Well if you think about it. The word hate is not at all to be used in context. Atheists do not hate religion. They just dont believe in any. And religions dont hate atheist. They just dont agree with their opinions. When an atheist believes in atheism strongly enough that he can speak and write about his atheism, he proves that he has an atheism religion, according to the dictionary definition of what religion is - http://www.dictionary.com/browse/religion?s=t.  |
|
|
|
Well without proof I still believe in the life after death. I believe that heaven and hell exist. ....
That is the reason why religious scams are so successful. Religious people don't care if what they believe is actually true. They will believe it anyway, NO MATTER WHAT. Well I'm guessing that the OP wants to discuss particularly the scientific evaluations and assessments of life and death, not exactly theoretical and spiritual. See scientists quote unquote have managed to find proof. I guess it would be worth it to review this. Our organism and its neural network behaves similar to a capacitor in an electric system. You might see the system operating for short while after power is removed and the system discharges stored capacity/electric potential. Neurons might continue to fire after blood stops flowing and pressure drops. Cells will continue to die off, but not all at once. The actual dying process is not an ON/OFF type of thing. It takes few minutes for all cells die. After an hour of no blood to your brain, you'll definitely be dead. Three minutes (as per OP) is quite possible. System will discharge, cells will die, and even if heart starts pumping blood after an hour, nothing will happen. It will be like pumping blood to a chicken in your freezer. The longer you are out the greater chances of a permanent brain damage.
The shock research has also uncovered the most convincing evidence of an out of body experience for a patient declared dead.
It had been believed the brain stopped all activity 30 seconds after the heart had stopped pumping blood around the body, and that with that, awareness ceases too.
However, the study from the University of Southampton shows people still experience awareness for up to three minutes after they had been pronounced dead.What you are saying is no one is really dead, even after all the machines and tests are saying it is so and science was wrong not to wait at least another 3, 4 min for a definite conclusion? Not into electronics but I remember that some capacitors can hold a charge for years after being unplugged, so... Plug them into a circuit with small resistance and they will discharge rather quickly. If they are charged and not connected they can hold charge because of high impedance of the air between the +/- plates. The discharge of a disconnected capacitor happens but a much slower rate, depending on humidity and temperature of the ambient air. Wow! Here you go trying to conceptualize the complexity of the human brain and nervous system by plugging it into an electrical system the same as a simple capacitor. You are behind almost 200 years - ask Mary Shelley. Not sure what you mean, Wilikon was talking about charged capacitors holding charge for a long time, I explained how they are discharged. I definitely am not suggesting you plug your brain into an electrical system. Although, in your case, electric shocks might offer some therapeutic benefits. Check with your neurologist before any experimentation. Actually, Wilikon was talking about the brain holding a charge long after death. The comparison was simply to show that the brain could do it, because we know that capacitors can do it. How in the world dense are you that you can barely even read? How can you even write responses to other posts when you can't hold what those posts are about in your memory long enough to recognize what those posts are about? It's definitely a miracle of God that you can even think to post anything. |
|
|
|
Look what I found!  Jesus, Mary and The Green LionReminds me of the place Revelation where the dragon goes after the woman. Revelation 12:1-6: 1 A great and wondrous sign appeared in heaven: a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet and a crown of twelve stars on her head.
2 She was pregnant and cried out in pain as she was about to give birth.
3 Then another sign appeared in heaven: an enormous red dragon with seven heads and ten horns and seven crowns on his heads.
4 His tail swept a third of the stars out of the sky and flung them to the earth. The dragon stood in front of the woman who was about to give birth, so that he might devour her child the moment it was born.
5 She gave birth to a son, a male child, who will rule all the nations with an iron scepter. And her child was snatched up to God and to his throne.
