Dan L

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Na'dou [/i] [B]I said corruption[/B][/QUOTE] Sorry. Either I misread that bit or I just plain didn't see it. Either way yeah.. you did say that. [QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Ravenstorture [/i] [B][color=darkgreen][font=gothic]I do not believe it is fair for government and religion to be intertwined, if there is a variation of religion under the jurisdiction of the government in question. Unfortunately, it is mainly the case today. Just as there are religions that don't support homosexuality, there are ones that do, and as I mentioned before, no proof as to which one is "right." As I believe in the existance of neither right nor wrong, I'll say no proof as to which one to go with. [/b][/color][/font][/quote] You said far more than that and I did read it, I just didn't feel like quoting the whole thing. Ultimately when it comes to the world as a whole, I'd agree with you. Religious rules and beliefs are one thing, but I don't think it's fair to enforce them on people of a different religion. Just as I wouldn't be too happy if I was forced by law to do something against my beliefs, People of other beliefs (or none at all) shouldn't be forced to adhere to my own by law. Which is why I'm in support of gay marriage, in a legal sense even if not in the church itself. The reason I'm not in support of gay marriage in the church goes something like this: You said quite rightly later in your post that Jesus often hung around the outcasts in the society- like prostitutes, tax collectors, adulterer/esses etc. However, there are two ends to this- On one hand, he loved them as he did everyone else, as he did his disciples, and he rebuked those who looked down on these people. However on the other hand he would often say "you are forgiven, now go and turn from your sinful ways". That wasn't because he didn't love them as they were, but because often the things they were doing [i]were[/i] wrong, and he wanted them to turn from that, and be forgiven. That's not to say that if they carried on doing bad things then Jesus wouldn't love them any more.. they'd have the opportunity to be forgiven again, but it normally brings about personal change. Jesus never turned anyone down regardless of how high or low they were in society, and regardless of how sinful they were. But he never turned to a prostitute and said "The Father is pleased with the work you do- I now ordain you as a prostitute in his name", becuase prostitution [i]is[/i] wrong, according to scripture. What Jesus did was to accept people- regardless of who or what they were. He showed them love regardless of the things they may have been doing at the time. But he did [i]not[/i] ordain those actions and say that what they were doing was OK. Marrying two people in a religious ceremony (as opposed to a purely legal ceremony) is to ordain them as right for each other, and to ordain the relationship as something good in God's eyes. As I said earlier, in my particular church there would be no problem if a couple of homosexuals came in. They'd be no less welcome than any of the regulars, and they'd be just as free to take communion and such. When it comes to homosexuals in Christianity, the question isn't whether we should accept them (the answer to which is "yes") but whether or not we should be ordaining the relationship as the right thing. Even Jesus never said that all the guys he hung around with were doing the right thing- he just loved them anyway.

I'd say neither. There's just something about someone that you just fall in love with, and it's not necessarily anything to do with appearance or personality. I mean yeah, they look attractive to you, and you really need to be able to get on with them for it to work- but there can be a load of others like that too that you just don't feel anything for. At the end of the day it's not appearance [i]or[/i] personality that makes me decide who I like- it's whether or not I actually feel anything towards them- and that's something you can't classify either way.

There's an analogy that goes something like this: Christians ideally should aim to follow certain rules, even if they end up breaking them. They believe a certain set of things, and they should be willing to make sacrifices (I'm talking about giving things up, not killing people). Non-believers have no-where near as many restrictions due to what they believe. In a relationship between a Christian and non-Christian, it's a lot easier for a Christian to slip into non-belief than it is for the non-Christian to form a belief. And as long as the two are of opposing beliefs, the relationship can never be as good as it could be if they believed the same thing. This is because most Christians pray, and devout Christian couples tend to pray together. It's kind of like a unity thing, which Christians tend to miss out on when their partners are non-believers. Also, the non-believer often sees the Christian's beliefs as restrictions on what they can and can't do, based on things that he/she doesn't even believe in. Hence somewhere, there is a need for change for the relationship to be most effective.. and it's a lot easier for the Christian to stop believing than for the non-Christian to start. Thus, Christians are normally advised to enter relationships with other Christians, because no matter how strong your faith is, it's hard to keep it up in a relationship with someone who doesn't share it. If that's the grounds on which this girl decided to end the relationship, then it may seem a bit silly, but it works.. however if she was just using god as an excuse then like Justin said earlier, she was just being immature. I guess it all depends.. I mean, you say you're "Christian-lite".. but I guess it depends how deep your belief is- the rule doesn't just apply to Christians being in relationships with Christians as a whole, but with people of the same level of faith. So I don't mean to imply that you don't believe in any way, but rather if she has a really deep faith she may be looking for someone with the same kind of depth in faith.

