God told me all hell
will break loose: Pat

BY BILL HUTCHINSON
DAILY NEWS STAFF WRITER

God has dropped a bombshell on evangelist Pat Robertson. (http://www.nydailynews.com/front/story/485342p-408584c.html)

The TV preacher claims the Lord told him to expect a terrorist attack on the United States by the end of 2007 that will result in "mass killing."

"I'm not necessarily saying it's going to be nuclear," Robertson said yesterday on "The 700 Club," his long-running show on the Christian Broadcasting Network.

"The Lord didn't say nuclear. But I do believe it will be something like that," said the 76-year-old preacher and one-time presidential candidate.

Robertson said God spoke to him during his annual one-on-one prayer retreat with the Almighty.

He said God told him that major U.S. cities and millions of people will be affected by the terrorist attack, forecast to happen after September.

"The evil people will come after this country, and there's a possibility - not a possibility, a definite certainty - that chaos is going to rule," said Robertson, urging listeners to pray.

"God said he's going to restrain the evil, but he isn't necessarily going to restrain it in the beginning," Robertson said. "A lot of these things can be reversed; we just need to do a lot of praying."

Robertson's prognostications have become an annual event. Last year, he claimed that God told him the Pacific Northwest would get slammed by a tsunami.

While no tsunami struck the Pacific Northwest, record rainfall did wreak havoc on the state of Washington last year, he claimed.

"I have a relatively good track record. Sometimes I miss," Robertson said.

In January 2004, he predicted correctly that President Bush would easily win reelection.

"I put these things out with humility," Robertson said.

He sparked criticism last January by suggesting God struck then-Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon with a stroke as punishment for ceding Israeli-controlled land to the Palestinians.
================================================== ====


If ever I wish god to strike someone down where they stand, it would be Pat Robertson. What a maroon!

It is truly sad he didn't die from the cancer god was supposed to kill him by.

Hes just fear mongering his followers to make money. Same as all those other crazy evangelicals.

You have to appreciate the framing of his statement, as it is infallible. Can you see why?

If it doesn't happen, it's because we all prayed. If it does, well then it's because we didn't.

I can think of no precedent where a Christian predicted the end of the world and was proved wrong and as such am scared.

God told me all hell will break loose: Pat Robertson

The FBI should detain and investigate this evil piece of crap. Where did he get that information? certainly not from GOD. It could be some inside conspiracy, and by having him as a speaker could mean that they are already signaling the probable scapegoats (Muslims?).

If ever I wish god to strike someone down where they stand, it would be Pat Robertson. What a maroon!
It is truly sad he didn't die from the cancer god was supposed to kill him by.


Agree with you.

But he isn't dead yet, because hell is here on earth, not anywhere else. And his mission is to give "HELL" to people who listen to him.

If it doesn't happen, it's because we all prayed. If it does, well then it's because we didn't.


BINGO!

I can think of no precedent where a Christian predicted the end of the world and was proved wrong and as such am scared.

What about the book of revelations? Didn’t it correctly predict the rise of Nero, the crushing of the revolts, and the rise of the Christian nation? However, I will give you that part of it, more than likely, was written after the fact.

Christian scare tactics as usual...isn't he also the one that said God would strike him dead (or something like that) if he didn't recieve x-amount of millions for his "church"? These are the types of people that make me leary of "Christians". In my opinion, most are hypocritical, anyway.

I can think of no precedent where a Christian predicted the end of the world and was proved wrong and as such am scared.

Fear not, Blob. These words come from the mouth of a man who uses his god as a business, for his own material gain. He spoke of this same god and how he was going to kill him, and it never happened. His words are not truth.

I just wish his throngs of followers could she his scheming ways.

The FBI should detain and investigate this evil piece of crap. Where did he get that information? certainly not from GOD. It could be some inside conspiracy, and by having him as a speaker could mean that they are already signaling the probable scapegoats (Muslims?).


I agree the FBI should grab his ass, but instead throw him in a padded 4x4 cell and let him take a loooong vacation. Clearly he's insane if he thinks a god would waste it's time and speak with him.
I don't believe it's any kinda conspiracy. The muslims can't do shit to us.

Since Pat Robertson never got any of the hot dates to the prom in high school and was publicly humiliated for his severe acne back in the day, he now has to wish death upon the most of us as his supposed revenge?! Come now, Pat...that's not the way to act.

Obviously Pat's opinion has not changed since 9-13-2001, when he said that America deserved 9-11.

