Join Now!

Community > Posts By > tribo

 

tribo
517574_6853_thumb
Joined Mon 05/12/08
Posts: 716
Mon 06/23/08 08:45 AM
QUOTE:

QUOTE:

QUOTE:

Okay, so I am a little confused here. In these bible phrases where God is talking about bringing these towers to the ground and people are saying how God will bring these towers to the ground it seems a little contradictory to what actually happened. See I remember a couple of big planes ramming into these buildings, and I remember those buildings being filled with tons of people. A lot of whom were Christian, and I remember that the people who crashed into the buildings were not followers of the Christian God and did this Kamikaze mission for the promise of being rewarded by their God in the afterlife.

So all I can interpret from what you are saying is that God and his followers predicted that the Christian God would bring down the towers. Although he couldn't even bring them down himself (Or he didn't want to himself) SO he then enlisted people of an entirely different religion to hijack some planes and crash it into those towers. Killing thousands of people. I don't understand why he would do that though. If he and his followers prophecized it would happen wouldn't he want the credit for it?


In Hebrew, an action verb can also mean "allowed". So when it says "God hardened Pharaoh's heart", it's an equally valid (actually more valid given the full context of the Bible) to say that "God allowed Pharaoh to harden his heart".

That's not to say that I agree Amathyst2, I don't at all. Tyre was a real place and it was destroyed just as Ezikiel said it would be. I don't believe that the attacks of 9/11 had anything to do with God and I'm sure that those prophecies aren't speaking of 9/11. There were surely many good people in those towers and God always ensured that the good people didn't suffer his wrath. Rahab and Lot are perfect examples of God sparing the good, when the guilty were punished. In both cases, God saved the good person and the persons family (regardless of the families goodness/wickedness).


Yeah, I believe you are right spider. I apologize as well, that post I made was out of pure sarcasm as opposed to what I actually believe. I thought the connection she was trying to make was extrememly off base.


not off base rathil - just ignorant - we are all ignorant of thing's as i have stated before. i'm just as guilty as she is as i have made assumptions and believed wrongly also about many thing's just as you - sorry amethyst - no offense.
Edited by tribo on Mon 06/23/08 08:46 AM
tribo
517574_6853_thumb
Joined Mon 05/12/08
Posts: 716
Mon 06/23/08 08:37 AM
QUOTE:

QUOTE:

QUOTE:

QUOTE:

I don't know what book you have been reading, but I read the book of Joshua several times and all I read was how the men women and children of the promise land were all slaughtered without mercy and the kings were all beheaded. I don't believe that God was behind that kind of genocide. I just don't.

Maybe some alien slave master pretending to be god, but not god.

JB


What if those men and women practiced child sacrifice? (they did) What if Jericho was in a bottle neck, which could cut off all movement into and trade with Canaan? (it was) What if the people of Jericho were warned of their impending doom? (they were) What if the God had given the people of Canaan 400 years to repent of their evil religions? (he did)

Also, you need to read Joshua again. Rahab and her whole family were allowed to live. Everyone who fled Canaan was allowed to live. The Gibeonites were allowed to live. Besides those I have mentioned, not all of the Canaanites were killed, because Joshua took mercy on them. For the next 400 years, Israel was plagued by strife, war and slavery, because of the actions of the Canaanites who lived and bred. God knew what he was doing. God offered the Canaanites mercy, which they rejected. God offered the Canaanites escape, which that eschewed. Finally, God sent his wrath against the Canaanites. It was not God's first choice, but in order for Israel to prosper, the Canaanites could no longer live in the promised land. The world would be a vastly different place if Jericho had survived to spread it's filthy child sacrificing religions into Europe, Asia and Africa.


Stories of war are stories of war spider. God had nothing to do with that. There is no god that FreeAppDatings with mankind getting blood on his hands inciting wars. This is not god. This is evil at its worst. You have been taken in by stories of evil and false gods. You are a pawn of the alien gods who lust for land, slaves, and riches for themselves. If you don't believe in the alien gods, then you are believing a story that justifies slaughter and conquest with the lie that god had something to do with it, told them to do it, and indeed helped them do it.

