Messages

16

Debate & Discuss / Re: Need a quick God related question answered

« on: August 07, 2010, 03:15:38 pm »Message ID: 217627

So the answer is.....??

mm. Seems the answer to my question is "HOW DARE YOU ASK THIS QUESTION"

Still waiting for one post from any Christian person (one that believes a man really rose from the dead some 200 years ago) to post anything. ANYTHING. That doesn't make them look like a complete crazy person. 

I asked a simple question. I assumed they taught you something intelligent to say when this is brought up in bible school or something. I was merely curious.

There is no logical answer, because the question is founded on nothing logical.  The only solution available is to throw your hands up and accept the absurdity. Let omnipotent mean what it means: "omni-", totally; "-potent", powerful - and answer "yes" to any question that starts with "can God...," even if that question is beyond absurd: "Can God create a square circle?" "Yes." It's the only way to avoid the paradoxes - because paradoxes only apply when there are logical constraints, and there is simply no way to make God work within logical constraints. Thousands upon thousands of years of trying (with various gods), and it hasn't been done yet.

I don't know why this is so difficult for people to do, but it is.  After all, we're talking about a being of enormous power that is apparently unbound by the laws of causality, and that either emerged fully formed out of nothing or has "always existed". Absurdity seems almost par for the course.

17

Debate & Discuss / Re: Need a quick God related question answered

« on: August 07, 2010, 11:02:49 am »Message ID: 217556

the answers were given but skeptics refuse to perceive God as the all powerful being that he is.

Not really.  The issue here, as with most theology, is you start with an untenable position, then spend century upon century trying to worm your way out of the paradoxes instead of just wiping the slate clean and accepting that the original meaning of "omnipotence" was unsupportable to begin with.

when you understand that he didn't have to do PHYSICAL labor to CREATE the boulder all he did was SPEAK it into existence because he is GOD and he can do that

How the stone is created is irrelevant.

how could he make something he can't even lift? NOTHING is impossible for God.

err that's why it's labeled a paradox "/  Because it doesn't make logical sense no matter how you spin it.  The fact is the concept of omnipotence is logically flawed, which is what the paradox points out.  Generations of theologians and apologists then spend their time trying to squirm their way around the simple paradox, rather than come clean and say - neh, if there is a God it is not omnipotent, sorry, we made an error.

now if you are waiting for a scientific answer there is none....God is supernatural not natural. He has left evidence to his power and existence in his creation but he will never be completely provable because of his invisible nature. that's why it requires faith to believe in him.

I need no scientific answer -- the question has a pretty straightforward answer with just a little rational thought concerning the definition and position as a whole.

however it requires MORE faith to believe that our entire universe is entirely random and that evolution is responsible for everything. it's completely ridiculous and sig sounds like an angry person who just wants to antagonize people. if you really wanted answers you got them. it's up to you what to do with the information.

This is a red herring.  Irrelevant to anything I said.

and praying is not passive aggressive. it is the single most powerful thing people can do for each other.

This has nothing to do with my post  

18

Debate & Discuss / Re: Need a quick God related question answered

« on: August 07, 2010, 07:52:14 am »Message ID: 217514

I tried Google and got a bunch of mixed responses. So.....

What is the official Christian answer to the "Can God create a boulder so large and Heavy that Even He cannot lift it himself" question?

I believe if you were a Christian you would already know that answer without asking anyone else.  I can see you just want to stir up the bee's nest.  Have fun.

Why would you assume he's a Christian?  He makes no hint at that.  Even if he was, why would he automatically know the answer?  Many Christian denominations have very different beliefs about this or that -- perhaps he could be curious about how different sects view God's omnipotence.

He asked a valid question (this time).  One that's really never gotten a decent answer from Christian apologetics.  And this thread didn't help so meh -.-

19

Debate & Discuss / Re: Obama and America`s deficit.

« on: August 07, 2010, 07:48:59 am »Message ID: 217511

lmao somebody complimented that post humorous...I don't know what it is about FC, but these forums have some of the nuttiest members I've ever seen.

20

Debate & Discuss / Re: What do you think about Male and Female Prostitution?

« on: August 05, 2010, 12:32:43 pm »Message ID: 216890

People can do as they wish.  Victimless "crime" = government has no business protecting people from themselves.

so would you apply this to forcing people to wear their seatbelts?? i mean if i don't want to wear my seatbelt should i get fined for something that would only hurt me??

