You should be thanking me. After all, if I or someone else could straighten you up a little, your answers to the atheists might become effective.
We are fighting atheism, don't confuse your opponents BADecker. :-| Thank You. You seem to want to fight your atheist opponents with a spear and sword. Why not fight them with modern armament like I am trying to teach you to do?  |
|
|
|
Proper use of weed (cannabis) products would cure people of more than 90% of what ails them. Combining weed usage with things like MMS, Laminine, GcMAF, hydrogen peroxide therapy, phytronutrient ingestion, EDTA (for cleansing from heavy metals), and others, just might give people a life span of, say, 500 years. |
|
|
|
If it had been a stork, it would have brought life, not taken life away. After all, isn't it the stork that brings the new babies to the parents? But now we see that a crane is the one that takes life away.  |
|
|
|
Many Christians believe that Jesus is their savior and justify this by faith, not realizing that Jesus never once suggested that he was my savior; such believers should make better use of their reasoning faculties. I value good actions more than faith. Man is a creature of reason, so it is good to use reason when debating facts; it is too bad that so few are aware of the evidence of the afterlife or else we would have far more reasoned discussion about these topics; I feel that this evidence can be used to prove the existence of a supreme being, and help show the way to atheists. Some atheists have so much "faith" in their own worldview that they prejudicially dismiss all evidence of life-after-death and thus behave irrationally. Faith seems to be an irrational and dogmatic state of mind, so I will instead advise the seeker to read it ALL and then decide in wisdom of knowledge. See: http://www.near-death.com/evidence.htmlYou cannot defeat atheism with Reason. You need to defeat atheism with Faith: Faith is religion's tool atheism is Reason tool. You cannot play with the weapons of your opponent unless you'll want to die. I have faith that God will give me enough of the wisdom of Solomon (see Proverbs and Ecclesiastes) that I will be able to defeat atheism by reason, through faith. I was once an atheist, so if I had been deserving of death then, and was killed, then I would never have been redeemed.
You were killed because you didn't follow some rules. First rule is knowledge leads to death (as the Genesis episode states clearly). You probably faced knowledge and then didn't cared about the consequences. That is what most people do. But you have been given (forced into) temporary life here on earth, through the Son of God, Jesus the Christ, so that you can come to faith in Him, so that you gain eternal life rather than eternal death. It is a gift of God. It is not good works or lack of bad works that does it. Also, if you say "atheists should die", then there must be someone to do the killing.
You are changing the verb of my sentence: this is not agreeing. If you don't agree state that clearly, although I do appreciate the partial agreement: a partial agreement is better than nothing. This is not God's will because God does not destroy. When you say "this is the will of the Father, this is the will of God, this is a theological conclusion", you have to realize that it is coming from within you, for that is where God resides.
Are you high? After the Genesis episode the Bible is all G-d destroying and rebuilding. It is since the Original Sin that men are pushing G-d to the limits and G-d is destroying everything he built for the men and rebuilding again (Babel's tower episode as first).
Wow  , the pope has self-appointed himself authority over God who gets forgiven or not. What are you talking about: the Pope is the vicary of Christ on earth? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primacy_of_Simon_PeterThis is really basic catechism: you'll learn that in 1st primary school from the Country were I came from. At the resurrection of Jesus, Who were the first people to see Him after He was made alive again. Weren't they the women? The women were first to see Him after His resurrection. Why were the women the first to see Him then? After all, the women do not hold a prominent place over the men in the New Testament, and very seldomly in the Old. Wasn't it because they were there, at the tomb, after He arose? But the men weren't. Similarly, the only reason Peter was held up above the rest of the apostles was he was there. In life before he met Jesus, he was a but of a forward person. He was among men what a "woman liber" is among women. He was pushy and boastful to some extent. And God simply used it, BECAUSE HE WAS THERE. ---------- Notice the fickleness of Peter in the following Bible verses. The Roman Catholic Church probably DOES follow the pattern of Peter. If you look at all the Papal Bulls, you can see the fickleness of the Church over the ages. But God never changes. So why follow the fickleness of Peter? Matthew 16:16-23: Simon Peter answered, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.”
Jesus replied, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven. And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.” Then he warned his disciples not to tell anyone that he was the Christ.
