If this included a method so that politicians could not kill or dismember in war or by other means, at least not in such a way that could keep people from regenerating, politicians and the SuperRich would turn their energies from war to finding a way to practically leave earth and colonize other planets.

If the eternal life only included a natural immortality, but people could still die in war or by mass destruction, then politicians and the SuperRich would do everything they could to increase wars around the world, while, at the same time promoting a practical colonization of space.

The space thing would be only so that they (politicians and the SuperRich) could get away, provided they couldn't find a way to ship people off planet in droves.

Politicians are people. People become politicians. If people lived endlessly in reasonable health, somewhere along the line all people would gain enough political understanding so that they would understand the things that politicians were doing. Because of this, politicians and the SuperRich would need to be careful in the ways that they attempted to do what they were attempting to do... manipulate the people.

Again, if people remained in reasonable health, everyone might retain a good portion of the memory of things that he had learned. People who moved into science realms would have a lot longer to learn more and to formulate new theories and ideas. Science might advance rapidly. The idea of space, galaxy, and intergalactic colonization might not take as long as it would otherwise.

Almost every win for the courts, where the person is accused by a governmental agency, is essentially a win because the person placed himself in that losing position.

The reason is that a defendant can demand to face his accuser. They agency can't come forward and be questioned on the stand. The agency can't swear or affirm anything. Why not? Because the agency is words on paper, and doesn't have a mouth, or a body to take the stand with.

In addition, there hast to be damage or harm done to the agency that can be proven to have been done by the defendant. The agency can't feel pain. The agency can't really express any damage done to it. The closest is a violation of a contract.

In addition, the defendant can counter-claim-sue. His counterclaim has to be answered before that agency can go forward with its case. His claim should be done by himself, as a man, requiring the damaged man present himself so that he can repay him for the damages. If a damaged or harmed man does not come forward, he wins the whole thing. If some human comes forward with a claim of harm of damage, then they go the next step.

This never happened in this case. The guy got scared and made a deal. He hanged himself, essentially.

Why do you think I don't want to hear atheists, at least somewhat? I read what they have to say, here. Others just hit "Ignore."

Everyone, as a person, is just as valid as any other person. This means that they have a right to hold their views as being valid. It does not mean that the views themselves are valid.



Yes, my beliefs. You have the right to consider them to be lies.



Yes, this is something that believers can't do. Only God can save anybody. Why? Because no believer can keep even himself from dying. Only God who created life in the first place has the power to raise people from the dead.



It is true that "birds of a feather flock together" and "there is strength in numbers." It is also true that most people of any religion don't have logical reasons for the basic points in their religions, like why they believe in God, or why they don't believe in God.



The point isn't saving anyone. With regard to life, nobody can save anybody else except temporarily - doctors and hospitals do this temporary saving quite often. The people they save still get old and die sometime.

The thing that is being done is, ideas are being scattered out among the unsaved so that they might consider their options for being saved.



I don't know why my comments suggest such things to you. I am working on finding out. I am guessing that you have fewer answers than I do. And until your answers satisfy you and make you comfortable, you are trying to push off my answers which make you uncomfortable... even scare you. I didn't answer because I didn't want to push you into examining your inner fear too closely, for fear of frightening you. Now that you are pressing the question, I have answered.

What does "100% religious" mean? If you mean like I said, that atheists are liars, this is a statement that they are not 100% believers in their religion.



A blind man is walking along on a bridge, tapping away with his cane. Suddenly his cane taps on emptiness. He doesn't realize that he took a wrong turn somewhere in his crossing of the bridge, and he is now standing at the edge of the chasm below. No fear, because he doesn't realize.

A man that can see, standing at the same spot, might be wetting his pants out of fear.

That isn't hate. It is the fear of a seeing harm come to a blind person, actuated by empathy. If the blind man doesn't heed the lack of tap from his cane, or doesn't heed the warning call of the seeing person...

Well, you get the picture.

However, in addition to the above allegory, when people sincerely move in the direction of believing in God, God appreciates that. He is a merciful God. He definitely would turn from His anger about people denying Him, to giving them special blessings for turning to Him. Blessings that come to the nation, come also to me a little.

Selfish, ain't I?

Something to do - pastime.

 

Wrong. Rather, there aren't any true atheists. Why? Because everybody knows in his heart that God exists. Why? Because the Spirit of God is in the heart of everybody, holding every person alive. All know Him instinctively - "no atheists in the foxholes." Extreme joy, or extreme fear or pain in the life of anyone, shows him/her that he/she believes in God.