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Taylor Hewitt [/i] [B]I got a question. Would you lose weight if you have no coke and no chocolate and candy and just u know regular food. That's with little excersise and sitting at computer all day. All The Best Taylor Hewitt [/B][/QUOTE] Yes.. I've been restricting how much coke I've been drinking, eating hardly any chocolate at all, and just eating what I [i]need[/i], and I've lost about 1 and a half stone (about 18 pounds I think) in the last month. And what's more, I don't feel hungry all the time, and I actually end up finishing the meals I do eat, as opposed to throwing some leftovers away. Like HC said, diets do work. The key is to be determined to cut the crap out of what you eat, and to not give up. I also walk a fair bit, which helps too. There's no point eating less if you're going to do less at the same time. (last month I was about 16 and a half stone, now I'm about 15 - but I'm fairly big built and tall, so I'm not massively fat or anything) The most important thing is not to do it because you feel you need to do it to appease people. The main reason I started was that I'd put on a fair bit of weight, which I knew I could lose again, and so I did. Not because I thought people would prefer me that way. [QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Fall [/i] [B]Males 12 years and up need 1600 calories to sleep. Females from the same age need around 1400. It doesn't work out to be too good if you start burning off your "sleep calories". It's also good to stick as close as you can to the healthy calorie intake range. You can eat healthy foods, alot at that, to get to the intake range. Or you can eat a heap of chips and kebabs and go a crack and a half over it. For men, 3000 is the average calorie intake range, for women, 2300. If you want to lose weight, you can drop this intake range to 2000 (recommended healthy intake), or under. Your body needs [i]atleast[/i] 1600 calories to go for a day (sleep aswell), for both males and females. If you stay by this rule your body has the fuel it needs (metabolism, energy, etc) to keep going. It's better to [i]not[/i] burn off that intake (sleepless nights ;)). And it's better to get to the neccesary intake range (1600) with healthy foods. This can mean eating a heap of apples and peaches, and you still won't be there. There as, once you jog/run, you burn off around 160 calories of this intake every 20 minutes of running. The perfect range to lose weight. Every week of burning off that much, every day, you're going to burn off around 1000 calories (almost the neccesary intake range for a day!). That's approx. all you need to do to burn off 2/3lbs a week. -Just say... you're a male who took in 2500 calories for yesterday. Then you run for 40 mintues. (320 calories gone) That's 320 calories gone from the intake range (2500) for that day. Perfect. You got rid of more weight by [i]burning[/i] it off. It didn't go away by you sitting down all day. You [i]burned[/i] it off. Burning more than you take in is good of you want to lose weight faster than ever. Though if you're prepared to go without a smooth sleep every night, go right ahead... actually, I did for a while. :drunk: ...man, I feel like a teacher now. Sorry Rico. :whoops: [/B][/QUOTE] If you realised how many calories were stored up in fat and glycogen in an average person you probably wouldn't be so worried about that ;) I seem to recall figures of something like 100,000 calories stored up in fat.. That's why people can go without food for a month or two, if they're forced to. Water is a different matter though. (incidentally I know an Asian guy who once had to go without food for 56 days- he was nearly dead at the end of it, but he just survived) [QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Change [/i] [B]Actualy if you starve yourself when you start eating again your body is programed to store that food as fat o_0!!! So just eat helthier... [/B][/QUOTE] There are two different states referred to in biochemistry: 1- The starving state- where the body uses fat and glycogen reserves to fuel it 2- the well fed state- where the body stores food up as fat and glycogen reserves Your body is programmed to store up fat, [i]regardless[/i] of whether you've just been starving or not, as long as you're well fed ;) However, it's still true that eating healthier is far better for your general health.