6 The woman fled into the desert to a place prepared for her by God, where she might be taken care of for 1,260 days. Were you able to get a translation of the wording in your picture? |
|
|
|
<> BADecker, I'm trying to explain to you that science does not examine question of God because there is nothing to examine. God does not even come as a topic of a casual conversation among scientists. There is no data. Nothing to discuss. You keep saying that science proved existence of God, but I'm telling you no scientific studies can be done on God because he is not observable and there is no physical evidence to examine. God is an ancient myth. He exists only in your mind. Just like when you read a really good novel or watch a really memorable movie, your brain will visualize the scenes from the novel/movie and you will remember them for a long time. The same way you have constructed an image of God in your brain from the books, web sites you have read. It is just a construct in your brain.The process of religious conversion is similar to cult programming. Images/thoughts supportive of the myth are preserved, opposing thoughts are suppressed. That is why you are so passionately defending your religion. That is why Muslims are willing to die for their religion. I just hope in time you'll come to your senses and you'll see how silly and irrational your position was. As far as resurrection goes, sorry buddy. Nobody was ever resurrected. And nobody will be in the future (unless we evolve into cyborgs capable of resurrection on demand or ROD  ) Just because scientists don't ask the question, or look at the proof, doesn't mean that they haven't proven God exists. Science is making accidental breakthroughs all the time. Simply look around at the many scientific advancements to see that many of these are accidental findings of scientists who were searching for something completely different than what they found. Examine the proof for God that I have shown you. It proves God is real. Besides, not all scientists believe there is no god. Many of them understand that he exists, just like they understand that the existence of life is not understood enough to suggest that life is a possibility. The link found in my https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1454732.msg14706492#msg14706492 post is one tiny, tiny example. Wake up and stop denying the truth and facts I am showing you. If you won't, why not formalize your religion and get government funding as a minority? Or is that the thing that science has already done... formed a religion of non-religion so they can get funding under something other than religious minority grants? Non-religion is not a religion just like not playing sport is not sport. However, the dictionary definition of the word "religion" shows that any belief you hold dearly can be a religion. Thus, the adamant and dynamic claim that non-religion isn't a religion makes it a religion.
I suggest you hold on your belief in God until there is physical, observable evidence of God. Until then it is just day dreaming at best, a mental disorder otherwise.
Science theory suggests Big Bang was an actual event. Yet it is theory, not fact (even though the event itself might seem to have been fact in some ways). Science fact suggests that God is an actual Being. Since God is proven by science fact rather than conceptualized by science theory (not necessarily fact), why do you keep on ignoring science? Keep on believing the fantasy that your idea of non-religion is not a religion. |
|
|
|
Well without proof I still believe in the life after death. I believe that heaven and hell exist. ....
That is the reason why religious scams are so successful. Religious people don't care if what they believe is actually true. They will believe it anyway, NO MATTER WHAT. Well I'm guessing that the OP wants to discuss particularly the scientific evaluations and assessments of life and death, not exactly theoretical and spiritual. See scientists quote unquote have managed to find proof. I guess it would be worth it to review this. Our organism and its neural network behaves similar to a capacitor in an electric system. You might see the system operating for short while after power is removed and the system discharges stored capacity/electric potential. Neurons might continue to fire after blood stops flowing and pressure drops. Cells will continue to die off, but not all at once. The actual dying process is not an ON/OFF type of thing. It takes few minutes for all cells die. After an hour of no blood to your brain, you'll definitely be dead. Three minutes (as per OP) is quite possible. System will discharge, cells will die, and even if heart starts pumping blood after an hour, nothing will happen. It will be like pumping blood to a chicken in your freezer. The longer you are out the greater chances of a permanent brain damage.
The shock research has also uncovered the most convincing evidence of an out of body experience for a patient declared dead.
It had been believed the brain stopped all activity 30 seconds after the heart had stopped pumping blood around the body, and that with that, awareness ceases too.