All wars involve propaganda, history of wars are written by the winners. No winner is going to write that they slaughtered innocent children just so they could own the land they lived on. They are going to find fault with their enemy and glorify themselves. That is the way it is done.

JB


Nothing you said addressed my questions or the central fact, which is this: Archeology has confirmed the account described in the Bible. Minus God, of course. The three walls surrounding Jericho were destroyed, except for a portion where a house was built right against the wall. The food was left, as well as the valuables. You also haven't addressed my statements about God. If God has laws for us to live by, but doesn't punish those who break his laws, then doesn't that mean that God is not righteous, holy or just? Sorry, but you can continue to insist that you are right all day, but you haven't provided one argument and quite simply, the facts are against your interpretation of history. The evidence points to the fact that something extraordinary happened at Jericho.



I'll address your question's spider

A) you say - "Archeology has confirmed the account described in the Bible. Minus God, of course."

answer: what archeologist? christian archeologist, or other's with a monotheistic bent? What is confirmed and all that is confirmed is that there is the remain's of a city in the vicinity of where Jerhico was. Are there any writings's found that state that it "IS" the city of Jericho? any parchments, symbols used by them stating "THIS IS Jericho? the only so called proof is crumbled wall's - hmm?? very interesting that a multi century old walls of a city would now be left with it's wall's in shambles?? a better test would be if the walls were still standing! that would be a miracle! As to food and jewlry being precious commodities - yes of course they were - but that could mean many thing's besides wall tumbling down such as being scared of a natural disaster as an earth quake or other that would make them flee there city. they have no proof - only conjecture based on a preset bias that leads them to their conclusions. If one set's out to "prove" something thet want to find - they will biasedly come up with anything to prove their point if something "seem's" to fit the bill - just like bush did with iraq for example.



b) you state:

"You also haven't addressed my statements about God. If God has laws for us to live by, You also haven't addressed my statements about God. If God has laws for us to live by, but doesn't punish those who break his laws, then doesn't that mean that God is not righteous, holy or just?
Answer:

:"IF" - god has laws to live by? that's not a statement but a question? if you mean "god has law's for us to live by", then they only apply to those who believe in your god - not to other's who don't believe.

"but doesn't punish those who break his laws, then doesn't that mean that God is not righteous, holy or just?"


Again - that only applies to those who believe as you, not to JB, or me or other's who don't believe - your question's are only acceptable within your faith based belief system spider- they only can be applied there for discussion's sake. unless one wishes to discuss them otherwise, but to ask other's who dont believe that god makes laws or that they dont have to follow them will not be answerable by us from without your belief syatem.ohwell
tribo
517574_6853_thumb
Joined Mon 05/12/08
Posts: 716
Mon 06/23/08 07:43 AM
fanta:

." A careful read of these passages ??

TRIBO:

a ""careful read"" by whom? one with a preconceived bias? One who want's to prove their ignorence? one who listen's to man instead of their common sense? A ""careful read"" of paul's statement's leads to nothing more than that paul saying that it is "better" that man not marry if he is to serve god - it was never intended to be made a "law" for the ""entire clergy""!!


i'm sure you would believe that the "pope" is the mouth piece for god / christ in all matter's also. your ignorence is comical.smile
Edited by tribo on Mon 06/23/08 07:51 AM
tribo
517574_6853_thumb
Joined Mon 05/12/08
Posts: 716
Mon 06/23/08 05:46 AM
QUOTE:

QUOTE:


sorry amathyst, that was fufilled then nt now - the towers here stood much longer than an hour, there were "christian's" who died there not pagan's, and your taking writing meant to be symbolic as literal, the whole of prophetic literature was either meant to tell the people what was soon to come or a forth telling - or - those that would come later - a fore-telling- tyre was destroyed then not recently, i know your being honest about what you think but read up on the symbolic language so you know it better in all instances pleaseflowerforyou


Like I said before and I'll say it again. Everyone has the right to believe however they so choose. To me, this is a prophecy that cannot be denied. I'm sure others will disagree and some will see it for what it is. I respect that. But I will continue to believe the bible is the word of God himself translated through man. And I do believe it is a road map that will guide you if you let it.