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Na'dou [/i] [B]I'm not against it. I say live and let live. I don't care. As long as it's not me.... I don't really care. I think everyone should marry who they want, but my mom says that that's why Sodum(SP) and Gamora(SP) was destroyed. It was because of all the corruption, but I don't think that this is the same case considering what went on then... [/B][/QUOTE] Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed because they tried to [i]gang-rape[/i] (obviously it doesn't say that, but that's how we'd put it these days) the angels God sent to find out whether they were as bad as they were supposed to be.. not because they were gay.

If a church can accept gay people and perform some kind of service to unite two of them in marriage, then fair enough. If the church wants to do that, then it's entirely up to them. However, that is not compliant with the fundamental Christian beliefs. Ultimately, all scripture is believed to be given by God, through inspiring people-- I have no problem with whether or not you believe it [i]did[/i] happen, but ultimately, if God really is there and if he's as powerful as religions tend to think, then surely it [i]could[/i] happen regardless of whether it did or not. Ultimately you have as much proof that the Bible isn't of God that I have that it is- and if it could be, then it's all down to belief at the end of the day. Now, Christians ought to believe the whole Bible. If they don't, that's what's known as "compromise". And believe me, some of the things which the Bible says which "go against science", don't really. Like the famous verse which says that the Sun goes around the Earth.. actually it says the sun goes around the sky. Look into the sky and lo and behold, that's what you see. Regardless of whether the Bible is from God or man, it is written from a perspective from [i]Earth[/i], and thus you have to take it that way. Now, there are quite clear references in the Bible that homosexuality is not what God wants-- and seeing as the Bible is the centre of Christianity, it seems a bit silly to perform "God-ordained" marriages with gay couples, if the religious text goes against it. Thus I believe that if you're gay and want to marry, you should look to do it legally, but not in church. Many churches may decide that they're going to be more "open to new ideas", but at the end of the day that's up to them. [b]PLEASE[/b] bear in mind that it also says in the Bible "for God so loved the world that he sent his only son, that [i]whosever[/i] believes in him shall not perish but have eteranal life". REGARDLESS of your sexual orientation. I have [i]no[/i] problem with gays, and the nuns which TN saw were quite right when they said that Jesus loves everyone. The point I'm making is NOT a matter of whether or not God loves you, it's a matter of whether or not God supports the relationships you may be in. That makes you no less loved by God, and it makes you no less loved by me, all it means is that I can't agree with what you're doing, in the same way that I don't agree with a few people even [i]within my own church[/i], but I don't believe God saves us based on what we do, but on whether or not we want to be saved. In summary: 1- You have the freedom to do what you want 2- I have the freedom to disagree with what you may be doing, but 3- That doesn't mean I have to hate you for it. And ultimately, I can't support something I don't agree with- if some churches feel that they agree with homosexual relationships, and they can support it and ordain it, then that's fine. But a lot of churches don't feel that way, and I don't think anyone should expect them to conform to what they don't agree with, bearing in mind that in many of these churches there's no actual hostility towards homosexuals. (please don't correct me on that- I'm not talking about your average, dead, congregation of 20 church, but the lively ones that [i]actually practice[/i] love and forgiveness- if you went to one you'd find little hostility at all) Hope I managed to elaborate a bit on that.