However, the study from the University of Southampton shows people still experience awareness for up to three minutes after they had been pronounced dead.What you are saying is no one is really dead, even after all the machines and tests are saying it is so and science was wrong not to wait at least another 3, 4 min for a definite conclusion? Not into electronics but I remember that some capacitors can hold a charge for years after being unplugged, so... Plug them into a circuit with small resistance and they will discharge rather quickly. If they are charged and not connected they can hold charge because of high impedance of the air between the +/- plates. The discharge of a disconnected capacitor happens but a much slower rate, depending on humidity and temperature of the ambient air. Wow! Here you go trying to conceptualize the complexity of the human brain and nervous system by plugging it into an electrical system the same as a simple capacitor. You are behind almost 200 years - ask Mary Shelley. |
|
|
|
<> BADecker, I'm trying to explain to you that science does not examine question of God because there is nothing to examine. God does not even come as a topic of a casual conversation among scientists. There is no data. Nothing to discuss. You keep saying that science proved existence of God, but I'm telling you no scientific studies can be done on God because he is not observable and there is no physical evidence to examine. God is an ancient myth. He exists only in your mind. Just like when you read a really good novel or watch a really memorable movie, your brain will visualize the scenes from the novel/movie and you will remember them for a long time. The same way you have constructed an image of God in your brain from the books, web sites you have read. It is just a construct in your brain.The process of religious conversion is similar to cult programming. Images/thoughts supportive of the myth are preserved, opposing thoughts are suppressed. That is why you are so passionately defending your religion. That is why Muslims are willing to die for their religion. I just hope in time you'll come to your senses and you'll see how silly and irrational your position was. As far as resurrection goes, sorry buddy. Nobody was ever resurrected. And nobody will be in the future (unless we evolve into cyborgs capable of resurrection on demand or ROD ) Just because scientists don't ask the question, or look at the proof, doesn't mean that they haven't proven God exists. Science is making accidental breakthroughs all the time. Simply look around at the many scientific advancements to see that many of these are accidental findings of scientists who were searching for something completely different than what they found. Examine the proof for God that I have shown you. It proves God is real. Besides, not all scientists believe there is no god. Many of them understand that he exists, just like they understand that the existence of life is not understood enough to suggest that life is a possibility. The link found in my https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1454732.msg14706492#msg14706492 post is one tiny, tiny example. Wake up and stop denying the truth and facts I am showing you. If you won't, why not formalize your religion and get government funding as a minority? Or is that the thing that science has already done... formed a religion of non-religion so they can get funding under something other than religious minority grants? EDIT: Are you saying that Big Bang will always remain in the realm of theory because nobody will ever be able to go back and study it? You are so self-contradictory. |
|
|
|
Well without proof I still believe in the life after death. I believe that heaven and hell exist. ....
That is the reason why religious scams are so successful. Religious people don't care if what they believe is actually true. They will believe it anyway, NO MATTER WHAT. Well I'm guessing that the OP wants to discuss particularly the scientific evaluations and assessments of life and death, not exactly theoretical and spiritual. See scientists quote unquote have managed to find proof. I guess it would be worth it to review this. Our organism and its neural network behaves similar to a capacitor in an electric system. You might see the system operating for short while after power is removed and the system discharges stored capacity/electric potential. Neurons might continue to fire after blood stops flowing and pressure drops. Cells will continue to die off, but not all at once. The actual dying process is not an ON/OFF type of thing. It takes few minutes for all cells die. After an hour of no blood to your brain, you'll definitely be dead. Three minutes (as per OP) is quite possible. System will discharge, cells will die, and even if heart starts pumping blood after an hour, nothing will happen. It will be like pumping blood to a chicken in your freezer. The longer you are out the greater chances of a permanent brain damage.
The shock research has also uncovered the most convincing evidence of an out of body experience for a patient declared dead.
It had been believed the brain stopped all activity 30 seconds after the heart had stopped pumping blood around the body, and that with that, awareness ceases too.
However, the study from the University of Southampton shows people still experience awareness for up to three minutes after they had been pronounced dead.What you are saying is no one is really dead, even after all the machines and tests are saying it is so and science was wrong not to wait at least another 3, 4 min for a definite conclusion? Not into electronics but I remember that some capacitors can hold a charge for years after being unplugged, so... ... So, all these movies of the living dead zombies walking around are actually plausibly possible. EDIT: See, af_newbie? A resurrection is possible, after all. |
|
|
|
Well without proof I still believe in the life after death. I believe that heaven and hell exist. ....