"if you let it" that's definitely the qualifying word's here.
tribo
517574_6853_thumb
Joined Mon 05/12/08
Posts: 716
Mon 06/23/08 05:23 AM
WOW?? i have neve seen more dis-information on so many different stances in one thread before?? I guess that's par for the course though huh? Wouldn't want to begin to tackle this post - so i won't.



huhcrymadgrumblenowayohwellsickdevilexplodeangryindifferentglassesyawn

BELUSHI!!!! - did not know that was your vantage point right there in the thick of thing's, much respect for your thought's on matter's of the area.drinker
Edited by tribo on Mon 06/23/08 05:32 AM
tribo
517574_6853_thumb
Joined Mon 05/12/08
Posts: 716
Sun 06/22/08 11:08 PM
QUOTE:

this is really silly huh

well, you probably won't be hearing back

from Star_Tin_Gover any time soon...noway


for he happens to work very hard many hours a day

in his highly technical, very professional career ...glasses

& more than likely he is getting some much needed rest drinker

about now, being that it is about 1:00 AM in his time zone, yawn

& especially being that he needs to wake up & rise drinker

& begin his new work day in just a very few hours smokin









sorry punzel - he started the hardcore comedy not me, i was just making light comedy - he turned it into the deroggatory turn it took - if he don't want to keep it up thats fine with me - but i can go as far as he want's to take it - his choice not mineflowerforyou
tribo
517574_6853_thumb
Joined Mon 05/12/08
Posts: 716
Sun 06/22/08 11:02 PM
QUOTE:

How can anyone say they do not believe in the Bible? Sure there are freedoms that protect your right not to, but there are so many prophecies that have come true. Most of them are in the form of a parable. You ask why this is and why it's so difficult to understand. Because we as human beings are incabable of understanding the world beyond us. We only use 3% of our brains. But here is a prophecy that no one can deny. September 11, 2001.

The burning of New York was a fulcrum that dramatically and permanently changed western civilization, altering world history forever.

A seminal event and heavily documented in scripture, it fits the time-line predicted for it's occurrance too closely to be ignored, for it matches with precision the size and details of tthe visions which foresaw it.

(Ex.19:10)) Exactly nine months into the third day, the handwritting of the Lord etched itself on the walls of the city.
(Dn.5:5) incarnating scripture in stunning images that left the whole world (who watched in horror) transfixed by it's unfolding message.
(Is.23:13-14) Look at the land of Kittim...they have set up towers.
(Is.30:25) On every high mountain and upon every high hill, there will be streams and watercourses, on the day of the great slaughter, when the towers fall.
(Is.28:4-6) Trust in God forever for the Lord is the everlasting rock; he has brought low those who have lived high up in the steep citadel; he brings it down, brings it down to the ground, flings it down in the dust; the feet of the lowly, the foot steps of the poor trample on it.
(Ez.26:3-4) They will destroy the walls of Tyre, they will demolish her towers; I will sweep away her dust and leave her a naked rock.
(Ez.26:12-14) Your wealth will be seized, your merchandise looted, your walls razed, your luxurious houses shattered, your stones, your timbers, your very dust, thrown into the sea. I will stop your music and songs...I will reduce you to a naked rock.
(Jer.51:53) Were Babylon to scale the heavens, or reinforce her towering citadel, destroyers would still fall on her at my command, it is God who speaks.
(Rev.18:7-8) I am queen on my throne, she says to herself, and I am no widow and shall never be in mourning. For that, within a single day, the plagues will fall on her: disease and mourning and femine. She will be burnt right up. The Lord God has condemned her, and he has great power.
(Rev.18:9) There will be mourning and weeping for her by the kings of the earth who have fornicated with her and lived with her in luxury. They see the smoke as she burns, while they keep at a safe distance from fear of her agony.
(Rev.18:15-17) The traders who have made a fortune out of her will standing at a safe distance from fear of her agony, mourning and weeping. They will be saying: 'Mourn, mourn for this great city; for all the linen and purple and scarlet that you wore, for all your finery of gold, jewels, and pearls; your riches are all destroyed within a single hour.
(Rev.18:4-5) A new voice spoke from heaven; I heard it say, 'Come out, my people, away from her so that you do not share in her crimes and have the same plagues to bear.

