??? not sure who you are talking about. You may think I am crazy now, but you will see soon enough. I will pray for Cometswin!!!!!
<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/lgW0O7wjtXw" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
cml, the athiest netherspawn I am quoting from is Wikipedia. the first quote contains an apologist statement and then a refutation of said statement, please read fully. I usually don't go out of my way to confront religious beliefs (they're probably useful as long as they don't taint public policy)---but we can go line for line on this one. come on, don't leave. this is a bit amusing, i must admit. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unfulfilled_Christian_religious_predictions http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Failed_biblical_prophecies ex: well, if it happens, let me know. You seem to have a thing for determinism---here's a question; for all of the time you have spent looking up 2000-year old scripture to try to parse what is going to happen, how much of it could have been spent making actual changes for the future?
cml, do let me know when your spidey senses are tingling for the end of the world, I need to attend some rockin end of the world parties before I burn in hell. Fade into darkness/hellfire--- wheeeeeeeee <iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/-yg3dLEDWqs" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
Oh Lord Jesus! Never seen the guy before but thats how I pictured cml based on his posts. Thanks for the laugh! :grin:
I am not really sure why I am doing this again but that example is REALLY weak. When God promised Moses he would defeat his enemies, it happened just as predicted. Moses was never defeated while he was leading Israel to the promised land. The Wiki writer took a huge leap and just assumed God was saying that Israel would NEVER be defeated when the scripture was clearly referring to Moses leading them through the wilderness to the promised land. I didn't waste too much time on the links but I saw nothing that wasn't taken out of context or just prophecies that will be fulfilled. Changes for the future??? There are a lot of big changes coming in the future. Some of them will be very good and some will be very bad. Unless your name is written in the "Lambs Book of Life" then the changes will be very bad. The biggest and best change I can do for the future is to lead as many people to Christ as I can. Like I said earlier, I don't expect to change your mind. Debating religion with liberals is usually a waste of time since your mind is already made up. You can just keep on working towards building your liberal utopia. Don't expect me to "help". I have a much more rewarding mission.
do you get paid in 72 virgins, or does God have stock options? his church is certainly busy banking and laundering. hmm. if God isn't a funny looking zeus-looking guy, and ends up being a fair and impartial judge without an ego, you're really losing out. i mean, if God is like MORGAN FREEMAN, you're effed. seriously. you need to reconsider everything you're about before Morgan Freeman assigns you to Black Jesus Bible Study Group.
Oh hey, cml about global warming--- just a friendly reminder. don't worry though, when we chill in hell, the first round is on me. I'll try to get us hooked up with some of the bad girls down there---they're probably better-looking than the Bible Study girls upstairs, if it's any consolation.
Every time I tell someone there's a unicorn in my backyard they dont believe me either. I've given up as well.
Unfortunately, most liberals would come closer to believing in unicorns then God. One little problem though, your soul can't be saved by your unicorn.
for MAJOR As I showed there is a way for military personnel to register to vote online and it does seem to require a party affiliation. Since Hasan joined the military right out of high school he may not have registered in Virginia. All this "proves" is that he didn't register as a Democrate in Virginia. The only claim the original message made was about Cho's writing hostile letters to the GWB Administration. Criticism is off-target. There is no evidence that the claim by "my" blogger is in any way based on this one apparently erroneous analysis. Might there be other sources. At any rate, what about the other claims made? Shouldn't a "lack of evidence" at best lead to an INCONCLUSIVE finding rather than a charge of FALSEHOOD? We don't know what sources the author of the blog-post was using. Neither would it be surprising that a son who kills his mother in a violent fashion has a differing political philosophy. As an "outsider" in a Republican leaning city, it would no surprise at all that Lanza could be a Democrat. NOTHING is proven as best I can tell but the blog's assertion is more probable to my mind. Geez, he killed his mother; he must have rejected her values somewhere along the way... As I said, David Brooks observed in a well-respect essay he wrote on the Klebold's that they were daily NY Times readers. Is that still a left-leaning newspaper? I think so.
But the bible and Jesus say different things about who is saved. When the person on the cross next to Jesus asked Jesus to remember him to the father, Jesus told that man that he would be there. So according to that passage maybe asking to be remembered is what really saves a person. At another point Jesus tells his disciples that if they forgive others they will be forgiven. So maybe forgiving others is what saves a person. Of course at another point Jesus says that the guy who gave away his riches would be saved. So maybe giving away riches is what saves a person. The bible also says that women will be saved through child birth. So maybe having children is what saves a person. That's what the bible and Jesus that I follow had to say about who was saved. There are many other examples like the one you printed about what gets a person saved. I believe in the word of Jesus, and try to follow the bible the best that I can. But I've moved past the idea that the bible says only one thing will get you saved, when clearly it gives many different examples.
As usual this puts giddy's points into serious doubts when it doesn't dismiss them totally. After seeing this, it would be much more difficult for all of the circumstances to fall into place for things to be the way that giddy presented them, than for them to be false.