That is the reason why religious scams are so successful. Religious people don't care if what they believe is actually true. They will believe it anyway, NO MATTER WHAT. Well I'm guessing that the OP wants to discuss particularly the scientific evaluations and assessments of life and death, not exactly theoretical and spiritual. See scientists quote unquote have managed to find proof. I guess it would be worth it to review this. Yes, what I was hoping for. So far, part of the thread participants believe what these scientists are saying should be rejected outright, based on feelings they call "science facts"... Strange. People have the ability to believe almost anything. One can stick facts and things right in front of people, and if they don't want to believe them, they won't. At other times they believe non-existent things to be true. At the time of great pain or great joy, a person loses his self-held beliefs. The pain or joy distract him from his beliefs. He isn't able to concentrate on his beliefs enough to maintain them, because of the distraction caused by the pain or joy. At such times the truth becomes apparent, or at least more apparent, to him. |
|
|
|
... But since science has proven that God exists, high faith in God is way more important than stupid high IQ. Why? High IQ people die just like low IQ people. But those who have faith in God at least have a chance to be resurrected to eternal life. Those without faith in God will be resurrected to eternal damnation and destruction. If they had high IQ, it doesn't benefit them at all. BADecker, you cannot be resurrected. When you die, you die. If your body is cremated you become ashes. If they bury you, you become food for maggots, all will be left is bones. You cannot be resurrected from ashes or bones. BTW, cell death is irreversible. Sorry to disappoint you. Stop posting these insane statements. But you are forgetting one of the greatest facts about life. This fact is, there is only ONE reason why we know that life can exist... ONLY ONE. That reason is BECAUSE IT DOES EXIST. There is nothing in nature and science and thinking that suggests how life could have come to exist in the first place... to say nothing about the abundance and variety. Our best bet - evolution - has been proven so extremely mathematically impossible that it is not even a contender for the idea of being possible... at least in any way that we have been able to imagine. See The Mathematical Impossibility of Evolution - https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1454732.msg14706492#msg14706492. The point? Right now the existence of life is essentially something that is impossible by any means that we can logically imagine. Nor can we imagine how a resurrection could take place. But, since impossible life exists, impossible resurrection can exist as well. How can life and resurrection exist? Through God, Who has been proven to exist by science. Your thread about "Mathematical Impossibility of Evolution" assumes that mutations in a living organism decrease "order" in such organism. Exactly opposite is true. Mutations make an organism function better in a given environment. That is how organisms become better and better at what they do, i.e. live and survive. The rest of the scribbling is just that. Except for one major point. There is absolutely NO evidence of beneficial mutation being done in nature. Even the "guided" mutations in the lab that are supposed to be beneficial, may not be so in the long run. So far that we see, everything that is attributed to evolution in nature, can be attributed more easily to programmed change built into the genes one way or another. I suggest you read on evolution before you attempt to discredit it. It is not a theory, it is a fact. With hard, physical evidence. So, you have never heard of the Theory of Evolution then? Science considers it a theory simply because evolution in nature has not been proven to be a fact. Again, when you look at so-called evolution that is found in nature, it all can more readily be shown to be built-in genetic programming that is made to adapt to the environment. People like you who believe evolution is fact in opposition to what science itself says, have a religion going for yourselves. I admire the fact that you have such strong faith in your evolution religion, but it is science fiction, not science fact. Regarding resurrection: Saying that it exists "through God" is as insane as a concept of a supernatural God. There is no physical evidence of either. Cause and effect, the fact that the universe is highly complex, and the fact of universal entropy, when combined, prove that God exists. The God that is proven by this science is NOT the God described by the religions. Yet, He/It is a God shown by the definition of the word "God." - Cause and effect in everything shows that everything was programmed. - To program something as complex as the universe means complexity of a far greater nature in the programmer. - The complexity shows that the programmer must have been ONE - as opposed to many programmers working in concert - because there would be lack of cohesion in the parts of the universe if there were many programmers, and the whole project would never have gotten off the ground, so to speak. - Universal entropy shows that there must have been a beginning to the programming, and that the whole universe is becoming less complex all the time. This means that even we are intellectually less capable than our ancestors, who understood way more clearly that God exists. - The greatness of the Creator proven by this science, and upheld by lots more science, is of the type that shows the Creator to not only be God, but to be God way beyond all our imaginings of how great a God can be. Regarding the resurrection, there is little or no evidence for it other than the things that God has told the people... that there will definitely be a resurrection. But you have to look at the religions to see this. It isn't easily found in science. Give me one example of someone (any animal) being resurrected after being cremated or buried. Don't give me the "but in the future, when Jesus comes, you'll be resurrected...". The idea of a character from an ancient myth coming back to life is as insane as an idea of resurrection itself. No direct examples are available that I am aware of. However, there is no reason why life even exists, or can exist, either. The resurrection theme is based on what God has told people through several religions, but mostly the Judeo-Christian religion, which religion is as impossible to exist as life is. Nobody can be resurrected. If you think you can, you are not well. You are missing few screws.