*hasn't read anything so far* Sorry, I'm on a slow, charged by the minute dial up connection and thus don't have time to read everyone's replies before I post. My thoughts are essentially this: Marriage, at it's roots, is a religious ceremony. Thus, if you want to get married in a religious ceremony, I don't see how you can do it if your marriage goes against the beliefs of that religion. If you want to get married in a ceremony which calls God in as a witness, and the nature of your marriage goes against this God ([b]regardless[/b] of whether the religion is actually true or not), then really I don't see the point. If however, you wish to be lawfully married to a member of the same sex, but don't want to go through the whole religious service thing, then why not.. go break a leg and whatnot. I don't mind same sex marriages in society as a whole. There are worse things that some people in society do which go against my beliefs. However what I do ask is that you don't ask us to compromise our beliefs by God-ordaining you in a marriage which goes against our beliefs. That's not intolerance- because like I said I don't mind what you do outside, it's what you want me to support inside the church, that I don't like. By no means does that mean I would turn a gay man away if he turned up at our church- we'd welcome him in like any other person, but we will [i]not[/i] support a relationship which goes against our beliefs. But like I said, if you want legal marriage for same-sex couples then I have no problem with that as long as you don't force the church to support it. (hope I made sense)

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by KnightOfTheRose [/i] [B]I would firstly kill anyone that opposes gay rights. With that finished, I would pose a bill to make taxes equal no matter where you live. I would atempt to destroy poverty and bring all people to the minimum of lower class. I would make all races equal. I would make both sexes equal. I would make all sexual preferances acceptable. Lastly, I would take steps to reduce pollution and waste dumping. [/B][/QUOTE] So, you'd have the power to declare all sexes, races, and preferences equal, meaning that you must have power over the minds of everyone on the planet... and yet you only [i]take steps[/i] to reduce pollution. Note: the president of the US is a human too. And he can't "make" all races and sexes and sexualities equal. Because they already are. It's [i]people[/i] that put certain types of person ahead of others, and the President doesn't have the power to change everyone's minds like that. (Note: I am pro-equal rights to everyone, I just don't think you can make it happen so quickly like you inferred) To be honest, I'd make a pretty lousy president. I'd probably be too busy wanting (but probably failing due to lack of support) to sort out the real problems, than the many distractions that people seem to be far more accepting of. People don't like that.

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by cloricus [/i] [B]^*Ignores Tachyons* -eps- [/B][/QUOTE] Technically that's a different story. It's not possible to travel [i]at[/i] the speed of light, however it is possible to travel faster or slower. However due to the complex mathematics involved in the case of travelling faster (which is actually not that complex- it just involves "complex" or "imaginary" numbers) it's pretty much just theoretical stuff. The point is that nothing can [i]reach[/i] the speed of light, unless it has [i]no mass[/i]. Tachyons must necessarily go faster, but they can't slow down to the speed of light any more than we can speed up to it. The speed of light is more like a hill, where you can either be on one side, slower than it, or on the other, faster than it, but the hill's too steep for anyone to climb up to the top in order to get to the other side. [i]Note to Aaron:[/i] I don't think it'll ever be possible. simply cos you need an [i]infinite[/i] amount of energy to reach the speed of light. Which I suppose you [b]may[/b] be able to do, except where would you get the energy from? you'd probably end up draining every bit of energy in the universe. Note that mass can be converted to enrgy, so you'd end up completely emptying the universe, and you probably [i]still[/i] wouldn't be at the speed of light :p

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Fall [/i] [B]...:therock: Ha..haha. Have a look at [b][url=http://www.alexchiu.com]this[/url][/b]. An eternal life device.. or eternal life devices. Apparently, this dude has found the thing inside all of us that makes us age, and has invented a device that stops it. Thus, creating a method for anyone to "stay physically young forever".[/B][/QUOTE] *realises this is most likely fake but anyway...* Who wants to live forever in a world full of death anyway? I mean, sure you can get rid of aging, but there are a LOt of other ways to die, and chances are it'll get you eventually. And as for those that don't die.. well, I'd imagine that the death going on around them would get pretty depressing if they lost loved one after loved one and so on. And wouldn't it get pretty boring? Now eternal life is a different story. There's a distinct difference between what religions believe to be "eternal life" and what greedy people think of as eternal life, which is just merely living forever on Earth. And who wants to live forever in this world anyway? w.r.t. the question at the end of the post, no, I don't think it'll ever be possible to eliminate death, or even aging. Maybe it'd be possible to slow it down a little, but we all age, and we all die eventually, whether you believe there's something afterwards or not.