There is much more, but too much to type here. But you get my point. At least I hop you do.


sorry amathyst, that was fufilled then nt now - the towers here stood much longer than an hour, there were "christian's" who died there not pagan's, and your taking writing meant to be symbolic as literal, the whole of prophetic literature was either meant to tell the people what was soon to come or a forth telling - or - those that would come later - a fore-telling- tyre was destroyed then not recently, i know your being honest about what you think but read up on the symbolic language so you know it better in all instances pleaseflowerforyou
tribo
517574_6853_thumb
Joined Mon 05/12/08
Posts: 716
Sun 06/22/08 10:08 PM
QUOTE:

QUOTE:

QUOTE:

QUOTE:

hey,hey,hey, - i'm the comedian around here!! not star - turnover!! explode

flowerforyoulaughbigsmile

Turnover? laughIs that a Freudian slip pertaining to your days in the crowbar motel(prison) getting a striped tan when bubba sweetly whispered that word in your ear? laughflowerforyouYes Tribo, I humbly hand the crown of comedy back to you.flowerforyouBack to my duties as Jester. laughdrinker


dont hand it over star - you have to "turnover" the crown - and no it was not a freudian slip - it was a fraudulent statement - the only bubba i know is bubba gum - youn know the stuff you used to put on the end of your nose or in your nose to make everybody laugh. laugh- ok you can resume your duties as jizzter now - laughdrinker

Cool. You have made it to grade school humor.laughIt IS true eh? The older you get the more you revert back to childhood and eventually you find yourself back in diapers. laughwinkWe will have more fun after your nap.laughdrinkerflowerforyou


i presume you meant "GRAD" school but i forgive your pre school grammertonguespeaking of pre-kiddy garden - i guess we will have to compare diaper's huh? that is if and when i get to the point again of there need - how many do you go through a day in pre kiddy garden how many fingers? show me? this many - !!!!!!! - seven - wow you have to poo poo alot huh ??? - poor mommy turnover - you sure keep her busylaugh
Edited by tribo on Sun 06/22/08 10:14 PM
tribo
517574_6853_thumb
Joined Mon 05/12/08
Posts: 716
Sun 06/22/08 09:53 PM
QUOTE:

QUOTE:

QUOTE:

QUOTE:

QUOTE:

too much to read, faith and beliefs remain unmoved.flowerforyou
I'm stubborn as mule my good friend.tongue



as you wish TLW, as someone said - ignorence is bliss - have a great day. flowerforyou



I question this Tribo,

A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach; Not given to wine, no striker [not violent], not greedy of filthy lucre [money]; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous; One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity;

A Chatholic Priest cannot marry and therefore cannot have children let alone the Pope!
Your information is very inaccurate and out of context!



tribo:

quite the opposite fanta - the auther is laying out what the bible states from the apostles writings (paul's timothy and titus) if you care to glance quickly again, and then goes on to show that in later centuries the "popes" (one in particular), put upon the priesthood the vow of "celibacy"

if you bother to read about the popes she mention's, you will see afterwards her comments:

"Pope Gregory VII wanted to increase the power of the papacy. For reasons of politics and power, he abolished clerical marriage. In 1074 he passed laws requiring that priests be celibate, and he got rid of married priests. [Note 19]

As a result, since 1074 no Pope has been able to meet the Apostle Paul's requirement for bishops"

So- for over a thousand years after the universal chuch was in existance - the clergy/priest - were allowed to marry in fact as she states in what your confronting me with is - that paul requires the bishop's and other's to "be married" in order to hold the position's in question - yet alone the falsely formed papacy that was never even mentioned in scriptures - if anyone is "POPE" of the church it is jesus not man!! the early christian church kept within the bound's of scripture but it became corrupt as all hell once constantine took power and ruled both rome and the christian church - from there it continued to slide down hill to become the most heritical church that ever existed in past times. - as i say i'm not going to rail against those who are "following" their christian beliefs as to their god or jesus or the things that are of core faith and belief "all christianity no matter what denomination - but on this aspect i am all to aware of the deceit, lies,decadency,atrocities, and all else of the "roman universal church"



Your history of the Catholic Church is badly flawed. It just goes to show that if you look long enough and hard enough you can find anything to back your opinion!
The history of the Catholic Church is too long and complex to be reduced to one little post by antone esp. a non-believer who's only intent is to try and belittle every Christiam denomination. I'll give the effort to right your false statement one post though. Dont expect another reply to the BS!

1st, in the year 189 the Pope was an African (Pope Victor I) He was not related nor of blood to Peter or Paul. The Roman Catholic Church was founded by Saint Peter and Paul. Peter was from Galilee, Paul was an Egyptian!


The Catholic Church has always known that a Pastor who is a family man has a heart that is naturally divided. History shows that there was always a tradition of celibate priests in the early Church, although it was not exclusive.

The Church Fathers of the first four centuries consistently spoke against the married priesthood. (Eusibius, Augustine, Tertullian, Origen, St. Cyril of Jerusalem, St. Jerome etc..) St. Epiphanius speaks of the accepted ecclesiastical rule of the priesthood (kanona tes ierosynes) as something established by the Apostles. (Haer., xlviii, 9) "Holy Church", he says, "respects the dignity of the priesthood to such a point that she does not admit to the diaconate, the priesthood, or the episcopate, nor even to the subdiaconate, anyone still living in marriage and begetting children." (Haer., lix, 4).

The writings of the Church fathers show that, in the early Church, married priests were not the accepted norm in the main centres of Alexandria, Antioch and Rome. They considered it a "problem" that existed in the outlying regions. By the 3rd century there were almost no married priests and several councils put the issue to rest until around the 9th century when many bishops and priests took wives and had children. The state of the priesthood fell to an all time low. A huge problem emerged with priests "willing" Church property to their families. Up to that point, the principle of celibacy was never completely surrendered in the official enactments of the Church. In 1123, celibacy was made official. Although, throughout history there have been scattered instances of abuses of the Canon Law, the Roman Catholic Church has consistently stuck to this position on celibate priests.

There was much theology around the concept of a priest being the "bride of Christ" (Jn 3:29, Rev 18:23, 19:7, 21:9, 21:17. This was considered in the Church's decision. Scripture fairly consistently awards celibacy a higher spiritual calling than marriage.

...it is well for them to remain unmarried as I am...it is well for you to remain as you are...do not seek a wife...he who refrains from marriage will do better...(I Cor., 7-8 and 32-38)

Paul says that celibacy provides "unhindered devotion to the Lord. " (1 cor 7:35) Jesus tells us "it is better not to marry...let anyone accept this who can." (Mat 19:10-12)

Some biblical arguments for a married priesthood have been set out citing 1 Tim. 3: 2, 12 and Titus 1: 6 that a bishop or a deacon should be "the husband of one wife." A careful read of these passages points to Paul's concern about remarried priests. Catholics feel the section is aimed at removing those who are on their second marriages, rather than pushing for a married clergy. Although Paul did not expressly lay out a married priesthood he consistently held celibacy as preferable.