From that time on Jesus began to explain to his disciples that he must go to Jerusalem and suffer many things at the hands of the elders, chief priests and teachers of the law, and that he must be killed and on the third day be raised to life.
Peter took him aside and began to rebuke him. “Never, Lord!” he said. “This shall never happen to you!”
Jesus turned and said to Peter, “Get behind me, Satan! You are a stumbling block to me; you do not have in mind the things of God, but the things of men.” When Jesus said "And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it," He wasn't enlisting or recruiting or installing Peter as His vicar here on earth. Rather, He was making the distinction between Peter and the church. As long as anyone holds to the expression of faith that Peter expressed, that person is part of the church. It has nothing to do with promoting Peter as vicar, or setting up a head of the Church on earth. We can see below that, that Peter was even called Satan by Jesus. However, that is the way the leaders of the Roman Catholic Church in Rome often act... like Satan, basing salvation on good works or lack of bad ones, rather than basing salvation of the work of Jesus on the cross. Peter denied Jesus before Pilate, when Jesus was being judged, just before He was crucified. Sure, it was a moment of weakness. But by his denial he was not included as one of the apostles until he was reinstated by the arisen Christ. See how it happened by reading from the Gospel of John, chapter 18 to the end. Why did you replied to answers made for other people BADecker? You have a discipline problem and is especially seen in this statement when you refuse authority: However, that is the way the leaders of the Roman Catholic Church in Rome often act... like Satan, basing salvation on good works or lack of bad ones, rather than basing salvation of the work of Jesus on the cross.
We are fighting against atheism, don't confuse your opponents. Thank You. You should be thanking me. After all, if I or someone else could straighten you up a little, your answers to the atheists might become effective. |
|
|
|
We as a society will not respect the rights of animals because we don't recognize human rights properly yet.
True. But what are animal rights? Aren't animal rights in the wild simply the way animals instinctively act under whatever circumstances they find themselves in, according to their nature? And in captivity, aren't animal rights completely subservient to their owners' authority in every way? A merciful owner has mercy on his animals, and even love for them. If he eats them, he kills them swiftly so that they feel little pain. If a society restricts its members from eating animals or treating their animal property how they want, it is a society of slavery among people. In a land of freedom, people have right to do with their animal property and other property as they desire. It is when people do NOT have freedom to do with their animal property what they want, that people are like animals before their society or government. Since society and government are made up of people, what gives them the right to decide how other people should treat their own property? |
|
|
|
We as a society will not respect the rights of animals because we don't recognize human rights properly yet.
Sometimes, I look back at my posts and think about how intelligent I was back then, what happened? Sometimes I consider my previous posts and think about how much the threads in here have clarified my thinking for myself, and the way to express such thinking. |
|
|
|
Ignorance. They know nothing about it and that allows people to fill the gaps in their knowledge with whatever bias they have. It's also true that all people hear about are Islamic terrorists. Obviously the jihadists represent a very small number of Muslims.
I agree with you. This is so true. People are usually unaware and in oblivion of what is going on. Most people are prejudicial and just assume what the whole community will be like by hearing about nonsense stereotypes which is really sad . The solution to this probblem is by education and respect and appreciation of other people's principles and cultures. Which is EXACTLY why I am asking simple, direct questions. Was Arafat a Muslim? Are you complaining a religion based on a single person ? what are you even saying ? Many People just dont follow religion ,its that simple. religion is like a community ,if they like it they join it ..(there can be bad people in the community ?) James 1:27: Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world. |
|
|
|
Many Christians believe that Jesus is their savior and justify this by faith, not realizing that Jesus never once suggested that he was my savior; such believers should make better use of their reasoning faculties. I value good actions more than faith. Man is a creature of reason, so it is good to use reason when debating facts; it is too bad that so few are aware of the evidence of the afterlife or else we would have far more reasoned discussion about these topics; I feel that this evidence can be used to prove the existence of a supreme being, and help show the way to atheists. Some atheists have so much "faith" in their own worldview that they prejudicially dismiss all evidence of life-after-death and thus behave irrationally. Faith seems to be an irrational and dogmatic state of mind, so I will instead advise the seeker to read it ALL and then decide in wisdom of knowledge. See: http://www.near-death.com/evidence.htmlYou cannot defeat atheism with Reason. You need to defeat atheism with Faith: Faith is religion's tool atheism is Reason tool. You cannot play with the weapons of your opponent unless you'll want to die. I have faith that God will give me enough of the wisdom of Solomon (see Proverbs and Ecclesiastes) that I will be able to defeat atheism by reason, through faith. I was once an atheist, so if I had been deserving of death then, and was killed, then I would never have been redeemed.