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by ianthestampede [/i] [B]And this is supposedly when you go into minus time. The special number of course is the speed of light!(if you didn't know, its 186000 mps)[/B][/QUOTE] Except there's one problem. E=m (c squared) where "E" is the energy of the object in question. when travelling at a certain speed, kinetic energy is 1/2 m (V squared) hence you could also say E = m (c squared) + 1/2 m (V squared) except E still equals m (c squared), hence as more kinetic energy is gained (due to higher speed) the mass of the object increases, because according to what I've just said, m ([i]observable mass[/i]) (c squared) = M ([i]stationary mass[/i]) (c squared) + m (V squared) Thus, by a few more calculations it can be conclusively shown that [i]nothing[/i] with any mass whatsoever, can ever reach the speed of light. Only light, and other particles with no mass, only energy, can ever reach the speed of light. Everything else needs an [i]infinite[/i] amount of kinetic energy to do so, and that's not possible by any engine.

Here we can see young Johnny mourning Baby Billy. Earlier in this thread Billy was seen happily swimming in the toilet. Then Johnny accidentally flushed. A sad day for all.

I kind of got the idea that the end times would be pretty bad for all those involved, rather than just the non-believers. .... I'll elaborate on that, or take it back, tomorrow, when 'll have a slightly more informed view on the matter *goes off to read the book of revelation again to sort opinion out* (it's been a few months since I read anything in revelation, before the last 2 chapters)

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by cloricus [/i] [B]Shinji Ikari, are you an idiot? That is just a barcode, built on a scanning system that?s designed to interact with a peripheral connected to a computer and/or database. It does not even make up 666, sure if you counted the lines its pointing to you get [b]a[/b] 6; but not three of them. Six like one to nine are naturally accruing numbers. [/B][/QUOTE] I think the point he was making was that if you look at the three lines that didn't have a number under them, and are lowered down slightly, you get 3 sixes, "666". [QUOTE][i]Originally posted by cloricus [/i] [B]EDITED: Dan, I have to say that - 1) Why would god only care and/or prophesize for the Israel and not the other 6 billion on the planet? Maybe ?someone? had an inflated opinion at the time of writing decided that god was only for the Israelis and their country was the only one that mattered? 2) That those things that were ?prophesised? for Israel came at a time when people needed hope that they would get their state back, all the things that you have posted can be explained logically.[/B][/QUOTE] w.r.t. point 1, god chose Israel as "his nation" back in the days of Abraham. that doesn't make the other nations less important, but rather initially, Israel was [i]the[/i] nation that God worked through, and he would eventually touch all the nations through them (ie. spreading the gospel world wide, which happened too). All that can be found in Genesis. w.r.t. point 2, yes, the fact that they were prophesied can be explained logically, but not the fact that they [i]actually happened[/i] Did you know that there's actually a way that historically, nations tend to go? First they grow into a nation, then they prosper. Prosperity can last for either a long while or for not very long, but after that, they wither and die. No nation is known to defy this general pattern other than the nation of israel, which: rose up, prospered, withered (driven out by Babylonians), rose up again, prospered, withered (driven out by romans), stayed dead for a long time, and then rose up again. Despite the fact that a third of the remnants of the nation were killed in WW2. Despite being effectively goners, twice in history, they ended up coming back twice. every religious nation in it's dying moments is bound to "prophesy" that it'll become a nation again, but Israel is the only one to have fulfilled that truly. Before it was fulfilled, many non-believers refuted the Bible on the basis that israel was dead. Now they say "it was only prophesied to comfort the people" and "it was coincedence". In other words, it doesn't matter how many arguments are defeated, you'll just move on to another one. [QUOTE][i]Originally posted by cloricus [/i] [B]Quote | Dan L | Israel became a nation overnight Well, they were either going to get it back throw war or diplomacy both have instant victories. (Signing of a document or last shot fired to over run a capital.)[/B][/QUOTE] Bear in mind when this prophecy was made- nations simply didn't become nations that fast back then. And normally they don't now. [QUOTE][i]Originally posted by cloricus [/i] [B]Quote | Dan L | Israel sends it's fruit all over the world. It's called trading, most countries did it then and do it now to make money. You know that thing that buys you food and cloths?[/B][/QUOTE] You're missing the point. the point is that the land was completely unworkable for a long time *referring to next point* Thus it was not credible for it to be claimed that "the land would bear fruit" again. And a lot of people didn't believe that it would. The point I'm making isn't whether it's normal or not by TODAY's standards, but rather the fact that it was prophecied [i]despite[/i] sounding incredible at the time, AND it came true. [QUOTE][i]Originally posted by cloricus [/i] [B]Quote | Dan L | Unmanageable land until the Israelis started coming back Israelis had money then and they did when the country was given back to them, they can afford crops/flowers/gardens.[/B][/QUOTE] When I said "started coming back" I was actually referring to the early 1800s, when they started trckling their way back into Israel, or palestine, and started working the land with help from a few people from other countries, and the land became managable again, [i]despite[/i] the fact that it didn't seem plausible. The Israelis started coming back long before they were made a nation in 1948. [QUOTE][i]Originally posted by cloricus [/i] [B]Quote | Dan L | Israel was scattered and later became a nation once before, then it was scattered again, and became a nation again- it was prophesied LONG before the first time. You forgot to mention that this has been happening to the Israelis since they first became a nation, long before it was prophesied. It was inevitable that it would happen again. And may happen in the future. [/B][/QUOTE] *refers to earlier point* The point is, for a nation to die and come back repeatedly, it just doesn't happen normally, in theory or in history. and Lady M, yeah, I know most people aren't answering the question any more.. but heh..at least we're kind of on topic, if not to the exact question brought up.. heh *apologises for any typos that may have come from this dodgy keyboard*

