 |
|
 |
 |
 |
Inter-Empire Political Discussion Thread
|
 |
|
 |
 |
You might find these of interest too - some other viewpoints on Revelation.
 Link
Link
Link and links therefrom
Link
Alex
           
| |
|
I just read this small story from Assimov one of the the greatest Scifi writer, really interesting Link
Read all the way thru, you will be fascinated by the answer. Only one thing, read all the way thru, don't take a pic of the last line.
| |
|
Nice one, Renegade....
Alex
| |
|
Hi guys. Thought I would drop back in. Nice to see how this progressed. Just a few points about this. Yes, by the end it did seem to degrade into everyone against Renegade and with a few providing a grey perspective. Which is why I quote this from Aaberg.
| In "my world" there very few little black or white, mostly scales of gray. |
|
The only problem with this is that the shades of grey have been focused on by only a few. This debate will NEVER come down to a black or white discussion, few debates do. In fact, a good one nevr should.
Renegade-| Seconded - and he did it without rancor. Well done, Renegade. |
|
You have done an excellent job of defending your perspective, pulling up evidence from everywhere. That is the best pure Christian defense I have ever seen anyone put up. Well done. I think your only problem is that again, you see things as black and white. You want to see things that way. And that is your right, I do not want to attack you for that. But nothing is black and white. Remember that.
I would like to move onto a new discussion. How about this: What do you think the course of the UN should be over the next 10, 20 years?
   
| |
|
They will be the right hand of the Antichrist. Oh my!!, I just opened another can of worms  
| |
|
| I would like to move onto a new discussion. How about this: What do you think the course of the UN should be over the next 10, 20 years? |
|
Keep the reigns on our government?
although since the UN is an organization of many countries attempting to work in unity, when one country makes a move without there consent, it does disrespect what they stand for, so how can they be expected to do there job?
so maybe the UN DOES need tighter reigns in general, and all the countries participating need to back it up.
There how does that sound?
    
| |
|
|
|
| just wanted to say how proud I am of us for not flaming one another. Good job all around. |
|
hmmmmmm no ones flamed eh? here i'll do at least one on you kazz...oh wait you live in kansas...it speaks for itself 
| |
|
Going out on a limb here (nice to see my thread getting some use ) but I would be shocked if, by the end of the century (as in 2100) a complete power grab (ala WW III) of some sort didn't take place.
The split form of governance, on a global scale, cannot last forever. I wouldn't be surprised to see massive alliances formed with centralized governments (similar, but on a greater scale as the European Union), likely headed by the world Superpowers. Once that is complete, the political scene simplified into one or two Supercountries, science and technology can only take us up, and the colonization of Space begins.
Bottom line, we can, as many many countries, only stay on this Earth for so long.
    
| |
|
Antichrist will be the force behind getting all the countries all the world united in economical zones. Have you watch the movie The Omega Code??? Good example of what may happen at the end times.
| |
|
would be good to get people into space and planets colonized in case of a massive population wiping conflict the more planets we reside on the more likely the human race could survive it. 
| |
|
I want a PQ 36
With front view to the Milky way
[Message Edited]
| |
|
Well, this is what I get for trying to come back from a Forum vacation and catch up on the threads... Funny, most of this happened TODAY.
Hopefully, this won't start the whole debate going again. I did notice a lot of "everybody against Mayito" going on here. Generally, I think that's no real problem - if anyone on this Forum is capable of singlehandedly taking a view and talking about it, it's Mayito - but I'm going to have to side with him on this one. Just not in the way you think.
I'll now pause for the collective gasp of astonishment. Yep, a member of SF in agreement with Mayito. Somebody call Theoden.
Several of you have posted comments indicating that you think Mayito is attacking people here. If you think so, please read it all again. To say that homosexuality is wrong is a lot different from saying homosexuals themselves are evil beings that deserve damnation. One is an opinion about a behavior; one is a personal attack. As far as I can tell in the 20,000 word essays, Mayito stuck to his guns on saying the behavior was wrong, but left the judging to God. Sounds good to me. Dismissing his opinion because it's backed up solely by Biblical quotes misses the point.