http://www.davidmacd.com/catholic/why_priests_cant_marry.htm



sorry fanta - take it up with the writer - not me - she's the ex nun - and take it up with the catholic encyclopedia from which she got much of her info or read it your self - after all it's the "catholic encyclopedia" not mine - written by catholics - not me - i'm not spreading the info - they are.

as to christ word's in matt 19 vs 10 thru 11 jesus uses the word eunuch(s) - greek - yoo noy ah or yoo noo' khid zo - meaning literally CASTRATED" - impotent - now "figuratively" speaking it could mean live unmarried - but here's the problem - christ is answering the question put to him by the deciples in vs 10 - " ALL MEN" (cannot)recieve this saying save "THEY" to whom it is "GIVEN" ? to be given means to be presented with - by whom? god evidentally and then acted upon by the one it's given to if he is to be obedient. . 12 - for there are some "eunuch's" which were born from their mothers womb? ( men living un married from the womb? that makes no sense to be stating that "all men are living unmarried from the womb" - none at that point have "recieved" no call to remain unmarried that any newborn would be conscience of! - so it has to mean either castrated? or impotent? i'll use my common sense to figure it means without testicles or impotence here!) - and there are some eunuch's which were made eunuch's by man - ( i'll use my common sense again to state this as also "castrated men" not men living unmarried unless you really believe foolishly different, " And there be eunuch's which have made"themselves" eunuch's for the kingdom of heaven's sake - "HE" that is "ABLE" to RECEIVE" it - ( the call to living unmarried) let him receive "IT" - the call to living unmarried - this is not a call to celibacy but a statement by jesus that if you can "accept" it then do so - it is in no way a command!! nor is it a command by paul - after all peter was married - the very man by which the roman church brought about popeism -there may have been other's im sure as the gospel was spread. there is a "BIG" difference between establishing a "LAW" by christ and a free will reception by man of something.tongue
tribo
517574_6853_thumb
Joined Mon 05/12/08
Posts: 716
Sun 06/22/08 08:40 PM
QUOTE:

QUOTE:

hey,hey,hey, - i'm the comedian around here!! not star - turnover!! explode

flowerforyoulaughbigsmile

Turnover? laughIs that a Freudian slip pertaining to your days in the crowbar motel(prison) getting a striped tan when bubba sweetly whispered that word in your ear? laughflowerforyouYes Tribo, I humbly hand the crown of comedy back to you.flowerforyouBack to my duties as Jester. laughdrinker


dont hand it over star - you have to "turnover" the crown - and no it was not a freudian slip - it was a fraudulent statement - the only bubba i know is bubba gum - youn know the stuff you used to put on the end of your nose or in your nose to make everybody laugh. laugh- ok you can resume your duties as jizzter now - laughdrinker
tribo
517574_6853_thumb
Joined Mon 05/12/08
Posts: 716
Sun 06/22/08 08:32 PM
QUOTE:

QUOTE:

QUOTE:

Jesus was recorded preaching from the Bible. A Christian who doesn't need the Bible is an oxymoron.


tribo::

i wan't to hear that "RECORDING" !!! - was it tape or cd??




Record (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/record)
QUOTE:

1. To set down for preservation in writing or other permanent form.


Context is key to interpreting the posts of others and the Bible. The authors of the New Testament recorded Jesus' sermons. Events were recorded long before audio recording existed.



hahaha - was but a joke spiderlaughlaugh
tribo
517574_6853_thumb
Joined Mon 05/12/08
Posts: 716
Sun 06/22/08 08:14 PM
QUOTE:

Jesus was recorded preaching from the Bible. A Christian who doesn't need the Bible is an oxymoron.


tribo::

i wan't to hear that "RECORDING" !!! - was it tape or cd??