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Manic [/i] [B]Sorry, I just found it rude to jump into a discussion about a religion and flat-out say "I believe your religion is wrong" (not your phrasing, but that's the impression I got from it). That's why these Wicca threads always turn into religious debates; the exact same religious debate, at that. [/B][/QUOTE] OK. I'll try and say it in a less condemning way in future.. or something. or rather, I'll make it clear that I'm just as likely to be wrong, from the start of the thread. If anything like this comes up again, that is (which I don't doubt)

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Manic [/i] [B]Now honestly Dan, is it really your place to decide if they're on the right path? According to their own religion, they are on the right path. [/B][/QUOTE] No it's not. That's the point I was trying to make to DK It's not my place to say that they're [i]definitely[/i] not on the right path, but rather, if my religion is right, then they're not. For me to have any kind of faith in my religion I have to at least believe it's right, thus I believe they're not on the right path. However that's my belief, and they can have theirs too. Ultimately we won't find out what the right path is until we die. So yeah. It's not my place to say who [i]is[/i] on the right path, but rather who I [i]believe[/i] is on the right path ;) Hope that clears up what I meant

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by DeathKnight [/i] [B][color=crimson]My god that sentence tempts me so! RESTRAIN THYSELF, KEN! RESTRAIN! *keeps from a heretical outburst*[/color] [/B][/QUOTE] dude. The key word in that quote being "believe" as in: "I don't think it's right but feel free to do so" as opposed to "be gone, vile magic practicing heathen"

[img]http://www.allfunnypictures.com/images/potd/EGYPTAIRa.jpg[/img] new photograph proves that drink-flying happens too

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Sky Moonflow [/i] [B]Ok this is probly dumb....... But I have been wondering the for a while now.....:rolleyes: ......do people really beleive in Wiccans and Witches......Light and Dark majic............ [/B][/QUOTE] Depends what you mean. Obviously I believe in Wiccans, cos there are so many of them. heh. But if you mean, do I believe they actually have any power, then yes. If you also mean "are they on the right path", then no, I don't believe so. Hope either one of those three answers your question, from my point of view.