LOL, a moron indeed but I fear his "followers" won't see his scheming ways anytime soon. Whoever said "Religion is the opium of the people" hadn't been joking. A lot of "preachers" made money by claiming to have "talked" to God. Being Christian doesn't always mean stupidity. I'm Christian afterall.

Christian scare tactics as usual...isn't he also the one that said God would strike him dead (or something like that) if he didn't recieve x-amount of millions for his "church"?

Close, but that was "Oral" Roberts ;)

Pat Robertson isn't someone to worry much about. I think the actual thing to be concerned about are the gullible sheep that believe every word that asshole says. Or frankly the majority of religious folks.

Just the other day my mother said to me "the end is coming soon, David."
And I said "Really? Hm. Where'd you hear about that?" And she replied, shaking her head "Didn't you ever read the book of revelations??".

If I had the power to ban all religion I would do so. Then I'd have all religious constructs reformed into Temples of Reason, where rationalists and intellectuals would grow and learn how to avoid the temptations of ignorance and intolerance.

What about the book of revelations? Didn’t it correctly predict the rise of Nero, the crushing of the revolts, and the rise of the Christian nation?

No.

http://www.reformed.org/eschaton/index.html?mainframe=/eschaton/Revelation/index.html

Reuss may be taken as an example. According to him (Christian Theology of the Apostolic Age, I, 369 ff, English translation), apart from the ridiculous preconceptions of theologians, the Apocalypse is "the most simple, most transparent book that prophet ever penned." "There is no other apostolical writing the chronology of which can be more exactly fixed." "It was written before the destruction of Jerusalem, under the emperor Galba — that is to say, in the second half of the year 68 of our era." He proceeds to discuss "the irrefutable proofs" of this. The proof, in brief, is found in the beast (not introduced till Revelation 13) with seven heads, one of which has been mortally wounded, but is for the present healed (Revelation 13:3). "This is the Roman empire, with its first 7 emperors, one of whom is killed, but is to live again as Antichrist" (compare Revelation 17:10 f). The key to the whole book is said to be given in Revelation 13:18, where the number ofthe beast is declared to be 666. Applying the method of numerical values (the Jewish Gematria), this number is found to correspond with the name "Nero Caesar" in Hebrew letters (omitting the yodh, the Hebrew letter "y"). Nero then is the 5th head that is to live again; an interpretation confirmed by rumors prevalent at that time that Nero was not really dead, but only hidden, and was soon to return to claim his throne. As if to make assurance doubly sure, it is found that by dropping the final "n" in "Neron," the number becomes 616 — a number which Irenaeus in his comments on the subject (v.30,1) tells us was actually found in some ancient copies. The meaning therefore is thought to be clear. Writing under the emperor Galba, the 6th emperor (reckoning from Augustus), the author anticipates, after a short reign of a 7th emperor (Revelation 17:10), the return of the Antichrist Nero — an 8th, but of the 7, with whom is to come the end. Jerusalem is to be miraculously preserved (Revelation 11), but Rome is to perish. This is to happen within the space of 3 1/2 years. "The final catastrophe, which was to destroy the city and empire, was to take place in three years and a half. .... The writer knows .... that Rome will in three years and a half perish finally, never to rise again." It does not matter for this theory that not one of the things predicted happened — that every anticipation was falsified. Nero did not return; Jerusalem was not saved; Rome did not perish; 3 1/2 years did not see the end of all things. Yet the Christian-church, though the failure of every one of these predictions had been decisively demonstrated, received the book as of divine inspiration, apparently without the least idea that such things had been intended (see the form of theory in Renan, with a keen criticism in Salmon’s Introduction to the New Testament, lecture xiv).

Very good post FT. Informative and interesting!

Meh, how many times have people predicted the end of the world? A lot I think, and we're still here. I have no faith in predictions

Pat Robertson isn't someone to worry much about. I think the actual thing to be concerned about are the gullible sheep that believe every word that asshole says. Or frankly the majority of religious folks.

Just the other day my mother said to me "the end is coming soon, David."
And I said "Really? Hm. Where'd you hear about that?" And she replied, shaking her head "Didn't you ever read the book of revelations??".

If I had the power to ban all religion I would do so. Then I'd have all religious constructs reformed into Temples of Reason, where rationalists and intellectuals would grow and learn how to avoid the temptations of ignorance and intolerance.