You were killed because you didn't follow some rules. First rule is knowledge leads to death (as the Genesis episode states clearly). You probably faced knowledge and then didn't cared about the consequences. That is what most people do. But you have been given (forced into) temporary life here on earth, through the Son of God, Jesus the Christ, so that you can come to faith in Him, so that you gain eternal life rather than eternal death. It is a gift of God. It is not good works or lack of bad works that does it. Also, if you say "atheists should die", then there must be someone to do the killing.
You are changing the verb of my sentence: this is not agreeing. If you don't agree state that clearly, although I do appreciate the partial agreement: a partial agreement is better than nothing. This is not God's will because God does not destroy. When you say "this is the will of the Father, this is the will of God, this is a theological conclusion", you have to realize that it is coming from within you, for that is where God resides.
Are you high? After the Genesis episode the Bible is all G-d destroying and rebuilding. It is since the Original Sin that men are pushing G-d to the limits and G-d is destroying everything he built for the men and rebuilding again (Babel's tower episode as first).
Wow , the pope has self-appointed himself authority over God who gets forgiven or not. What are you talking about: the Pope is the vicary of Christ on earth? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primacy_of_Simon_PeterThis is really basic catechism: you'll learn that in 1st primary school from the Country were I came from. At the resurrection of Jesus, Who were the first people to see Him after He was made alive again. Weren't they the women? The women were first to see Him after His resurrection. Why were the women the first to see Him then? After all, the women do not hold a prominent place over the men in the New Testament, and very seldomly in the Old. Wasn't it because they were there, at the tomb, after He arose? But the men weren't. Similarly, the only reason Peter was held up above the rest of the apostles was he was there. In life before he met Jesus, he was a butt of a forward person. He was among men what a "woman liber" is among women. He was pushy and boastful to some extent. And God simply used it, BECAUSE HE WAS THERE. ---------- Notice the fickleness of Peter in the following Bible verses. The Roman Catholic Church probably DOES follow the pattern of Peter. If you look at all the Papal Bulls, you can see the fickleness of the Church over the ages. But God never changes. So why follow the fickleness of Peter? Matthew 16:16-23: Simon Peter answered, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.”
Jesus replied, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven. And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.” Then he warned his disciples not to tell anyone that he was the Christ.
From that time on Jesus began to explain to his disciples that he must go to Jerusalem and suffer many things at the hands of the elders, chief priests and teachers of the law, and that he must be killed and on the third day be raised to life.
Peter took him aside and began to rebuke him. “Never, Lord!” he said. “This shall never happen to you!”