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Lady Macaiodh [/i] [B][color=darkblue]I like traditional worship much better. I've been listening to Vineyard worship since I was pretty young (maybe 14 or so). I've also been getting into Irish worship. Revival in Belfast from Hosanna Music is amazing. They have a whole ensemble of something like 30 Irish instruments, lots of fiddles and flutes, and some things I've never even heard of. The lyrics are pretty modern, though, so it's a good combination. [/color] [/B][/QUOTE] Vineyard is considered traditional?.. then I guess I'm a traditional kind of person then.. heh. Mind you, maybe the vineyard style has changed a fair bit, since I've only just got into it edit: I think I see the idea now. I'm in an Anglican church (though I'm not a fussy denominational type- the "anglican" bit is just a technicality), so to me, "traditional" stuff is anything that involves an organ, and "contemporory" is anything that doesn't ;) so yeah

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Mnemolth [/i] [B]It must be nice to believe in God. To know that there is someone out there that understands and loves you. To know that there will be a day of judgement and that justice will be served. To know that your transgressions can be forgiven, regardless of their gravity. To know that your life has meaning and purpose. To know that you are not alone. It must be nice. Like a sexy wet dream on a hot summer night. To quote a phrase I'm sure most of you will be familiar with, "Unfortunately no one can be told what the Matrix is". [/B][/QUOTE] and to end that quote "you have to see it for yourself" emphasis on the word "see"

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Mitch [/i] [B][size=1][font=century gothic][color=gray] Well, Justin, I do not believe in God. Thus he is not everywhere and in everysingle thing for me. Thus you don't need God to live. If you needed God to live--I'm talking about [i]needing[/i], which, is to say, you could not live without it. It's something that's necessary. And believing in God is certainly not necessary. I'm living proof of that right here. I don't believe in God, and I'm alive.[/size][/font][/color] [/B][/QUOTE] If the end point of life is [i]death[/i], when you don't believe then I'd say you do need God to [i]live[/i]. Y'know, Mitch, there's a difference between life, as in thinking, moving about, eating, sleeping, and eventually dying, and life, as in, living in God. They're not the same thing, and I don't even know how to begin going about describing the differences, so I won't try. But the point is, God is far more than just blind hope and wanting some peice of eternity for comfort. *directs you to my last post in this thread, in case you didn't read it*