I'd say, all but one will be banned soon. You really should read Revelations. lol

If ever I wish god to strike someone down where they stand, it would be Pat Robertson. What a maroon!


i just got off the phone with God, he says he's been thinking about, but just too busy right now...and that Pat needs to work on his reading comprehension-the very fact that any one suspects the end is near proves that it's not. except on a personal level.

the very fact that any one suspects the end is near proves that it's not. except on a personal level.


I miss the logic.

I think the actual thing to be concerned about are the gullible sheep that believe every word that asshole says. Or frankly the majority of religious folks. ......... If I had the power to ban all religion I would do so. Then I'd have all religious constructs reformed into Temples of Reason, where rationalists and intellectuals would grow and learn how to avoid the temptations of ignorance and intolerance.

Excellent post. I couldn't agree more.

Excellent post. I couldn't agree more.
Once again proving that FT is an authoritarian whackjob.

Comic does bring up a good point; we've got a shitload of gullible ppl here. Also on his point about religion; there have been ages of strife caused by religious zealots, though it is not the religion that is the problem there, it's the stupid sheep.

Comic does bring up a good point
But he loses credibility when he says he'd ban religion if he could.

Organized religion is good only for removing money from your pockets & lining theirs. Much like politicians.

But he loses credibility when he says he'd ban religion if he could.

LOL.

I'm sure that the fact that an insincere worm like you thinks he's "lost credibility" is deeply troubling to him.

[/sarcasm]

________________________________________________

"There are some truths, however, that we should never forget: Superstition
has always been the relentless enemy of science; faith has been a hater of
demonstration; hypocrisy has been sincere only in its dread of truth, and
all religions are inconsistent with mental freedom." ---- Robert G. Ingersoll

LOL.

I'm sure that the fact that an insincere worm like you thinks he's "lost credibility" is deeply troubling to him.

[/sarcasm]

________________________________________________


Youre just mad because he pointed out what you are.

Which is funny.

What if FT and people like him are "gullible sheep" because they simply always go against the christian religion? I mean, is everyone a "gullible sheep" if christianity or religion in general turns out to be true? It seems people like FT are writing things off when they themselves don't even know...

And about the book of revelation.. its interesting interpretation, but the book can be interpretated MANY MANY ways.. just because FT found someone to tear it apart does not mean that everything that guy said was true.. i've seen multiple theories on revelation and the whole entire bible in general.. so FT just because you happen to agree with it doesn't give it any more credibility than any other theory...

What if FT and people like him are "gullible sheep" because they simply always go against the christian religion? I mean, is everyone a "gullible sheep" if christianity or religion in general turns out to be true? It seems people like FT are writing things off when they themselves don't even know...

We're all gullible for what we believe.



And about the book of revelation.. its interesting interpretation, but the book can be interpretated MANY MANY ways.. just because FT found someone to tear it apart does not mean that everything that guy said was true.. i've seen multiple theories on revelation and the whole entire bible in general.. so FT just because you happen to agree with it doesn't give it any more credibility than any other theory...

It's not just the book of Revelations that has predictions that are interpretated. There are a few books at the end of the Old Testament that are about end times as well as a few passages spread through out the Bible.
Which really isnt the point. FT just hates religion and those in it. I would say in everything that was said here, FT is just following what he believes. Sadly, for FT, the only difference between him and a Nazi is who they choose to hate.

I have not even a passing acquaintance with a believer in Pat Robertson, even though I keep hearing there are throngs. Even in my everyday dealings I don't really meet very conservative religious people. Once again shows the effects of social grouping. If one stays within one's social circles and/or geographical area they will rarely encounter people vastly different in opinion from their own. The Christians I meet are generally divided between open minded nice people and sin-commiting non-church-going hypocrites, but none of those beyond reasoning people I see on TV or read about. Yes, to be honest the only knowledge I have about extremely conservative religious people are mostly learned, not experienced first-hand. Perhaps it's the same way for conservative people surrounded by other conservative people--it must be difficult to imagine what it's like to live among people who are almost all not religiously committal.

I'm sure that the fact that an insincere worm like you thinks he's "lost credibility" is deeply troubling to him.
You're a fascist pig, in case you haven't come to that realization.

I miss the logic.
death IS the end of the world.

death IS the end of the world.


Still missing the logic, must be me.

Are you saying that because someone thinks its the end of the world that they'er ready to die?
Thus making it obvious that it isnt the end of the world...

I think he's hinting at the belief that there isn't an afterlife.. that while life goes on after you die, the fact that YOU died means the world, as you know it, has ended.