Jesus turned and said to Peter, “Get behind me, Satan! You are a stumbling block to me; you do not have in mind the things of God, but the things of men.” When Jesus said "And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it," He wasn't enlisting or recruiting or installing Peter as His vicar here on earth. Rather, He was making the distinction between Peter and the church. As long as anyone holds to the expression of faith that Peter expressed, that person is part of the church. It has nothing to do with promoting Peter as vicar, or setting up a head of the Church on earth. We can see below that, that Peter was even called Satan by Jesus. However, that is the way the leaders of the Roman Catholic Church in Rome often act... like Satan, basing salvation on good works or lack of bad ones, rather than basing salvation of the work of Jesus on the cross. Peter denied Jesus before Pilate, when Jesus was being judged, just before He was crucified. Sure, it was a moment of weakness. But by his denial he was not included as one of the apostles until he was reinstated by the arisen Christ. See how it happened by reading from the Gospel of John, chapter 18 to the end. |
|
|
|
I'd buy some then. And when it came back down, I'd sell for a loss. I wouldn't like it. But that's about the way most of us do it, isn't it? |
|
|
|
Hi, Beliathon. Hadn't seen you posting for a while. Glad to see that you are back. Yeah just got back from hell, Satan sends his regards. Also God is dead and it's our time now. We will feast on your flesh. Hail Satan, the awakening draws near. image Glad you made it back. Hope things weren't too hard on you down there... for you, that is. But for us, it would have been difficult to go on without your cheer. What happened down there... if it isn't too personal, that is? |
|
|
|
Bump! God still not dead. Graham Hancock, journalist turned archaeologist, has shown that about 12,500 years ago there was a society on earth that was worldwide, and scientifically advanced beyond ours in some ways. Simply Youtube search and watch Mr. Hancock's videos to see the evidence all over the world. I don't necessarily agree with the timing that Mr. Hancock suggests, but the point is, if theistic religion were going to fail off the earth, it would have happened long ago. God will NEVER die. Not even in the minds of the people. Ayahuasca might be spiritual, but without Jesus, it is useless at best, and deadly for the soul at worst. One of the faults of Graham Hancock... not that his former use of marijuana was any less dangerous. Ayahuasca told him to stop weed... Ayahuasca is not government. Ayahuasca can only suggest. At some point Ayahuasca will become government just like weed... or like the United States. |
|
|
|
IMO, people should be given the choice whether whey want to own a fire-arm or not. In places like Texas, where home invasions are very common, the possession of a fire-arm can save many lives. However, the government should make it impossible for people with a criminal record, and those with mental issues from obtaining fire-arms.
It sound`s nice in teory, but in real life who will judge about who have mental issues or criminal record or problem with wife and her lover. Much better would be with no gun`s at all, it would be much less suffering in the world. I agree with you about the difficulty of determining who is stable enough. That is why we have rigorous background checks for things like carry licenses. However, violence and cruelty did not start with the invention of the gun and would not go away if all the guns magically disappeared. Violence is not caused by machines it is a behavior that has been present since before we were humans. Of course violence and cruelty did not start with invetion of the gun, but without so much weapons there would be less crimes, and I wish to believe that we are on much bigger mind level then we were before what we are now. In anyway I think that its not good what guns represent and what kind of message send`s to younger generation`s. I wish I knew a way to take the violence out of someone. If they understood the pain and grief they cause maybe they would reconsider? But history has no precedent for a violence free society. Some have less,some have more, all have some. But I do not agree that the number of guns is the factor that counts. Where I grew up everyone had a gun, and I mean every single household. Shooting was something we all did for fun with our friends and family. But there was not a single incidence of gun violence there. ( Although I do recall a guy who shot himself accidentally while climbing a tree stand.) Later when I moved to a city that had banned the carrying of guns I saw gun violence all the time. My neighbor across the street was shot to death in a robbery, my GF had two home invasions in a year, another friend who taught poor kids how to fix bikes was shot by a 12 year old boy, I heard shots all the time and always by someone who should never have a had a gun in the first place. Now I live in a time when gun violence is actually at historic lows and I carry every day. But to exercise that right I have had to get background checks by the FBI, with fingerprints and all. I trust this system and when I see someone carrying at a restaurant, I know that we are all safer there. It is not the people who legally carry who are involved in these shootings. It is the usual suspects who are well known to police and mental health officials. The people we failed to help or include in society and that, unsurprisingly, act out violently. If you want to make a dent in the violence tell me what you propose to do with theses people. Because another gun law makes no difference to them and will only be obeyed by those of us who were never a threat in the first place, indeed the ones who might be able to help when the shooting starts. Do away with violence. Violently beat the crap out of them until they stop being violent. Then you won't have any reason for being violent any longer, and there will be peace. |
|
|
|
Bump! God still not dead. Graham Hancock, journalist turned archaeologist, has shown that about 12,500 years ago there was a society on earth that was worldwide, and scientifically advanced beyond ours in some ways. Simply Youtube search and watch Mr. Hancock's videos to see the evidence all over the world. I don't necessarily agree with the timing that Mr. Hancock suggests, but the point is, if theistic religion were going to fail off the earth, it would have happened long ago. God will NEVER die. Not even in the minds of the people. Ayahuasca might be spiritual, but without Jesus, it is useless at best, and deadly for the soul at worst. One of the faults of Graham Hancock... not that his former use of marijuana was any less dangerous. |
|
|
|
You will never know if the answer is truthful or not... especially from people who have gone to The Virgin Islands for recycling. |
|
|
|
It's a constant problem in universities now, dissent is always crushed, no matter what form it is, I might not agree with this particular guy because I think our population is exploding and we shouldn't be bringing kids into this world unless we can afford it. However you have people who simply talk about free speech and expression and perfectly sane people like this feminist called Christina Hoff Sommers who you may have heard about who are talking about perfectly rational things and then actually being attacked for it.