The common logic behind mandatory seat belt laws is when you fly through the windshield after a collision, there's absolutely no potential for anybody to control your vehicle, which could very easily continue moving into other traffic/pedestrian areas and cause even more extensive damage.  If you are wearing a seat belt, the likelihood that you'll remain in your seat (and conscious) increases dramatically, and hopefully you'll be capable of putting a stop to the car that's still in gear.  There you have reduced risk of injury/death.

Even further, studies show that non-seat belt users often pose an economic cost to society at large, as their hospitalization costs are often much higher than those who wear seat belts (one study points towards that number being 25% more; perhaps it's exaggerated as I didn't read the study, but I'd be inclined to say the initial claim remains).

So no, I personally feel seat belt laws serve a positive purpose in protecting even more people from being harmed in the event of traffic accidents and reduce or prevent possible economic costs to society.  In the case of having children in the vehicle, they're most certainly justifiable.

Well, I agree that enforcing seat belts is justified. However, in legalizing prostitution ....it's not victimless. As in every "job" out there, you have people who do their job sloppy and barely seem to have a brain to work with. If just anyone can now decide to go into prostitution you're going to have idiots who are sloppy about it and I think spreading diseases carelessly, is not victimless.
So if it's legalized you are still going to deal with the government regulating safety issues involved. But they can regulate all they want, countless people drive everyday without a seat belt and without getting caught doing it. Legalize prostitution and it makes it easier for people to do it....and countless people will engage in dangerous unsafe sexual activities every day...without getting caught.

Oh yes....I can see how societies morals are "evolving" so wonderfully 

It is by definition victimless -- that is what authorities list it as.  If you want to argue with them about what to label it, more power to you.  I use the standard terminology.

21

Debate & Discuss / Re: Picketing Schedule

« on: August 04, 2010, 09:20:07 pm »Message ID: 216634

Real life trolls "/ Boring.  I pay no attention to them anymore.

22

Off-Topic / Re: Does paypal charge any fees?

« on: August 04, 2010, 05:20:24 pm »Message ID: 216583

A Personal Paypal account doesn't, although it has some monthly limitations.  Business Paypal account has fees I believe, at least on receiving transactions.

23

Debate & Discuss / Re: What do you think about Male and Female Prostitution?

« on: August 03, 2010, 06:34:45 pm »Message ID: 216187

People can do as they wish.  Victimless "crime" = government has no business protecting people from themselves.

so would you apply this to forcing people to wear their seatbelts?? i mean if i don't want to wear my seatbelt should i get fined for something that would only hurt me??

The common logic behind mandatory seat belt laws is when you fly through the windshield after a collision, there's absolutely no potential for anybody to control your vehicle, which could very easily continue moving into other traffic/pedestrian areas and cause even more extensive damage.  If you are wearing a seat belt, the likelihood that you'll remain in your seat (and conscious) increases dramatically, and hopefully you'll be capable of putting a stop to the car that's still in gear.  There you have reduced risk of injury/death.

Even further, studies show that non-seat belt users often pose an economic cost to society at large, as their hospitalization costs are often much higher than those who wear seat belts (one study points towards that number being 25% more; perhaps it's exaggerated as I didn't read the study, but I'd be inclined to say the initial claim remains).

So no, I personally feel seat belt laws serve a positive purpose in protecting even more people from being harmed in the event of traffic accidents and reduce or prevent possible economic costs to society.  In the case of having children in the vehicle, they're most certainly justifiable.

24

Debate & Discuss / Re: What do you think about Male and Female Prostitution?

« on: August 02, 2010, 09:52:59 pm »Message ID: 215836

People can do as they wish.  Victimless "crime" = government has no business protecting people from themselves.

25

Debate & Discuss / Re: Moon Landing

« on: July 31, 2010, 10:45:50 pm »Message ID: 214660

Ignorance is bliss, eh sig? Get back to us with your proof after you take a physics class or something. Or just keep on bathing in your debunked conspiracy.

Until then-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VDW0ZnZxjn4&feature=related

eh let him be.  he's picture shows he's old enough to understand.  either there's a mental illness involved or trolling.