Those who claim that God doesn't exist are liars. Because of this, essentially there aren't any atheists. Those liars who adamantly claim they are atheists, do so because they think that their claims will make Him go away. They hate Him.

Basically, you have the right to face your accuser. You have the right to question your accuser when he/she is on the stand. Your accuser must verify under oath or affirmation whatever he/she is accusing you of. There must be evidence. There must be a witness that identifies you. There must be harm to someone or damage to someone's property with clear evidence that it was you that did the harm or damage.

If your accuser is the State or Federal, get them on the stand to testify. If the State (not its attorney representative) doesn't get on the stand so you can question it, and so that it can verify its claim against you, or if it doesn't appear in court when you require, at worst, case dismissed. At best, you counter-sue the State for damages.

This is the same if it is a corporation or company attacking you. A corporation can't get on the stand (just like the State can't) because the corporation doesn't have an actual voice with which it can testify. The attorney for the corporation can't testify except if he has firsthand, direct knowledge of the incident. The CEO can't testify because he is only the CEO, not the corporation, etc.

Since your case is over, your best bet is to contact Karl Lentz to see if he will work with you direct. You may be able to reopen your case, or file a claim against anybody from the judge to your own attorney for doing things wrong. Generally, once there has been a jury trial, it is very difficult to reverse the verdict of the jury. But you may be able to sue people for damages so that your suit winnings cover the expenses of your judgment and sentence.

Websites for Karl are:

http://www.broadmind.org/

http://www.unkommonlaw.co.uk/

http://www.myprivateaudio.com/Karl-Lentz.html


Additional, to show what Karl does and how he does it are:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HOkAHRzuiOA&list=PLHrkQxgz0mg6kUBciD-HIvTXByqjcIZ-D

http://www.youtube.com/user/765736/videos?view=0&live_view=500&flow=grid&sort=da

http://www.youtube.com/channel/UC5duR4OvEHHxOSdEZhANETw

http://www.youtube.com/channel/UCwyBESRGpm1vZRErvtSmNGg


Another, not Karl:

http://voidjudgments.com/

All energy is free energy. If it didn't exist in free form, or bound up in the atoms and molecules of material, there would be no place that we could get it from.

The part that is not free is not the energy. The part that is not free is the accessing of the energy, and the manipulating of it to do our bidding.

Overgrown sweat glands.

Because the whole of entropy and the 2nd Law of Thermal Dynamics show us that the kind of development that goes from nothing to life, is destroyed by nature way faster than it can be propagated, even if it could be shown to be possible to exist and propagate that way, which it hasn't.



It doesn't. And that's the whole point. Even the best of researchers can't change the technology that is in the universe enough to produce a method for folks to live healthy lives to even 200 years old.

Where does our technology come from? Observing and using what is in nature... nowhere else. The universe is packed full of technology. It is simply put together differently - better - than ours, and for a different purpose.



What do you think a brain is?



I'll be saying, prove it. And if anyone reaches 200 using the methods research provides, I'd say that they had a good start. I might partake just to see if they are right.



If you really believe this, then you are missing a whole lot of scientific research. Creating simple life in the lab is something that is complicated enough that the things that we create can't be ascertained to really be life. Somebody doesn't do this in his garage in his spare time. There are hundreds of thousands of dollars of equipment that go into the experiments, and still, there is no certainty that the thing that was created is life. Yet, nature does it all the time, automatically.



The idea wasn't that our whole life is a religion. The idea is that we do many things in our lives in a religious way, like a religion.

People forget the morality that is built into them naturally. Without it, we would be savages. Even the animals have certain morality built into them by nature.

Formal religions are there for two reasons: 1) to remind us of the morality we forget; 2) to prepare us to enter into eternal life. The fact that there are bad people who use formal religious societies to do their wicked deeds simply shows us that not every person is morally minded... or headed for eternal life. However, if there were no formal religions to push morality, there would be way more chaos among the lives of people.

You can see that success in the lives of people, equates to the quality of the laws they religiously follow. All you need do is compare the religions of the various nations, and how well the people follow them.



Someone has deluded a whole bunch of folks into thinking that atheism is NOT a religion. Can we prove the existence of God? Can we prove that God does NOT exist? No, both ways. Atheism says that God does not exist, without proof, and even against the odds. Atheism is a religion. It is a religion of hate for God.