Bam-Bam is very, very correct in pointing out that if we were discussing "civil unions" instead of "marriages," this wouldn't even be a debate. But, a "civil union" wouldn't attract the attention that "marriage" does; so, that word isn't being used. Don't shoot at Mayito for responding with religion. The word "marriage" has commonly and historically been used for a religious institution, and he's responding to what he sees as a state-sponsored attack on the sanctity of that institution. The Constitution is supposed to ensure that the State won't meddle in religion. So, pick a different word, and you'll find virtually no argument against the issue to begin with.
I'm only responding to this because a lot of the criticism pointed at Mayito has been much more personal than his opinions, which were aimed at a behavior. For the record, I'm mildly religious but have no problems with "civil unions" for homosexuals - as it's a purely secular title and institution. Federal and state governments have no business meddling in "marriage," though, and shouldn't try. Religions had the word first - they get to keep it.
Just my 2 BCs. At my current posting schedule, I'll stop by in another month and see the comments...
   
| |
|
| Religions had the word first - they get to keep it. |
|
Absolutely.
| |
|
#139
by Citizen Bam_Bam - 4/8/2004 10:49:30 PM
My last word on this debate (and no, I do not need the last word). Renegade's comments were strong, fair, clear, and completely appropriate. Obviously, I do not agree with him on many of his views, and my view against a literal reading of the Bible as the "Word of God" vs. his view that it is will not be solved by our debating. However, it IS an argument that I cannot resist, because I have too often seen that view used toward unfortunate ends. I am not accusing Renegade of that at all--in fact, when I join these debates, I find many times I side with the fundamentalist view (not using the term pejoratively--just need a shorter label) against the agnostic/athiestic view that all organized religion is bad. I do not generally espouse organized religion (mainly for me), because I feel many of the global, universal, true messages get lost in the begats and the shalts of the scriptures (from what ever religion). But one thing is TRUE--MANY PEOPLE benefit from organized religion, whether it be fundamentalist Christian, Roman Catholic, Orthodox Judaism, Wahhabi sect Islam, Shi'a Islam, Zen Buddism, et al. People find great comfort, joy, redemption, life altering experience in their expression of religion, and sharing it with others. Too many good things to dismiss it as wrong or label these folks as suckers.
That's precisely my problem with the dogma--the notion that you must believe precisely one way or else you are damned smacks in the face (for me) of the fundamental teaching of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. Read some of Martin Luther's works, which were heresy when he wrote them. Some eye-opening stuff there. I have read much of the Qur'an, but lack a whole lot because I have not read it in Arabic (most of my Muslim friends swear that any translation losing much of the power of the Word).
I have an extrememly strong faith in God. Having been raised a Christian--I have strong ties to Christianity, but exposure to the teachings of other religions, cultures, and people have convinced me that my faith in God is not about whether Jesus is my savior, or whether Mohammed is my profit. What does matter is my faith in God.
Ok. Longer than I wanted. Probably more personal than I wanted. Perhaps I am wrong, and am damned. I think not--my faith tells me that God does not want me to shut my mind and my heart to all of his inspirations as taught through profits, a messiah or any of the other inspired works of his people on this earth. Faith, not belief, for me.
| |
|
| the agnostic/athiestic view that all organized religion is bad |
|
Well said Bam Bam, but that is not true for the Agnostic. In fact, many Agnostics find the moral teachings of many religions to be beneficial. It's the whole dogma that irritates us and smacks of untruth. It's usually the dogma that convinces us that this is not the intent of God, if He exists.
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The Religion Of Atheism
By Rev. Bill McGinnis, Editor
INTERNET DAILY CHAPEL
Public Domain
A person's religion is the sum total of his beliefs about God and the supernatural. Christianity, Judaism, and Islam are the three largest monotheistic religions, with belief in one God, Creator of the universe.
Some other religions are polytheistic, with belief in many ("poly") gods, each with different functions.
Atheism is the religion whose belief about God is that there is no God.
Atheists don't worship God; they worship themselves or nothing at all. They don't take moral instruction from God; they take it from themselves or from nobody. They don't recognize God as Creator; they think the universe somehow created itself by some kind of natural process we don't yet understand. They deny the overwhelming evidence of design, and they prefer to think of Creation as a big accident.
Some Atheists, for their own political reasons, assert that Atheism is not a religion but instead is the total absence of religion. This allows them to spread their Atheistic beliefs freely in societies which insist on separation of church and state.