I could be wrong though

But he loses credibility when he says he'd ban religion if he could.
Why?

What if FT and people like him are "gullible sheep" because they simply always go against the christian religion? I mean, is everyone a "gullible sheep" if christianity or religion in general turns out to be true? It seems people like FT are writing things off when they themselves don't even know...

When there is no evidence, no proof and no logical reason for one to believe in God, I consider those followers to be gullible as well in aspects related to their respective religions.

And about the book of revelation.. its interesting interpretation, but the book can be interpretated MANY MANY ways.. just because FT found someone to tear it apart does not mean that everything that guy said was true.. i've seen multiple theories on revelation and the whole entire bible in general.. so FT just because you happen to agree with it doesn't give it any more credibility than any other theory...
If anyone takes a book written by man to be the word of god, they are gullible.

Why?

Because the majority of people in the world are people of faith.

Because the majority of people in the world are people of faith.
That has nothing to do with losing credibility. Asking for outrageous things does not compromise one's credibility. Stating outrageous things that are untrue or suspect does.

Because the majority of people in the world are people of faith.

Faith is not Religion.

Religion is not Faith.

you can't prove its untrue... but i can't prove its true...

why can't you just admit that God might exist? What is with all the need and desire to try to make ABSOLUTEY CLEAR that he's not out there when you don't even know?

you can't prove its untrue... but i can't prove its true...

why can't you just admit that God might exist? What is with all the need and desire to try to make ABSOLUTEY CLEAR that he's not out there when you don't even know?


I think its in the way they were raised. If there is no proof they'll look stupid and the last thing most anyone here wants to do is take the slightest chance on looking stupid.

Which, can make someone gullible.

you can't prove its untrue... but i can't prove its true...
If you can't prove it's true, then I don't need to prove it is "untrue." :D

People "believe" in whatever religion, but everyone should find the meaning for the word "believe".

When you "believe" something it is because you are not sure nor certain that what is said is 100% true.

..."I saw Mary a little while ago going into the warehouse, I believe she's still there".

Look up the word believe, there's more than one definition.

you can't prove its untrue... but i can't prove its true...

why can't you just admit that God might exist? What is with all the need and desire to try to make ABSOLUTEY CLEAR that he's not out there when you don't even know?

Who are you talking to?

That has nothing to do with losing credibility. Asking for outrageous things does not compromise one's credibility.

It has plenty to do with it. He will lose credibility among the people who followed the various different religions across the globe. Forcing some one to disbelieve in something they do in fact believe in does compromise one's credibility. Credibility also deals with trustiworthiness by the way. So if one were to ban a religion I happen to follow, my trust in them as a person in power goes way down and is most likely non existant.

Faith is not Religion.

Religion is not Faith.
This was the definition I was using..

from dictionary.com
3. belief in God or in the doctrines or teachings of religion:

Who are you talking to?

Windwhip

You're a fascist pig, in case you haven't come to that realization.

I realize you're a kid, but can't you come up with SOME sort of name calling better than "fascist pig"......??? ;)

I don't care if you call me a "pig". It has little real meaning.

But the charge of fascist --for a person like me who is as diamtetrically opposed to fascism as is humanly possible-- is uncalled for.

if you are so opposed to fascism then how come you seem to side with the muslim extremists and saddam more than you do america?

I mean, those are OBVIOUS examples that are ten times the "fascism" that the USA happens to be.

I sure don't see it in your replies and writings though.... how strange...

you can't prove its untrue... but i can't prove its true...

why can't you just admit that God might exist? What is with all the need and desire to try to make ABSOLUTEY CLEAR that he's not out there when you don't even know?

By that logic if I can think of something, then unless you can prove it does not exist, one must act as if that thing might exist, no matter how ludacris it sounds.

Let's see... if we used that logic, it would discount all laws of physics that we have created along with EVERY certainty ever. If the probability of a certain thing existing is 99.999%, it would make sense to act as if it did exist. If there is no evidence for another thing to exist (where the probability is only based on theoretical possibilities), it would make sense to act as if it did not exist until more concrete evidence is presented.

It has plenty to do with it. He will lose credibility among the people who followed the various different religions across the globe. Forcing some one to disbelieve in something they do in fact believe in does compromise one's credibility. Credibility also deals with trustiworthiness by the way. So if one were to ban a religion I happen to follow, my trust in them as a person in power goes way down and is most likely non existant.

Credibility is the believability of a statement, action, or source, and the propensity of the observer to believe that statement.