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Masked_Man [/i] (corrected) [B]ok i know people have different religions now i would like you to be totally honest when i ask this for those who have read the bible and you read of all this stuff that is supposed to happen, it's pretty scary. but i was wondering if we just didn't do some of the stuff that it says is supposed to happen because if that happened that would therefore not bring an end to the world Does anyone think that could happen? [/B][/QUOTE] Not really. A lot of it is happening today, and has happened already. Israel is a nation again- it was prophecied. Israel became a nation overnight- it was prophecied Israel sends it's fruit all over the world. Not metaphorical "fruit", meaning good things, but real fruit, grown in Israel- it was prophecied DESPITE the fact that Israel (or Palestine) was a barren, unmanagable land until the Israelis started coming back- it was prophecied When Israel became a nation, Israelites came from the East and West, and they were eventually (with persuasion) set free from countries north and south- it was prophecied Israel was scattered and later became a nation once before, then it was scattered again, and became a nation again- it was prophecied LONG before the first time. And those are just the ones I can think of off the top of my head. If you want verses though, you'll have to wait, because I can't remember them. The point is, no, we can't stop them from happening. The main reason being that those who do these things will for the most part have no idea that it was prophecied in the Bible. I don't think I need to tell you that a lot of people don't accept the Bible, or that many that do don't accept the End Times prophecies. Many that do accept both don't know the whole facts about them. So in essence, there are a lot of people who just won't see it coming, and nor will they see it happening, until it already has. And yeah, it is scary stuff, but there's absolutely nothing we can do to prevent it. w.r.t. the Antichrist, it will not be painfully obvious to anyone who he is. For the simple reason that in prophecy, he doesn't simply come down and wreak havoc on the land, but he decieves people into thinking that he is the messiah, and that he is God. So if you think you'll believe it when some evil guy with horns wreaks havoc on the world, then it's simply not going to happen at all, according to prophecy. Rather, a great number of people will be decieved into worshipping a false God. Why? because those people will be solely dependant on miracles for their beliefs. They will continue to worship this false God for as long as he keeps on doing great miracles for them and appearing God-like and such. The lesson in that is not to base your faith on miracles but on a fellowship with God. Miracles are all good and such, but if they're what you depend on then ultimately you won't do very well at resisting the false prophet and the antichrist. So at the end of the day, you should praise God through the good and bad, stay in fellowship rather than seeking miracles alone, and every time someone performs miracles, make sure he's not just performing miracles but building faith in God as well. [color=red]][b](note to all: bear in mind this thread [i]is[/i] concerning prophecy in the Christian religion. Therefore I'm not off topic at all, in case you feel compelled to say that. And as always, these are my beliefs and you don't need to follow them)[/b][/color] [QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Justin [/i] [B]If you want real religious advice, I suggest you ask an actual minister. God makes them ministers for a reason. If you're a true Christian, going to other sources could pollute your perception. Especially if those sources are not other Christians.[/B][/QUOTE] I dunno. I'd advise caution in seeking ministers too. For the simple reason that there are a lot of ministers in some denominations that don't believe in various aspects of Christianity, such as the Holy Spirit working today, the resurrection, the authenticity and authority of scripture, and all sorts. Particularly this is a problem within many Church of England churches (thankfully not mine). The problem is that there are a great number of ministers who God truly has called into service to strengthen others in their faith. But their are also a great deal who are essentially false teachers of the Christian doctrine, and as a speaker said at our church, these ministers and churches that go against God ultimately will get what they have coming to them. The primary concern for any Christian should be to grow in faith and to spread the Gospel. Because of the lack of faith in many churches this doesn't happen. It's usually unwise to try and bring life into the church by yourself unless you truly feel called to do it- because only those anointed to that kind of thing generally succeed. But rather, if a church drags down your faith, and is [i]not open[/i], and condemning of ideas that are fundamental doctrine, leave and find somewhere that supports you. In the same way that Jesus said that, when in an unwelcoming town, say "Even the dust of your town that sticks to our feet we wipe off against you" and leave. So yeah. That isn't meant as an argument against you Justin, but rather to say "be careful even of which ministers you approach". Many of them are ordained on paper, but not in spirit.

[b]*big thumbs up to Shinji Ikari*[/b] Well, you could start off with... Tim Hughes and Matt Redman (a few soundbytes can be found at [url]www.worshiptogether.com[/url] - album available from [url]www.soulsurvivor.com[/url] shop) Gareth Robinson (3 downloadable songs at [url]http://www.churchnext.net/living_creative_sounds_gareth.shtml[/url] - album available from same site) Heat ( sound clips at [url]http://www.heatonline.org.uk/band/downloads.html[/url] - albums available from [url]www.soulsurvivor.com[/url] shop) Delirious ( [url]http://www.delirious.co.uk[/url] ) David Gate ( album available at [url]www.SoulSurvivor.com[/url] ) And also, Vineyard USA's latest album, Just like Heaven, is a great one (go to [url]www.vineyardmusic.com[/url] ) w.r.t. contemporary vs. traditional worship, in my view anyone who sticks to one side and proclaims it "right" is in fact wrong. The important thing is to worship, not the specific way in which we worship. Exodus 35:5, Moses told the people "from what you have, take an offering to the Lord". It applies to this situation because, in other words if you prefer traditional worship, fine, do it that way. If you prefer modern, fine. But it's using [i]what we have[/i] (ie. what we can do) rather than the specific style in which we do it, that's important. As for outreach, I'd completely agree that the new style works far better. But at the same time, worship isn't entirely about outreach. It's also about drawing closer to God. If you do that better with traditional hymns then that's no problem to me. (I didn't mean to imply that any of you thought that hymns were bad or the traditional way is wrong or anything.. just thought I'd clarify on that)

[img]http://www.otakuboards.com/attachment.php?s=&postid=400298[/img] [b]Within a few minutes of another Human sighting, "they" are already on the case to plan the cover up...[/b]