But this is like saying that black, (which physicists define as the total absence of color) is not a color. The car I drive is a big, old Chevrolet, whose color is black. In common practice throughout the world, black is understood to be a color, just as red is a color, despite the technical definition of the physicists. Likewise, Atheism is a religion, despite any technical definitions to the contrary.
If black is a color, then Atheism is a religion.
If Atheism is a religion, then it must be subject to the same restrictions imposed by governments on all other religions. In particular, in the United States, the teaching and promotion of Atheism must be prohibited wherever the teaching and promotion of other religions is prohibited.
But where is Atheism being taught and promoted? Masquerading as science or religious neutrality, Atheism is being taught by default in places where other religions cannot be taught, particularly in the public schools and other public places.
When creation of the universe is taught without reference to God, that is teaching that God did not create the universe. That is teaching Atheism and establishing the religion of Atheism.
When High School graduation speeches may talk about anything but God, that is teaching that God doesn't exist. That is teaching Atheism and establishing the religion of Atheism.
When U. S. history is taught without any reference to the importance of God and the Bible to the Founders, that is teaching that no God was a factor. That is teaching Atheism and establishing the religion of Atheism.
So what can we do to end this government teaching and promotion of Atheism?
First, we should recognize that Atheism is a religion. Then we should stop teaching and promoting it or any other particular religion.
Finally, we should remove all legal restrictions on teaching about and talking about all religions, even the religion of Atheism. This would allow all religious ideas to be considered freely in all public places, just as all other ideas may be considered freely in public places.
We should recognize that this free competition of ideas about religion is not "establishing religion," which is prohibited by our Constitution. Instead, it is the very essence of what our Constitution is about: freedom.
This is the American way, consistent with Freedom Of Speech, Freedom Of The Press, and Freedom Of Religion. Anything less than this is censorship and tyranny.
Then, with all restrictions removed, Atheism can be exposed as the hopeless fraud it truly is.
Blessings to you in Jesus Christ, our Lord.
Rev. Bill McGinnis
| |
|
Atheism: The Religion of Fools
by Perry Kiraly
"The fool has said in his heart, There is no God" (Psalms 13:1 LXX).
The word fool in the Septuagint is translated for the Greek word aphron (SRN 878) and is defined as: "mindless; i.e. stupid (by implication) ignorant, (specially) egotistic, (practically) rash, or (morally) unbelieving: - fool(ish), unwise."
In short, even those utilizing an extremely small amount of brainwork ought to be able to comprehend the existence of God. The Scripture further expands upon this statement with a definitive explanation as to why:
"Surely vain are all men by nature, who are ignorant of God, and could not out of the good things that are seen know Him that is: neither by considering the works did they acknowledge the Workmaster; but deemed either fire, or wind, or the swift air, or the circle of the stars, or the violent water, or the lights of heaven, to be the gods which govern the world. With whose beauty if they being delighted, took them to be gods; let them know how much better the Master of them is: for the first Author of beauty has created them. But if they were astonished at their power and virtue, let them understand by them, how much mightier He is that made them. For by the greatness and beauty of the creatures, proportionably, the Maker of them is seen. But yet for this, they are the less to be blamed: for they peradventure err, seeking God, and desirous to find Him. For being conversant in His works, they search diligently and believe their sight: because the things are beautiful that are seen. Howbeit, neither are they to be pardoned. For if they were able to know so much, that they could aim at the world; How did they not sooner find out the Master thereof? But miserable are they and in dead things is their confidence" (Wisdom 13:1-10 LXX).
There are any number of books available today which refute the spontaneous random development or evolution of life on this planet. Utilizing the latest scientific knowledge and available technologies, the extreme improbability, if not impossibility, of life developing or evolving in this matter has been proven. But the foregoing words in the Scripture were penned long before any such scientific knowledge or technologies were available. Further, these verses are very clear in showing that observation and contemplation of the creation or nature alone will lead one to the reality of God.
Putting these claims to the test, let us see if simple observation and contemplation of creation or nature will reveal the existence of God, excluding any and all use of modern science and/or technology.
If spontaneous or random evolution occurred, by definition, no real rhyme, reason, plan, or intelligence was behind it; hence none in any constancy is likely to be observed. If, on the other hand, behind all creation lies the hand of an Omniscient Being, God, the complexity of His character, intelligence, and planning will be reflected in His work, and conversely, His works will be a reflection of Him.