Asking for something does not change the believability of the statement that the person made. I don't think we disagree on that.

We are not referring to an action, we are referring to a statement, so lets skip that next one.

The source is the person making the statement. If they ask for something, then they are not changing their sources for the statement they made, they are not changing the statement they made and unless you are unable to seperate your emotions from the logic behind a persons' statement (ie stupid), there is no reason you should believe that person any less.

Credibility is the believability of a statement, action, or source, and the propensity of the observer to believe that statement.

Asking for something does not change the believability of the statement that the person made. I don't think we disagree on that.

We are not referring to an action, we are referring to a statement, so lets skip that next one.

The source is the person making the statement. If they ask for something, then they are not changing their sources for the statement they made, they are not changing the statement they made and unless you are unable to seperate your emotions from the logic behind a persons' statement (ie stupid), there is no reason you should believe that person any less.


You know, that arguement is so over used its sad.

You know why its over used? because the weak need a crutch.
Let me ask you this, with no hint of bigotry and bias, setting aside the distinction for a reason to know.
If a gay person were to say to you, they can not help but be gay.
Would you believe them or demand proof?

Whats the difference?

I realize you're a kid, but can't you come up with SOME sort of name calling better than "fascist pig"......???
You're worse at comebacks than I am at insults.
But the charge of fascist --for a person like me who is as diamtetrically opposed to fascism as is humanly possible-- is uncalled for.
Anyone who agrees with the banning of all religion is an authoritarian, bigoted person.

You know, that arguement is so over used its sad.

You know why its over used? because the weak need a crutch.
Let me ask you this, with no hint of bigotry and bias, setting aside the distinction for a reason to know.
If a gay person were to say to you, they can not help but be gay.
Would you believe them or demand proof?

Whats the difference?

um.... Not to be an ass, but are you sure you quoted the right message?

I don't really know what arguement you are referring to. I was simply saying that a person's credibility is not diminished if they ask for something.

Well, I'll respond to your post anyways - I don't know what arguement you are talking about, but I'll just respond to your later points.

You know, that arguement is so over used its sad.

You know why its over used? because the weak need a crutch.
Let me ask you this, with no hint of bigotry and bias, setting aside the distinction for a reason to know.
If a gay person were to say to you, they can not help but be gay.
Would you believe them or demand proof?

Whats the difference?

If they told me that they cannot help but be gay, I would not demand proof but I would accept that I do not know. I have gay friends who have told me that is the way that they were born and I have gay friends who told me that an experience turned them gay. All I can say is that I don't know since the only evidence that I have is a personal account.

Personal accounts are not proof, and they are not very good evidence either, but in your scenario you defined the person as gay, so we know that much. We also know that there are two possible ways to being gay, either they were born that way or they turned. Now we can't even be sure that they were born that way since puberty doesn't hit until the teen years. The thing is, both are likely, and very similar scenarios. If you are referring to my God arguement, this comparison is lightyears apart.

Credibility is the believability of a statement, action, or source, and the propensity of the observer to believe that statement.

Asking for something does not change the believability of the statement that the person made. I don't think we disagree on that.

We are not referring to an action, we are referring to a statement, so lets skip that next one.

The source is the person making the statement. If they ask for something, then they are not changing their sources for the statement they made, they are not changing the statement they made and unless you are unable to seperate your emotions from the logic behind a persons' statement (ie stupid), there is no reason you should believe that person any less.

source credibility
Perception of trustworthiness an individual imparts to other people. Factors that influence source credibility are expertise and reputation for honesty.

from http://www.answers.com/topic/source-credibility

I think we were both confusing something different. He didn't ask for something. He said if he was in a position of power he would ban all religion. That's more than asking for something...At least in my opinion...

source credibility
Perception of trustworthiness an individual imparts to other people. Factors that influence source credibility are expertise and reputation for honesty.

from http://www.answers.com/topic/source-credibility

I think we were both confusing something different. He didn't ask for something. He said if he was in a position of power he would ban all religion. That's more than asking for something...At least in my opinion...

Saying that if he had power then he would ban all religions does not make him any less trustworthy. He has not lied, he has been straightforward on a controversial topic, which actually speaks more FOR trustworthiness than against it. Your bias on the topic is preventing you from thinking logically. You can disagree with his opting to ban religions all you want, that's a seperate issue though.