Except for one major thing. Evolution is an idea. It is even touted as only a theory among those who are attempting to prove it. This is because the researchers are just scratching the surface in their proof for evolution. They aren't even far enough along with their evidences to say that their evidence for a factual evolution, do NOT prove God in some other way at the same time. Evolution is nothing. It is fabrication.

Complex universe and life, combined with the wide-spread entropy that exists, combined with the cause and effect nature of everything that exists, suggests God so extremely much that He might as well have been proven. There is so little in the universe that suggests that God DOESN'T exist, that He is essentially proven, even though He technically has not been.

----------

These are words. Anybody can say that they mean nothing. And, of themselves, they mean extremely little. Yet, when the themes that these word express are examined in detail, the themes prove to be truth.

Place everything on an even basis. The question is, "Proof for God?" No absolute proof for God exists, or for anything else that would have the strength of God if He did existed. Forget the proof idea. also, forget the idea of all kinds of processes that such a God - if He exists - might have brought everything into existence.

Rather than trying to prove something that is not provable, look at the various ideas. Various ideas for where the universe came from are?:
1. God;
2. Evolution;
3. Nothing exists; it is all a figment of the imagination (not really a point because the imagination has to come from somewhere);
4. ?;
5. ?;
6. ?...

We simply don't know where the universe comes from in all its complexity, simplicity, decline (entropy), and seeming ascent at times. So far, because of our INability to understand all but a little, the best bet is "God," best by a long shot. It is even better than saying, Because we don't absolutely know for a fact, I'm simply going to ignore the whole topic. Why? No proof, but exceedingly strong evidence.

Now we have 2 Gods? Astrology is crap. Any god it produces is crap.

The universe, nature around us, and life show us that there is something fantastically great behind everything that exists. If there weren't, researchers would have developed life extension so that we could all live to 1000 years old, long ago.

As it is, research is still just finding out some of the basics of life. And we certainly don't have the ability to travel the universe. We can barely get off our own planet. Since we don't have much of a handle on anything - like we don't even know how to will ourselves to grow back a finger when we lose one - where does all this complex universe come from?

We use religion basics in our everyday lives. We "religiously" do certain activities all the time - eating, sleeping, going to the job, breathing. Religion that worships the God that is behind everything that exists, is certainly something noble.

Think long and hard before you decide to bypass religion. Some of that religion is about God, the Guy Who holds your life and existence in the palm of His hand. To see it, simply look at nature around you, and see how your existence fits into everything that exists.

The U.S. government raised taxes so high that it made good sense to move manufacturing to other countries... because the labor was cheap there. Now those other countries have the technology that we sent over there to do the manufacturing, and they are developing the tech that we didn't send. Soon there will be no cheap labor countries left to go to.

As our cheap labor countries grow with our technology, their labor becomes more expensive, because they adopt our ways.

Our economy will collapse because our government and banks are too greedy to acquiesce to the things that makes sense: eliminate taxes, get rid of stupid laws that take freedom from the people, open up every kind of home manufacturing to any Americans that want, eliminate the police state, etc.

"Perfect love drives out fear," comes from 1 John in the New Testament of the Bible.   

This thread reminded me about a plasma process that converts garbage into clean energy. The project is operational. The device used is relatively small. I believe these units are in use in a few different locations throughout the western hemisphere. A portion of one website article about them:

http://www.greengeek.ca/plasma-process-converts-garbage-into-clean-energy/



EDIT:

What do you mean? Many folks think that the asteroid belt was a planet once - perhaps a good size moon of Jupiter. Nobody knows for sure, scientifically. Why do you want to stick to fiction about religion? Religion is real. so, the ideals behind it must have some basis in reality, even though many of them can't be proven scientifically.



EDIT: The miracles about how a person is conceived, is born, grows into an adult, and withers away to die are finally being understood a little bit, scientifically. Yet, we really don't have a clue how this whole thing started, or what could have started it. Actually, it is scientifically impossible according to the limited science that we have. So, why would things like splitting the moon or the resurrection be considered nonsense, when the whole of life is something that is extremely impossible, except for one point? It exists.

Okay. Thanks for saying. Have a nice day.

Are you sure you are not another of Decksperiment's multiple personalities?

Okay. Thanks for saying. I'll take it under advisory, even though I don't agree. Have a nice day.

Okay. Thanks for saying. I don't agree with you. Have a nice day.