Consider first the theory of random development, assuming that all of the necessary components conducive to life as we know it were present, e.g. the earth, sun and moon are fully formed and at the necessary distances, the elements are present, the atmosphere is present, along with the various cycles needed to maintain such functioning. These are huge assumptions, especially when one considers that some biochemical cycles, such as the oxygen and carbon dioxide cycle, require life forms such as algae to function. But, for the sake of argument and for the benefit of random evolution theorists, we will assume that these elements are just here, then … somehow…
So once upon a time, long, long ago, as the randomists tell it, a sudden flash of light by the discharge of atmospheric electricity or lightening hits a glob of pond scum and animates it, jump-starting some elements into throbbing with life. What would make it keep throbbing? How would it stay "alive" or maintain its new-found animation? What would keep this now "living matter" from returning to just being some elements in a pond?
If, by chance, it did happen to maintain animation for a period, How or what would make it accidentally develop a way to take in energy or food? How could it metabolize or discard waste?
Then, according to the randomist theorists, an even bigger accident takes place: without any plan, genetic blueprint, or instruction, this "animated" matter lives long enough to accidentally develop a mode of movement to get around, senses to explore the world, and a way to find or manufacture some form of energy for food to continue its existence.
It accidentally discovers a way to reproduce and finds a way to divide itself into all the life forms that we see today on the planet, plus all the ones that are now extinct.
In some cases it accidentally found ways to make eyes to see, spacing them in perfect symmetry, when it did not even know that there was anything to see or that anything was seeable for such eyes. It, for some reason, evolved a way to hear things that it never had heard. It developed a brain to help it think so it could run the functions necessary to sustain its existence and existed somehow all that time up until that point without a brain … and so on and so on until you end up with the distinct and diverse array of life forms, ecosystems, and species within separate categories, all of which suddenly and inexplicably ceased their random development which made possible their existence in the first place. And after all these amazing things had taken place, these organisms also made up the idea that they should bear after their own kind.
A lot of difficult questions arise with this "random" theory, but none as great as the following - Where are all these transitional species, if indeed by all the different combinations, each at astronomical odds, these virtually impossible billions of occurrences did in fact take place?
In the case of man, even if we start at our hypothesized simian stage (an immensely complex point of development as compared to pond scum by the way) to modern human, there are still many questions left unanswered. Where are all the half-monkey/half human transitional organisms, or 40%/60% simian/human, or 90%/10%, 80%/20%, 70%/30% mixtures? Not only do the various stages of development up to human require consideration, what of everything else? Where are the transitional beings for the elephants, giraffes, etc.?
Some atheists might say that these interim stages of development of every type of species died off, but if this were the case, with millions of different species over a period of millions of years, shouldn't there be some examples? With all the archaeological finds of today, should not someone have discovered a fossilized specimen? There is no credible evidence that supports the atheist's random development theory of any life form of any kind.
Life or nature shouts, screams in fact, of a plan and intelligence behind its development. Simple observation and contemplation thereof, as the Scriptures suggest, reveal this to be true.
Take a look sometime at a simple form of life such as a blade of grass. Its mechanical structure or construction alone reveals intelligence behind its makeup, not to mention the observable phenomenon of its growth and animation, or life, from a seemingly lifeless or dead seed which contains all of the instructions for it to become exactly what it is.
Take any seed for that matter: fruit, vegetable, animal or human sperm, each seed contains within it an exact set of instructions for whatever it is to grow into. The instructions are exact for an apple, carrot, ape or man. Tell me, How do you randomly develop such a set of precisely detailed and specific instructions?