Actually, if you do not recognize God, and recognize that He tells us that He will resurrect us, you are the one who is not well. You have fallen into a detrimental mutation of your soul which is as destructive to you as some form of detrimental mutation of the body was to survivors and children of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The difference is, God is willing to heal your soul. And this healing will lead you to eternal life in glory and joy after the resurrection. Why hasn't science discovered this? Science needs two things to understand all this: 1. Honesty in looking at the science they have found: they ignore the science that proves God exists; 2. Enough millions of years to prove out such a greatness as God: it will take this long because of our remoteness. EDIT: I want to thank you, however, for attempting to contradict the science that shows God. Why? Because our training in the schools in this world tries to draw us away from the fact that God exists. And every time I have to explain how science shows that God exists, it strengthens other aspects of my faith in Him. And this is the thing He is looking for in all of us... faith in the things that He tells us = faith in Him. So, thank you for helping my faith in God to grow. |
|
|
|
I think that the us should not waste their on space discovery. I think they should discover the world and should spend their money on the needy people of world. we can see that most of the people in different place of the world are living hard. I think they should help them. and no need to sped such false news.
The U.S. doesn't rally care about space discovery at all. All they are interested in is getting whatever funds-for-projects that they can, so they have an excuse to siphon more off the people in taxes. Well I agree with you. It cost a lot of money just to send one batch of astronauts out to space or a satellite out of space just to investigate these kinds of things. Well I think they do it similar to what corrupt politics do. Maybe we should send all the politicians into outer space, permanently. |
|
|
|
... But since science has proven that God exists, high faith in God is way more important than stupid high IQ. Why? High IQ people die just like low IQ people. But those who have faith in God at least have a chance to be resurrected to eternal life. Those without faith in God will be resurrected to eternal damnation and destruction. If they had high IQ, it doesn't benefit them at all. BADecker, you cannot be resurrected. When you die, you die. If your body is cremated you become ashes. If they bury you, you become food for maggots, all will be left is bones. You cannot be resurrected from ashes or bones. BTW, cell death is irreversible. Sorry to disappoint you. Stop posting these insane statements. But you are forgetting one of the greatest facts about life. This fact is, there is only ONE reason why we know that life can exist... ONLY ONE. That reason is BECAUSE IT DOES EXIST. There is nothing in nature and science and thinking that suggests how life could have come to exist in the first place... to say nothing about the abundance and variety. Our best bet - evolution - has been proven so extremely mathematically impossible that it is not even a contender for the idea of being possible... at least in any way that we have been able to imagine. See The Mathematical Impossibility of Evolution - https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1454732.msg14706492#msg14706492. The point? Right now the existence of life is essentially something that is impossible by any means that we can logically imagine. Nor can we imagine how a resurrection could take place. But, since impossible life exists, impossible resurrection can exist as well. How can life and resurrection exist? Through God, Who has been proven to exist by science. |
|
|
|
If you are here arguing and you do not believe in god and have much of the same philosophy in life then you are LOL Your posting here to say you are "NOT" is proof you ARE ! For the 10th time.. read the definition  When you become a true Christian, God blocks the Satanic quantum entanglement out of your life to a great extent. God opens up freedom for you. It doesn't mean that you will never sin again, nor that you stop looking at sin. What it means is that satanism doesn't have nearly as much control over you. And the control that it has will not deprive you of eternal life in Heaven. |
|
|
|
sorry to say but I beleive that the elite run and rule the planet, they want to dissarm the public to make it easyer for them to control, so I want people to be able to obtain a gun for this reason only.