Well of course all of this is hypothetical. It's all about if he was in the position to do this, would he lose credibility or not? And hypothetically speaking, he would among people of faith. And I believe I had pointed that out earlier. If not, my bad.

um.... Not to be an ass, but are you sure you quoted the right message?

I don't really know what arguement you are referring to. I was simply saying that a person's credibility is not diminished if they ask for something.

My bad, I was thinking something else. I also like the post you did after. To a point, anyway. It was a nice post.

By that logic if I can think of something, then unless you can prove it does not exist, one must act as if that thing might exist, no matter how ludacris it sounds.

Let's see... if we used that logic, it would discount all laws of physics that we have created along with EVERY certainty ever. If the probability of a certain thing existing is 99.999%, it would make sense to act as if it did exist. If there is no evidence for another thing to exist (where the probability is only based on theoretical possibilities), it would make sense to act as if it did not exist until more concrete evidence is presented.

Normally i would agree.. but the fact that there are MILLIONS of people who DO believe in religion, i would imagine it would get more of a look than your "thing that you thought of"...

You can't deny that many intelligent people believe in God.. so if you ever come up with some random thing, and its believe by millions.. let me know.

It seems that people like FT love to slam religion and label anyone who does believe as "gullible" is merely a smug, egotistical practice in jacking themselves off mentally... or needing to be better in others to perhaps give their lives meaning or something...

My bad, I was thinking something else. I also like the post you did after. To a point, anyway. It was a nice post.

Thanks, glad to be of service :thumbs:

Normally i would agree.. but the fact that there are MILLIONS of people who DO believe in religion, i would imagine it would get more of a look than your "thing that you thought of"...

You can't deny that many intelligent people believe in God.. so if you ever come up with some random thing, and its believe by millions.. let me know.
Good points. I do agree that many very intelligent people believe in God, but remember that many intelligent people also at one point believed that the world was flat. All I'm saying is that just because something is a generally held belief does not make it correct.

It seems that people like FT love to slam religion and label anyone who does believe as "gullible" is merely a smug, egotistical practice in jacking themselves off mentally... or needing to be better in others to perhaps give their lives meaning or something...
Heh, yea I see that every now and then. I find myself slamming religions on occasion, but not for those reasons.

Good points. I do agree that many very intelligent people believe in God, but remember that many intelligent people also at one point believed that the world was flat. All I'm saying is that just because something is a generally held belief does not make it correct.

Absolutely agreed.. Just because a bunch of people think something doesn't make it right. But it does give a bit more credibility than a single person who believes it.

As for the "world being flat" belief.. why does Christopher Columbus get all the credit for finding the world to be round? the Greeks were the ones who initially thought that... sorry just a side question i've always wondered.


Heh, yea I see that every now and then. I find myself slamming religions on occasion, but not for those reasons.

Yea it seems religion will never be proven either way.. and i've always thought that it would be the way God would WANT it.. because if religion COULD be proven, then that would be too easy. EVERYONE would get to heaven. I guess he is just looking to see if you are willing to give yourself up(reguardless of WHAT religion we are talking about) and your life up to him.. pretty much everyone gets a chance to do that.

I'm glad we had this discussion though Wind.. i like coming to a middle ground with people, it seems that happens so little on these boards. Not many people budge.. but hey respect is a two way street, and no doubt you just gained some from me.

Absolutely agreed.. Just because a bunch of people think something doesn't make it right. But it does give a bit more credibility than a single person who believes it.
It definitely does.

As for the "world being flat" belief.. why does Christopher Columbus get all the credit for finding the world to be round? the Greeks were the ones who initially thought that... sorry just a side question i've always wondered.
Well, Columbus was a fraud who got credit he did not deserve. He didn't discover America either.

Yea it seems religion will never be proven either way.. and i've always thought that it would be the way God would WANT it.. because if religion COULD be proven, then that would be too easy. EVERYONE would get to heaven. I guess he is just looking to see if you are willing to give yourself up(reguardless of WHAT religion we are talking about) and your life up to him.. pretty much everyone gets a chance to do that.
I doubt we will come to an agreement on if God exists, but we can see where the other is coming from at least.

I'm glad we had this discussion though Wind.. i like coming to a middle ground with people, it seems that happens so little on these boards. Not many people budge.. but hey respect is a two way street, and no doubt you just gained some from me.
I'm glad we did get somewhere; it's good to have a frank discussion on a subject like this where both sides are open to suggestions. Thanks

all i know is that in the year 2012 sumthing is gonna happen like the new world order or sumthing else.
but i do know dat if u read the korane , the bible and in the hindu or sikh religion it's written dat in 2012 u will see the truth.
The Truth will come out

As for the "world being flat" belief.. why does Christopher Columbus get all the credit for finding the world to be round? the Greeks were the ones who initially thought that... sorry just a side question i've always wondered.