Universities now seem to be nothing more than recruitment and propaganda stations for various political ideologies instead of any real place of learning and debate.
Well you have to realize that the universities are the most hypocritical institutions out there. They promote democracy and individual rights and power separation, yet they work on a fucking tyrranical model  You got 1 tyrant controlling 30-40 students, and the students do what they are told to. If they disobey they are failed, or kicked out of the university (atleast they are not put in a cage). Very democratical what to say. You got 40 studends, yet none of the studends opinions ever matter, its only the egomanical professor that likes to rule is what matters isnt it? Regarding students, maybe it is time to start a university pre-school. We would teach the students how to compartmentalize their brains and minds to separate the prof's egomaniacal attitudes and teachings from potential or actual reality. In other words, the students would be taught to question everything, but only express the questions to the prof that he would allow, and only use complete humility in questioning. Then, after class, to search out the real answers, especially to the answers the prof gives. Of course, all the students would have to attend such a pre-school with false identities. After all, universities wouldn't let them in after such training. If all else failed, these students could get a job with government, as sleeper agents overseas. After all, such compartmentalization of mind is exactly what sleeper agents have a knack for. |
|
|
|
Bump! God still not dead. Graham Hancock, journalist turned archaeologist, has shown that about 12,500 years ago there was a society on earth that was worldwide, and scientifically advanced beyond ours in some ways. Simply Youtube search and watch Mr. Hancock's videos to see the evidence all over the world. I don't necessarily agree with the timing that Mr. Hancock suggests, but the point is, if theistic religion were going to fail off the earth, it would have happened long ago. God will NEVER die. Not even in the minds of the people. |
|
|
|
Muslims are often far more philosophical than Americans. After all, they often have more than one wife and lots of kids. Come to think of it, Mormons fit this category, as well. The Amish are the "greenest" people around, and yet they are never consulted regarding Global Warming... Since the Amish drive around in horse and buggy, one would never know that they have a lot more money than most people. Is this what you mean by "greenest?" Most of them don't use modern things like computers and Internet. What are they going to do when the "green" collapses and they can't engage Bitcoin? |
|
|
|
It seems that some users have exposed MARS one as a scam but it was not needed if the governments of the world cannot do it then, no one can. Besides there is simply not a good reason to go right now to mars, maybe in the future, there’s no rush.
There is a very good reason to go to Mars - all of humanity's eggs are on one basket planet - literally. I disagree with this if that is what you want, the moon could be enough. When I made my statement I meant “economic reasons to go to mars”. If an extinction level event that could destroy the earth and the moon was detected then we will have a reason to go to mars, but since this is not the case I think we’re fine on planet earth. No. It is actually a bit less costly in propellant to go Earth to Mars as opposed to Earth to Moon. Also Mars has plenty of the elements needed for life, such as N, H, and C. These basically do not exist on the Moon, with the possible exception of the ice deposits currently being studied at the poles. Because of the lack of basic elements on the Moon, it is not possible to build self sustaining colonies there. For example, you could not make plastics. Iron could not be turned into steel because of the scarcity of Carbon. Many such issues. The Moon is good for many things, but human settlements, no. Mars is better suited, but we are a long way from ready to do it. Until such a time that we find that Mars has humic microbes, we would need to take some along if we ever wanted grow any plants in Mars soil. There is no soil as you know it on Mars. Soil here is over 40% long decomposed insects and fauna. Think of Martian soil as simple powdered rock. Powdered rock along with water, nitrogen, oxygen and carbon are exactly the things that humic microbes need to make soil. Of course, the process is enhanced by other things, including certain fungi that can live on rock. Extra protection for humic microbes from radiation may be necessary, since the atmosphere of Mars is so thin. Wikipedia tells us that the process isn't fully understood. Possibly we would have great difficulty creating soil out of Martian rock on Mars, and it might even be impossible to do and maintain outside of laboratory conditions. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humushttp://www.the-compost-gardener.com/soil.htmlAny "gardening" that was done on Mars would have to be done inside a pressure vessel with artificial lighting and as you mention, "manufactured soil." There is no known way to make such vessels on Mar out of native materials, and certainly no known way to make the parts for artificial lighting or collection of solar power, and creation of electricial to run artificial lights. These areas would have to be temperature controlled. All together this makes it very difficult to think in terms of acres of farmland. Now how much land does it take to support one human? A company called Bigelow Aerospace may have the answer. They have built blimp-like space stations - http://www.nbcnews.com/science/space/bigelow-aerospace-shows-its-expandable-space-station-future-n322521. NASA is looking into this, and the thing might actually be way more practical than a first glance would suggest. Float a blimp to Mars, or fly it there on a spacecraft, and set it up on the surface of Mars as a habitat. Actually, many such blimps could be shipped to Mars, un-inflated, in one flight. All materials for living conditions could be onboard. Google "blimp space station" for more info. |
|
|
|
IMO, people should be given the choice whether whey want to own a fire-arm or not. In places like Texas, where home invasions are very common, the possession of a fire-arm can save many lives. However, the government should make it impossible for people with a criminal record, and those with mental issues from obtaining fire-arms.
It sound`s nice in teory, but in real life who will judge about who have mental issues or criminal record or problem with wife and her lover. Much better would be with no gun`s at all, it would be much less suffering in the world. I agree with you about the difficulty of determining who is stable enough. That is why we have rigorous background checks for things like carry licenses. However, violence and cruelty did not start with the invention of the gun and would not go away if all the guns magically disappeared. Violence is not caused by machines it is a behavior that has been present since before we were humans. Of course violence and cruelty did not start with invetion of the gun, but without so much weapons there would be less crimes, and I wish to believe that we are on much bigger mind level then we were before what we are now. In anyway I think that its not good what guns represent and what kind of message send`s to younger generation`s. Taking guns from those who pass background checks is not going to stop criminals from having guns. Part of the answer is to become a secured party creditor. A secured party creditor is the one who is the first creditor that a debt is owed to in a debt situation. In other words, let's say you have a judgment where Pete owes you some money. And lets say that Pete owes money to 5 other guys. If you get a judgment against Pete first, Pete is required to pay you off before the other 5 guys get one penny. Now, in almost 100% of the transactions you make with government, the transactions are really made between the government and an artificial entity that has a name like yours name. Why? Because government almost never makes an agreement with a human being. The reason the agreements you made with government seem to be between you and government is, government presumes that you are the artificial entity. When you don't rebut it, it stands as true, and government does to you, as though they were doing it to an artificial entity. The thing that you need to do is to become the secured party creditor over the artificial entity that bears the name that looks almost exactly like yours. Some people call this entity a "strawman." Then, when government makes the agreement with the artificial entity, you have shown that it is not you. The artificial entity you are secured party creditor for may have been disallowed by government from owning a gun. This doesn't mean that YOU can't own a gun. It simply means that a government controlled gun seller can't sell one to you. You will have to get your guns elsewhere. And, of course, if government comes after you for owning or holding guns, you will need to be ready to make the distinction between yourself and the secured party debtor you are creditor for, and show government that the secured party debtor doesn't own or hold a gun. For more info, start here http://www.abodia.com/ucc/. Once you get some of this info down, you will know how to search for more. The site has good info about the declarations to make and how to make them to show that you are and have been a secured party creditor all along. As a note, Karl Lentz and others don't like messing with secured party creditor stuff. But Karl and others have the methods to make the distinction between you as a man/woman and the secured party debtor that you are creditor over, if you are ever attacked by government. Government agents may attack you physically, but legally they are after the secured party debtor strawman that you are secured party creditor for. You simply need to show them the distinction... rebut their presumption that you are it. |
|
|
|
I see you are following your calling... making faces. Now all you need to do is get some good pictures in here, like Beliathon does. Just look at his post a couple of posts above. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