But not everyone should have one!, there has to be some filtering of possession.
it's not easy having that point of view from the UK as I have never seen a real gun, and most of the population here have not, and would prefer it that way, not me.
Almost nobody goes to court in the UK at Queens Bench. If you did this, you could have your guns in the UK, along with almost no regulation. See http://www.unkommonlaw.co.uk/. UK Column Karl Lentz meets Brian Gerrish December 17 2013
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VgfBszEKsfw |
|
|
|
Nothing to Admire in Bush's Attack on Trump Sending a coded message: Bush 43 skewers Trump without saying a word … George W. Bush just pulled off something rather remarkable. He got himself on the front page of the New York Times as helping to save the Republican Party from Donald Trump without uttering a word. Nice work if you can get it. – Howard Kurtz/Fox
So George Bush is "saving" the GOP from Donald Trump.
Too bad someone couldn't save the GOP and America from George Bush.
For some reason, Howard Kurtz seems to believe that Bush did something clever in positioning himself to attack Trump.
Kurtz is a liberal journalist. He finds Bush's approach to Trump "remarkable."
That's probably because he doesn't like Trump very much.
Here's a bit of Kurtz's bio:
Howard Kurtz currently serves as host of Fox News Channel's (FNC) "MediaBuzz." … Kurtz, a veteran journalist and renowned media reporter, had been the host of CNN's weekly media criticism program, "Reliable Sources," since 1998.
He had also served as the Washington, D.C. bureau chief for The Daily Beast and Newsweek writing on the intersection of politics and media. Prior to that role, Kurtz spent 29 years at The Washington Post in various capacities.
Kurtz quotes from the New York Times article to explain some of the disagreements that Bush has with Trump.
The former president is "deeply bothered" by Trump's "derogatory remarks about Muslims and immigrants."
Also, Bush is concerned about holding on to Congressional power in order to provide a "check and balance" on the White House,
(It's fairly obvious whom Bush wishes to "check.")
Anyway, why is Bush bothered about Trump's anti-Islamic messages? Bush spent much of both terms killing and wounding millions of Muslims in the Middle East.
US depleted uranium weapons irradiated Iraq so terribly that women in various regions were told by doctors not to bear children.
As for immigrants, it's true that Bush tried to turn tens of millions of Mexican illegals into Americans with the stroke of a pen.
But the plan backfired amidst resentment and resistance.
In fact, it was a globalist trick. It had nothing to do with "caring" about immigrants and everything to do with destroying the remnants of "these united States" put in place by the Founding Fathers.
Bush is concerned about "checks and balances." But when Bush was in power and commanded the House and Senate, he started vicious wars, debauched the dollar and created new federal programs that were as vast as they were ruinous.
Bush's compassionate conservatism was a ruse. He was neither.
He further expanded fedgov's embrace of authoritarianism.
His social spending helped bankrupt the country.
None of this is in the least admirable. Good for Trump for providing an alternative.
Here's Kurt's conclusion:
You have to admire the way Bush has resisted the temptation to criticize his successor for almost eight years, sticking to his vow to retreat from public life. Now the only way for this tough-talking Texan to skewer his potential successor is through coded messages.
Again, we depart from Kurtz's view.
Bush retreated from public life because by the end of his regime, he had seriously angered tens of millions of Americans.
Read more at http://www.thedailybell.com/news-analysis/nothing-to-admire-in-bushs-attack-on-trump/.