He gets all the credit? I've been taught since elementary school that Columbus was NOT the discoverer of America, nor was he the first to think the world was round (in fact, in the late 15th century, pretty much all literate people knew that this was so). I haven't heard a good thing about Columbus, in school or otherwise, since I can remember.

He's a douchbag

BINGO!

The end of the world is a good thing it means YESHUA has arrived.

The end of the world is a good thing it means YESHUA has arrived.Aren't you going to see him when you die anyway? If so, then why celebrate the destruction of the world?

Aren't you going to see him when you die anyway? If so, then why celebrate the destruction of the world?

So you can see him sooner, and watch all the non-believers get smited, duh.

So you can see him sooner, and watch all the non-believers get smited, duh.Ah, the ultimate "I told you so."

Ah, the ultimate "I told you so."
Then again, maybe not :D SURPRISE... everything is actually backwards.... hehe

The end of the world is a good thing it means YESHUA has arrived.

Does God want you to celebrate the end of his creation?

I will celebrate his comming , and feel sad at how we have treated His world.

I will celebrate his comming , and feel sad at how we have treated His world.
His world? It's a chunk of spinning rock in orbit! what the hell? his world. pfft

jester said: Aren't you going to see him when you die anyway? If so, then why celebrate the destruction of the world?

This world is too corrupt to allow it to survive much longer. As we are entering end times I may get to see Him sooner.

And to an other poster, it would be a honor to die on my knees before YAHWEH and YAHSHUA.

And to an other poster, it would be a honor to die on my knees before YAHWEH and YAHSHUA.

You can take some comfort in the fact that your brain seems to have already been afforded that "honor".

Interesting that you worship two sperate gawds instead of one, though.

This world is too corrupt to allow it to survive much longer. As we are entering end times I may get to see Him sooner.


I think you are mistaking 'the world' with 'mankind'. The world is not going to end, it will continue to spin in orbit long after mankind dies out.
If mankind ever dies out,and the only way I can see that happening is nuclear disaster, it would be caused by man not an act of a god.
What's this end times you're talking about? There is no god making plans to end an earth or count the dead or collect them. What's happened in your life to make you even consider this a truth?

This world is too corrupt to allow it to survive much longer.
The world is getting less corrupt, not more.

Robertson said God spoke to him during his annual one-on-one prayer retreat with the Almighty.

Interesting. He will only speak to God once a year?

Originally Posted by janrich456
This world is too corrupt to allow it to survive much longer. As we are entering end times I may get to see Him sooner.

There is no god making plans to end an earth or count the dead or collect them. What's happened in your life to make you even consider this a truth?

Don't you know?

He/she read it in the last book (Revelation) of that compendium of fables and myths going by the name "Holy Bible".

The fable is evolution. The believers of evolution believe humans are just animals. Following that thought evolution is the survival of the fitness. the chronic sick should not be helped, nor should the weak .
Any human not strong and fit is not evolutionary material. Also none who can't or won't procreate would not be fit for evolution.
Mainly Judism and Christianity would be caring enough to help the above evolutionary failures.
No it isn't a fairy tale.

The fable is evolution. The believers of evolution believe humans are just animals. Following that thought evolution is the survival of the fitness. the chronic sick should not be helped, nor should the weak .
Any human not strong and fit is not evolutionary material. Also none who can't or won't procreate would not be fit for evolution.
Mainly Judism and Christianity would be caring enough to help the above evolutionary failures.
No it isn't a fairy tale.

This may be the most laughable post I've yet to read on this forum.

I have never, in all my years, run accross an evolutionist that believes the sick should not be helped.

As for survival of the FITNESS, well...what can I say?
Better order that "Buns of Steel" workout CD right away and all will be well.

rendova : This may be the most laughable post I've yet to read on this forum.

I have never, in all my years, run accross an evolutionist that believes the sick should not be helped.

As for survival of the FITNESS, well...what can I say?


lol rendova of course evolutionist help because they know in their heart they don't dare live up to the laws of evolution. You evolutionists have to twist the law of fitness, if you live by the rules of your false religion it would make an awful mess .

lol rendova of course evolutionist help because they know in their heart they don't dare live up to the laws of evolution. You evolutionists have to twist the law of fitness, if you live by the rules of your false religion it would make an awful mess .
Wow. What a dumbfuck you are. Belief in evolution precludes compassion? WTF?