tribo
517574_6853_thumb
Joined Mon 05/12/08
Posts: 716
Sun 06/22/08 08:10 PM
hey,hey,hey, - i'm the comedian around here!! not star - turnover!! explode

flowerforyoulaughbigsmile
tribo
517574_6853_thumb
Joined Mon 05/12/08
Posts: 716
Sun 06/22/08 07:55 PM
QUOTE:

QUOTE:

QUOTE:

too much to read, faith and beliefs remain unmoved.flowerforyou
I'm stubborn as mule my good friend.tongue



as you wish TLW, as someone said - ignorence is bliss - have a great day. flowerforyou



I question this Tribo,

A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach; Not given to wine, no striker [not violent], not greedy of filthy lucre [money]; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous; One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity;

A Chatholic Priest cannot marry and therefore cannot have children let alone the Pope!
Your information is very inaccurate and out of context!



tribo:

quite the opposite fanta - the auther is laying out what the bible states from the apostles writings (paul's timothy and titus) if you care to glance quickly again, and then goes on to show that in later centuries the "popes" (one in particular), put upon the priesthood the vow of "celibacy"

if you bother to read about the popes she mention's, you will see afterwards her comments:

"Pope Gregory VII wanted to increase the power of the papacy. For reasons of politics and power, he abolished clerical marriage. In 1074 he passed laws requiring that priests be celibate, and he got rid of married priests. [Note 19]

As a result, since 1074 no Pope has been able to meet the Apostle Paul's requirement for bishops"

So- for over a thousand years after the universal chuch was in existance - the clergy/priest - were allowed to marry in fact as she states in what your confronting me with is - that paul requires the bishop's and other's to "be married" in order to hold the position's in question - yet alone the falsely formed papacy that was never even mentioned in scriptures - if anyone is "POPE" of the church it is jesus not man!! the early christian church kept within the bound's of scripture but it became corrupt as all hell once constantine took power and ruled both rome and the christian church - from there it continued to slide down hill to become the most heritical church that ever existed in past times. - as i say i'm not going to rail against those who are "following" their christian beliefs as to their god or jesus or the things that are of core faith and belief "all christianity no matter what denomination - but on this aspect i am all to aware of the deceit, lies,decadency,atrocities, and all else of the "roman universal church"
Edited by tribo on Sun 06/22/08 08:01 PM
tribo
517574_6853_thumb
Joined Mon 05/12/08
Posts: 716
Sun 06/22/08 07:29 PM
QUOTE:


QUOTE:

The Catholic Church does not make the laws for the US!
To blame all that on them is crazy!! laughlaughlaugh

The issue of who gained the right to vote first, blacks or women is not as clear as you pretend it to be either. In some states women had the right to vote way before blacks. In some states it happened at about the same time.nowaynoway

Who told you that Catholics kneel all the time? You just said you've never been to a Chatholic Church so that's just another of your misinformed presumptions!

What is it they say about ass u me? LOL





I have been in a Catholic Church, probably for a wedding. They have kneeling benches in front of all the pews.

The Church and religion in general has always been a huge influence on the making of laws in any society. If you want to deny that then you are just unaware. Being a man, that makes you even more unaware. Men were not created equal to women you know. LOL laughlaughflowerforyou




hahaha - thank the holographic matrix for that huh jellybean drinkerhay!!! wait a minute!!! - i resemble that remark!!!explode


cry
tribo
517574_6853_thumb
Joined Mon 05/12/08
Posts: 716
Sun 06/22/08 04:08 PM
QUOTE:

too much to read, faith and beliefs remain unmoved.flowerforyou
I'm stubborn as mule my good friend.tongue



as you wish TLW, as someone said - ignorence is bliss - have a great day. flowerforyou
tribo
517574_6853_thumb
Joined Mon 05/12/08
Posts: 716
Sun 06/22/08 12:51 PM
QUOTE:

QUOTE:

Tribo....for you
Kat


thnx cat , it really doesnot matter to me if you believe or not if that's what you belive i'm ok with it - not looking to argue anymore as i said to QS - i have better thing's to do with my life than argue. take caretongue


Okay??? I was just answering your question to the best of my ability. Is my belief because of what I read in the bible? Well, no it wasn't...but it can be that to a large degree now. But, I still question the wholeness of the Bible. I am not a Christian, I don't think. But, I do believe in God of everything. I feel that there must be a reason to all this. An intelligence at work.
Kat


tribo:

i believe in a creative force also kat, but beyond that evrything is speculative at best, that is why i dont go into any detail of my beliefs on here.
tribo
517574_6853_thumb
Joined Mon 05/12/08
Posts: 716
Sun 06/22/08 12:30 PM
QUOTE:

QUOTE:

QUOTE:

QUOTE:abra

On the other hand, if consciouness exists on all levels, then spirit can be the source of consciouness.

So these two views are humongously different.

creative:


If a frog has wings...

There is no logical support for that claim.


tribo:

Are we talking the spiritual aspect's of a winged frog? Or the physical nature? Or are you just using the flying frog in a analogical / symbolical / metaphorical manner?

The "winged frog" or "Ribbitus Asencious" - found only in the thin upper atmosphere's of planet's "void" of intellegent life - are almost exstinct due to the lack of stratopheric space fly's, aka - buzzieus anoyingus - therefore causing the RA's to leave their normal environment and come closer to the groung level environment with "mankind" - aka - "homo stupideus". because of this ineffable state of circumstances, it is to be taken into consideration that the use of their name be left out of all forum's world wide till they can once again recover from the system shock of having to deal with HS life form's careless use in making useless point's in off froggy topics!! This also must be abided by those wishing to use other such endangered species such as "Porceous Acensious", the "flying pig"- or any other species or sub species that cannot tolerate being used in a close to ground discussion.

your observence to this post will be much appreciated. and foolish disreguard will result in stiff monetary fines and public humility - you think the scarlet letter was bad?? mmmm - just wait!!!




laughVery interesting tribo. smokin

Very interesting indeed. huh



tanx, blushingnot a smokinsince 76
tribo
517574_6853_thumb
Joined Mon 05/12/08
Posts: 716
Sun 06/22/08 12:09 PM
QS:


That's an easy one.... like I say...God's word is just a book to those who haven't recieved the life of it yet. That means the law itself is powerless.... Christ came to give LIFE in the Spirit that brings those words to life & that brings a change of heart & really...a new creation...fully equipped by God...for His good purposes.



tribo:

thnx qs - so are you saying then that those before the law were not just as full of faith and salvation as those after the law? That their faith and rightteousness was less than after the law?
tribo
517574_6853_thumb
Joined Mon 05/12/08
Posts: 716
Sun 06/22/08 11:57 AM
QUOTE:

Spinoza's cool. He got a lot of space in the philosophy books, and had a cool name, too. Must've been a stage name or somethin.laugh



TRIBO:

wrong!! - Spinoza was the original "spin" doctor of the ehlightenment period. His name originated from one who read his books on philisphy and responded with - " {spin!?----- No suh!} I don't agree with you". spin - no - za

Before that time - he was know only as "spin" My reasearch into medievil text and books of definitions according to the famous ""universal church of brutal lies and biasis's"" - reveal's that spin is concidered to be - a once magical term much like today's purveyor's of the slight of hand use "abracadabra" to pull bunnies out of there a**, i mean hats,hats, excusem moi.


Further resaerch revealed that "creative thinker's" held him in high reguard, the emphasis on "HIGH"smokinhere.But he has fallen into i'll repute here recently as other's i'm sure are aware of. the last point is if you spell "spinoza" backward's it is "azonips" which is an ancient disease or disorder of the mind, interesting fun fact for those who have nothing better to do than to read my post - laughdevil
Edited by tribo on Sun 06/22/08 12:14 PM