|
|
|
|
What good is life without fun? I mean, if you have all the money in the world, and all the authority in the world, and all the knowledge, and all the power, but you don't have fun, what good is it to live? The smart people in government, the ones with the authority, the ones with the money, the ones with the knowledge, the ones with the power... they don't have fun. Rather, they are miserable. And they are so jealous of the rest of us for having marijuana fun, that they have made it illegal just so that we will be miserable just like they are. You know the old saying, "Misery loves company." Can you just confirm that you are actually advocating legalising marijuana? If so this is probably the first thing we can finally agree on. This is one area where i actually look up to america for pushing legislation forward (even if it is their fault it was banned in the first place ) I am totally NOT NOT NOT advocating legalizing marijuana. Why not? Legalization means government control, just like illegalization does. Government has too much control already. Rather, let them repeal all the laws against marijuana, and then drop out of the picture, letting the people be free to do what they want. Well if thats the case then id also be happy to do away with any kind of legislation and put the power into the peoples hands so i agree with you here that it should be totally beyond goverment control, although i would be willing to settle of legalisation since thats the best shot we have. THE PEOPLE HAVE THE POWER, ALREADY. They simply don't realize how much power they have. If they didn't, government would have overrun the whole country long ago. I'll re-post this Karl Lentz post entirely so that you can simply watch the video. The whole video is more than 5 hours, but you need to watch only 10 minutes of it (from https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1523090.msg15323373#msg15323373, but re-posted below). CLICK THE LINK IN THE PICTURES BELOW. Don't stop with the video. Learn all that Karl has to say. Flat Earth con exposed?! This is what Karl Lentz is doing to expose the whole government.Karl Lentz at Johnson City Tennessee - April 16th 2016
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qN3MI70PFBw |
|
|
|
I would convert all the Syrians to Christianity so that they can be saved for eternal life with God. This would clear up much of their international problems, as well. Yeah sure... And how are you going to convert them exactly? And how is it going to help them in their life? They already got a God that should "protect them" and "give them eternal life" but seems like it doesn't help you when a bomb is dropped on your house... Americans have much Christianity. They are stronger than Syria because many, many Americans believe their God... and He helps them. Allah of Islam is a false god, if he isn't the devil... can't help anybody with anything. The situation in life is that all people die. Science and Allah won't raise them from the dead in the resurrection, but the God of the Christians will. |
|
|
|
What good is life without fun? I mean, if you have all the money in the world, and all the authority in the world, and all the knowledge, and all the power, but you don't have fun, what good is it to live? The smart people in government, the ones with the authority, the ones with the money, the ones with the knowledge, the ones with the power... they don't have fun. Rather, they are miserable. And they are so jealous of the rest of us for having marijuana fun, that they have made it illegal just so that we will be miserable just like they are. You know the old saying, "Misery loves company." Can you just confirm that you are actually advocating legalising marijuana? If so this is probably the first thing we can finally agree on. This is one area where i actually look up to america for pushing legislation forward (even if it is their fault it was banned in the first place ) I am totally NOT NOT NOT advocating legalizing marijuana. Why not? Legalization means government control, just like illegalization does. Government has too much control already. Rather, let them repeal all the laws against marijuana, and then drop out of the picture, letting the people be free to do what they want. |
|
|
|
Trump's Campaign Con Collapses. Sad! His campaign, like his coiffure, is a few gilded threads spun together to give the impression of substance when there is plainly nothing underneath. If you want to find the truth in politics, follow the money. And the Trump campaign's latest Federal Election Commission filing shows why the self-proclaimed billionaire and conservative populist deserves to be known as Con Man Donald. The celebrity demagogue who delights in telling crowds that he is "very, very rich" is presiding over a Ponzi?scheme?like presidential campaign that — even as it has paid his own businesses millions of dollars — has just $1.3 million cash in hand.If this were a business, it would be going bankrupt. Instead it's a presidential campaign whose moral bankruptcy is on the verge of actual bankruptcy. To put the Donald's dire straits in perspective, consider that Hillary Clinton's campaign now has over $42 million cash on hand, over 600 staffers and a 100% advantage in television ad buys. To put it in terms Con Man Donald might understand: Size matters. All the spin of a celebrity demagogue can't eclipse the fact that the thicket of 22 businesses that he has paid through his campaign are evidence of a Potemkin marketing empire that exists to fund his lifestyle while avoiding as many taxes as possible in the process. Old habits die hard and based on the filing and its payments to Trump Ice and other afterthought entities, my guess is that when and if Con Man Donald ever releases his taxes we'll see the true meaning of what his fellow 1980s real estate celebutante, Leona Helmsley, used to say: "Only the little people pay taxes."
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