Wow. What a dumbfuck you are. Belief in evolution precludes compassion? WTF?
Wow, Borg you've got a dark side - I don't ususally see that side of you

Wow, Borg you've got a dark side - I don't ususally see that side of you
Ludicrous claims call for answers made in shock.

Ludicrous claims call for answers made in shock.

I probably would have said something similar

again you dodge the question , you either live by the princples of evolution or you don't, haha

again you dodge the question , you either live by the princples of evolution or you don't, haha
There are no "principles of evolution" to "live by". Evolution is a scientific theory, not a lifestyle choice.

I have never, in all my years, run accross an evolutionist that believes the sick should not be helped.
Maybe you should get out more?
lol rendova of course evolutionist help because they know in their heart they don't dare live up to the laws of evolution. You evolutionists have to twist the law of fitness, if you live by the rules of your false religion it would make an awful mess .
Who the hell are you? Ya crazy bitch.

Evolution is a scientific theory, not a lifestyle choice.

Bah! Evolution is a choice! Janrich chooses to remain firmly rooted in the 18th century.

Bah! Evolution is a choice! Janrich chooses to remain firmly rooted in the 18th century.

Although I would agree that Janrich seems firmly rooted in Martin Luther's time (well before the 18th century, Luther denounced Copernicus on the same basis that Janrich denounces Darwin), I don't think Janrich choose to be like this.

We have no choice but to believe what we "know," and most of our knowledge was acquired as children before our critical facilities had developed. Some people never realize that this stuff might be wrong, and, in fact, rationalize others' intellectual maturity as being a choice for evil.

We all have "beliefs" that we are not aware we have. They are furniture to us--we sit on them and only notice them if they are not where we are use to their being.

A very good example of this is the difficulty we all have of conceptualizing how gravity can be a warping of space-time (not of space by itself but of space-time). Our childhood indoctrination (done by the local physics of the world we inhabit) prepares us for nothing like this, so that it is a rare person who gets beyond it.

Another example is the phenomenon we call "conscience," which we all just automatically assume is a good guide (at least for us--others may have consciences that are twisted in some way). In fact we tend to test ethical theories against what our conscience tells us--this continues to be so even if we intellectually recognize that our conscience is a result of childhood indoctrination.

This is I think the main reason myth-based religions persist--they get the children, and many of them they keep--but I could go on for pages about the biology of how this works.

A very good example of this is the difficulty we all have of conceptualizing how gravity can be a warping of space-time (not of space by itself but of space-time). Our childhood indoctrination (done by the local physics of the world we inhabit) prepares us for nothing like this, so that it is a rare person who gets beyond it.
The warping of space-time by gravity has always made perfect sense to me. I imagined a cone with a ball circling the dent, then the ball rolling into it. Then just extrapolate to four dimensions.

The more difficult thing to do is conceptualize more than three dimensions and, arguably, time. I'd say it's impossible.

The warping of space-time by gravity has always made perfect sense to me. I imagined a cone with a ball circling the dent, then the ball rolling into it. Then just extrapolate to four dimensions.

The more difficult thing to do is conceptualize more than three dimensions and, arguably, time. I'd say it's impossible.
Extrapolating to four dimensions is not easy; you have to learn to intuitively understand things like hypercubes (can you "picture" how many sides, edges and corners such an object has?). This is hard work.

Even this is not enough to understand the warping of space-time as manifest in either gravity or acceleration, since time is not a dimension in the usual sense at all--it has a flow in which material objects can only go one direction.

I think the conception of "past" and "future" being places in the sense that spacially separated places are still places is an error in thinking. To be sure the mathematics can be conceived that way, but it can also be conceived as time being a function of nothing more than change, with nothing "really" existing except the present.

(In other words, warping space-time involves a combination of actual warping of space >> into >> a deceleration of the the local rate at which events happen. I don't know to what extent this sort of thing can be actually visualized).

I don't know to what extent this sort of thing can be actually visualized.Reminds me of Vonnegut's Tralfamadorians -- they see the stars as luminous spaghetti, and people as long millipedes with baby's legs at one end and old people's legs at the other. :)

Your so called science does lay down rules about how evolution works and survial of the fittest, it also says propagation of the species is needed. Weakest are not to be allow. You know this you just don't like what it means.