There is the idea of "irreducible complexity" that explains this concept. If you were walking in the woods one day and came across an F-16 fighter jet, you would not in a million years consider that the winds and time just blew it together. Wouldn't that be crazy to think that? But I tell you, a single sparrow, from a mechanical standpoint alone, is a hundred-fold more complicated. The F-16 cannot move one inch on its own, let alone fuel itself, navigate, reproduce, or get off the ground and fly like the sparrow can. Observation alone tells us that this design is so complex that it could not have come together through random evolution. There must be a plan behind its existence, just as there is a plan behind the creation and building of a fighter jet, or a pocket watch, or any other man-made item. The workings are so complex that it is irreducible. Each piece could not have come together and worked so correctly through simple, random acts of evolution. Nor can the existence of a fighter jet be explained through the idea of survival of the fittest. Many have heard the example of the moth that camouflages itself to look like tree bark. The random evolutionists will claim that a few moths randomly developed the coloring trait. These moths supposedly survived because they were not eaten by birds, and the moths of the same species with different coloring died off. Yet, this simple explanation leaves many more unanswered questions. How did the complex structure of the moth derive from random evolution in the first place? Did a few proteins throw themselves together to form this small creature by accident, or was there an intelligent plan behind the creation of the moth? Undoubtedly, there was a plan - a blueprint set in motion by God Almighty at the beginning of time.
Consider any notable piece of architecture from the Pyramids to the former World Trade Center; not for one second would anyone believe that the plans or blueprints to build one of these mammoth structures were only the result of throwing some paper, ink and pencils into the air, and when it all came down, presto, there were the blueprints. Nor would any sane person argue that over millions of years the building, through the process of trial and error, developed the skeletal structure, the interior designs, and so on and eventually formed into a building.
Yet, the blueprints to build either of the mentioned structures pale in comparison to the instructions, or blueprints, if you will, to make one viable ant. The atheist, nonetheless, would have us believe that the instructions or plans to build one of these tiny creatures came about by an even greater unlikelihood than throwing paper and ink in the air to derive the Pyramids or the WTC towers!
Take a look at a piece of fruit, a banana or strawberry, for example. Pick any fruit. Consider how convenient of randomness to have "thought" of that. Quite an impromptu performance by haphazard happenstance to come up with a pleasant looking, smelling, tasting and nutritious food for us and other living creatures to eat, wouldn't you say?
Then, as the Scripture mentions, there is the beauty of it all. From the flowers in the fields, to the trees in the forests, to the blue oceans filled with many kinds of colorful life, to the stars that paint the night sky, to the sunsets that inspire awe … were all of these beautiful pieces of nature created in an accident started by static electricity?
It would appear that a major role of many of the life forms of this world is that of aesthetics, to decorate and beautify the earth. How can one explain that all this happened completely by accidental development?
Up to this point, only concise examples of the observable works of creation have been addressed, but even with just this brief glimpse, the intelligence and planning behind it all clearly stands out.
It is further clearly obvious that those who worship the created things rather than the Creator are also fools.
In summation, four readily obvious facts have been presented, which all lead us to one inevitable conclusion:
1. By simple observation alone we can see thousands upon thousands of unique and distinct forms of life, all of which naturally bear after their own kind, and none of which that show any signs of random crossovers between different categories of life and evolution or having accidentally evolved into something else; nor is there any tangible posthumous evidence of any haphazard development.
2. Observation alone reveals that the habitat and food necessary for the sustained existence of every life form was provided for. In the case of Adamic man, all the essential materials for the formation, building, and management of civilization were provided through nature and their natural intelligence.
3. Observation alone enables us to see the complexity in the design of even the simplest and seemingly insignificant forms of life; a complexity far beyond anything man himself has created, or can logically believe was possible to create by mere chance.
4. Observation alone unveils the immense beauty in nature, which is in many instances so inspirational that it defies expression.
This slight glimpse into the openly perceivable design, workings and beauty of nature tangibly reflects intelligence, planning, and complexity beyond our comprehension in many cases. Once pondered, a reflection of the character and conformation of existence of the One Who created it is clearly seen; for it is in these works that His existence is proclaimed. The inevitable, inescapable conclusion: Only a fool would say in his heart, "There is no God."
"For the unseen things of Him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things made, both His eternal power and Divine Nature, for them to be without excuse" (Romans 1:20 AST).
| |
|
| Finally, we should remove all legal restrictions on teaching about and talking about all religions, even the religion of Atheism. This would allow all religious ideas to be considered freely in all public places, just as all other ideas may be considered freely in public places. |
|
Absolutely.
| Atheism can be exposed as the hopeless fraud it truly is. |
|
That's the way to keep an open mind. 
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
 |
|
 |
Copyright 1995-2024 Stardock Corporation. All rights reservered.
Site created by Pixtudio and Stardock, designed by Pixtudio.
|
 |