26

Off-Topic / Re: Is Rock music satanic? mwahaha

« on: July 31, 2010, 09:19:43 pm »Message ID: 214616

How much of that did you actually confirm?


The answer would be a:  No.

27

Debate & Discuss / Re: IS THE WORLD COMING TO AN END?

« on: July 31, 2010, 07:40:54 pm »Message ID: 214534

The bible says no man knoweth the DAY or HOUR but even Jesus commanded us to know and discern the "season" of his coming. He tells us there will be signs in the sun, moon and stars and we should watch for these signs and be vigilant.
There are three books which map out a plot for global control. Albert Pike's Morals and Dogma , the Illuminati's Protocols of Sion and The Holy Bible's Book Of Revelation . All three texts describe an apocalypse or third world war which will give rise to one world ruler. In 2015, William turns 33 which is the ascended number in Freemasonry. Hints of William's identity as World Ruler are concealed in coded Bible prophecy, in his coat of arms and in the genealogy charts of the British Royal family.

In 1995, Prince Charles had William "marked" in his right hand with an electronic chip. The media downplayed it as a homing device that would interact with a special satellite in case Prince William were ever kidnapped. This microchip is thought to be the same etchnology that may one day be used to enslave the world's population so that they can't buy, sell or participate in society unless they are 'marked.'

The Book Of Revelation clearly states, "Here is wisdom. Let him that has understanding count the number of the beast: for it is the number of a man; and his number is Six hundred threescore and six." The Antichrist or "beast" is identified as the number 666. When Prince William is crowned King, his name will be KING WILLIAM V. Hidden within his name is the number 666 in Roman numerals. The Roman numeral "I" appears three times in his name and the Roman numeral "V" also appears 3 times in his name. The letter "W" is two "V's" placed side by side. The number 666 in Roman numerals is VI, VI, VI all of which appear in King William V's name and so do the words, "I AM". His name is a confession. "I AM 666".

lol

Well, unfortunately the earliest translation of Revelation we currently have translates the "number of the beast" to 616.  So...lovely nutcase theory goes out the window.  That was easy.  Although it should be completely unnecessary for anyone to have to discredit these ridiculous claims...common sense says it's all nonsense with some clever wording.  For *bleep*'s sake, the guy says a W is really two V's just to fit his wacko fearmongering.  Are you f'ing kidding?  You seriously don't think that's stretching it quite a bit?

Hell, it should be completely unnecessary for anyone to have to discredit Revelation -- written by a paranoid hermit who needed to come out of his cave a little more often.  I don't know (or care) who Albert Pike is, but it seems he also needs to come out of his "cave" a little more often.

28

Debate & Discuss / Re: Moon Landing

« on: July 30, 2010, 07:18:26 pm »Message ID: 214025

Eh.  I still don't think we did.

haha I always love this mentality...

Conventional Logic:

Person A: I have a baseball!
Person B: Oh yeah, prove it.
Person A: *holds baseball out in plain sight*
Person B: Oh, yeah do have a baseball!

Nonsense Logic:

Person A: I have a baseball!
Person B: Oh yeah, prove it.
Person A: *holds baseball out in plain sight*
Person B: I don't believe you have a baseball.


What would it take to convince you that we did, in fact, put men on the moon?  If you can't answer that simple question, then this discussion is absolutely pointless and I don't see any reason you would start it.

29

Debate & Discuss / Re: IS THE WORLD COMING TO AN END?

« on: July 30, 2010, 03:45:02 pm »Message ID: 213886

It's been coming to an end since its inception.  Nothing to be alarmed about, there's no reason to really believe it's happening any time soon.

30

Debate & Discuss / Re: Favorite Song

« on: July 24, 2010, 08:04:00 pm »Message ID: 211585

Impossible to narrow it down to one...

Pink Floyd:  Keep Talking, High Hopes, On The Turning Away, Time
Tool:  Right In Two, Vicarious
Black Sabbath/Heaven And Hell:  Falling Off The Edge of the World, Die Young
Pantera:  Cemetery Gates
Iron Maiden:  Dance of Death, The Thin Line Between Love and Hate
Lennon & McCartney:  A Day In The Life, Working Class Hero (Lennon)


Could probably go on.  All these and probably some others are all tied for me, on a pedestal above the other music I listen to.