the level of calamity the world is currently experiencing is at 5. That's all the disease, accident, war, crime, earthquake, etc. added up. We're at 5. One thing that's immediately obvious is that whatever "god's protection" is, it's a pretty rotten shield, full of holes. Not the sort of shield any rational person would choose. But there it is, at least we're not at some level higher than 5.

So, how much would the level of calamity increase were this threadbare, porous shield of "god's protection" removed? Just what is it "protecting" us from? Without it would disease increase by 13.49%? Without it would the accident rate increase by 15.2%? Without it would there have been TWO tsunamis in 2004 instead of 1? Without it would there have been 6 hijacked airliners on 9/11 instead of 4?

No one can answer that question, or even venture a guess. It could be that without it the level of calamity would shoot up to 500, or it would only infinitesimally notch up from 5 to 5.0000000000000000001. There's no way to know.

And one has to ask: since this "protection" is consciously targeted, it's not random, what criteria guides it? Why should Bobby Jones, age 8, be "protected" from falling out of his carelessly constructed treehouse while Assiria Reweque, age 3, gets macheted to death in Rwanda for being Hutu? Again, whatever this "protection" is, no rational human being would voluntarily stake his life on it: how it operates is too capricious, too inscrutable to be of much use.

It's FAR more useful to dissect the operations of nature we CAN investigate, and build our own, infinitely superior shields of protection. If the world today is at a calamity level of 5, the level it was at 1,000 years ago was higher - say at 100. Disease and deformity were enormous killers 1,000 years ago, and life was more brutal for the common fellow than it is today. It wasn't "god's protection" that reduced the calamity level from 100 to 5 over the last millenium, it was OUR work, mankind's godless work, that built THAT shielding. Our shield is far from perfect - we still suffer at level 5 - but it beats "god's" shield not just in effectiveness, but scrutability. We KNOW how our shields work - which means we know we can improve them, so that tomorrow we'll have brought the calamity level down to 2.5.

I said earlier no rational human being would stake his life on "god's protection". But an enormous problem is that human beings aren't always rational. A human being believing that "god's protection" is at work protecting HIM (and there's no rational basis for that belief whatsoever when tsunamis and war and disease mow down the true believers just as fatally as non-believers) might be likely to drop his guard in situations calling for prudence. He might be a bit more careless while driving - after all, "god" is protecting him. He might be a bit more careless in nutrition and exercise - "god" is protecting him. He might put himself in danger: confronting an armed adversary in a bar, or climbing up a steep cliff beyond his ability, secure that "god" is protecting him.

The graveyards must be full of corpses whose last conscious thought was horrified surprise that "god's protection" didn't kick in they way they thought it would.

Finally, there's the issue I mentioned at the beginning, free will. An intervening "god" erases any concept of "free will". Either we are free to exercise our will, for good or ill, or we aren't. Observing that the world at large is at calamity level 5, that it used to be at 100 but science and knowledge have brought it down, and continue to bring it down, but that calamity is still very much with us, the evidence is strong that we CAN exercise free will without interference from some meddling "god".

Mark Baird
Alameda CA