Jump to content

Glenn Beck and a call for religious rebirth


Zygimantas

Recommended Posts

they are a business, they're in it for pure profit.

 

:twss:

Glad you figured that out.

99 dungeoneering achieved, thanks to everyone that celebrated with me!

 

♪♪ Don't interrupt me as I struggle to complete this thought
Have some respect for someone more forgetful than yourself ♪♪

♪♪ And I'm not done
And I won't be till my head falls off ♪♪

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 281
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

If America started paying less for drugs, I wonder if it would have effects elsewhere. Perhaps Americans are subsidising drug research by paying high prices, which countries with government healthcare then free ride off for cheap.

 

So nice of the Americans so show some socialist spirit :)

For it is the greyness of dusk that reigns.

The time when the living and the dead exist as one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm tired of the back and forth because it's obviously not going anywhere, but I'll leave with this article (I thought private insurance was so efficient):

 

California regulators are seeking fines of up to $9.9 billion from Pacificare over allegations the health insurer mismanaged claims from physicians, failed to make payments in a timely manner and other violations.

 

The California Department of Insurance alleges that Pacificare, which was bought by UnitedHealth Group in 2006, violated the state's insurance code 992,000 times between 2006 and 2007.

 

Each of those violations carry a fine of up to $10,000 each, according to CDI spokesman Ioannis Kazani.

 

The National Association of Insurance Commissioners said the $9.9 billion fine, if enacted, would be the largest the group has seen.

 

In court documents filed last year in Sacramento, CDI says an investigation in 2007 found that Pacificare routinely failed to disclose all benefits, coverage, time limits or other provisions in insurance policies. It also found claim files were often missing certain documents and that payments were not made on time.

 

The allegations have been the subject of an ongoing hearing conducted before an administrative law judge, who is reportedly nearing a verdict after nearly 10 months.

 

The California Insurance Commissioner, Steve Poizner, who filed charges against Pacificare in 2008, will make the agency's final decision on the fines following the judge's recommendation.

 

Health Insurer Faces $9.9 Billion In Fines

 

Single payer wins for health care, cost controls on university help with keeping college affordable, both should be free or affordable for your average everyday person. Period. And you're not going to see me argue for cost controls on many things (especially not rent or something); health care and education are another story.

 

Here's a good thing about taking out loans for college, though:

 

Despite the social and economic importance of a university education, the U.S. federal government—unlike many other parts of the developed world—has not attempted to make university affordable by stepping in to control costs. Instead, they have focused on offering assistance to pay whatever those costs might be.

 

As larger numbers of people enrolled in colleges, the consumer credit market also grew and more people became comfortable using credit. However, without much precedent for lending to young adults with no collateral, most private lenders in the credit market were slow to enter the student loan market. They did so only after the federal government set up frameworks and guarantees to protect them. In this way, credit became a principal way students paid for college.

 

The Kids Aren't Alright: The Policymaking of Student Loan Debt

 

Student loans, of course, help students pay for college. But they don’t help students pay for college very easily. As Bowdish puts it, the 18 million university students “all assume—by and large correctly—that the benefits they will receive from attending college, be they economic, social, or cultural, will outweigh the costs.” The problem, however, is that the cost is now borne by students over 20 or 30 years.

 

Is it “worth it”? Well sure it is. But students, and the country, would be a lot better off if no one needed to make that sort of calculation (just like every other developed country).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The US is not like other developed countries. We have a population in the hundreds of millions with a huge amount of political diversity. Half them claim to want the government to stay out of their lives, and at least part of the other half would be fine with it. Both groups would rather block each other out than figure out how to pay for it... Or so it is here :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The US is not like other developed countries. We have a population in the hundreds of millions with a huge amount of political diversity. Half them claim to want the government to stay out of their lives, and at least part of the other half would be fine with it. Both groups would rather block each other out than figure out how to pay for it... Or so it is here :lol:

 

America isn't that politically diverse, you have a right wing which lurches further to the right every year and a centrist party which is also drifting to the right. I wouldn't say that is too diverse. I agree whole-heartedly with your last point though, they're just playing the game and they'll go out of their way to disagree over anything.

wild_bunch.gif

He who learns must suffer, and, even in our sleep, pain that cannot forget falls drop by drop upon the heart,

and in our own despair, against our will, comes wisdom to us by the awful grace of God.

- Aeschylus (525 BC - 456 BC)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The US is not like other developed countries. We have a population in the hundreds of millions with a huge amount of political diversity. Half them claim to want the government to stay out of their lives, and at least part of the other half would be fine with it. Both groups would rather block each other out than figure out how to pay for it... Or so it is here :lol:

 

America isn't that politically diverse, you have a right wing which lurches further to the right every year and a centrist party which is also drifting to the right. I wouldn't say that is too diverse. I agree whole-heartedly with your last point though, they're just playing the game and they'll go out of their way to disagree over anything.

Democrats are drifting to the right?

 

Yeah...right. I Wonder why gay marriage is legal in some states and the president is pushing for public healthcare?

polvCwJ.gif
"It's not a rest for me, it's a rest for the weights." - Dom Mazzetti

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The US is not like other developed countries. We have a population in the hundreds of millions with a huge amount of political diversity. Half them claim to want the government to stay out of their lives, and at least part of the other half would be fine with it. Both groups would rather block each other out than figure out how to pay for it... Or so it is here :lol:

 

America isn't that politically diverse, you have a right wing which lurches further to the right every year and a centrist party which is also drifting to the right. I wouldn't say that is too diverse. I agree whole-heartedly with your last point though, they're just playing the game and they'll go out of their way to disagree over anything.

Democrats are drifting to the right?

 

Yeah...right. I Wonder why gay marriage is legal in some states and the president is pushing for public healthcare?

 

I should have prefaced that by say some elements are drifting to the right. You just need to look at the Bluedog democrats to see what I'm talking about. I think it would also be interesting to compare and contrast the positions of democratic presidents/candidates from years gone by to illustrate my point. Just look at the extremely watered down healthcare bill that was passed by Obama, it sounds similar in some ways to Nixon's plan - (http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/Stories/2009/September/03/nixon-proposal.aspx). The Democrats may seem way to the left from a current American perspective but in reality they aren't that far to the left, especially compared to the Democrats of years gone by.

wild_bunch.gif

He who learns must suffer, and, even in our sleep, pain that cannot forget falls drop by drop upon the heart,

and in our own despair, against our will, comes wisdom to us by the awful grace of God.

- Aeschylus (525 BC - 456 BC)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The US is not like other developed countries. We have a population in the hundreds of millions with a huge amount of political diversity. Half them claim to want the government to stay out of their lives, and at least part of the other half would be fine with it. Both groups would rather block each other out than figure out how to pay for it... Or so it is here :lol:

 

America isn't that politically diverse, you have a right wing which lurches further to the right every year and a centrist party which is also drifting to the right. I wouldn't say that is too diverse. I agree whole-heartedly with your last point though, they're just playing the game and they'll go out of their way to disagree over anything.

Democrats are drifting to the right?

 

Yeah...right. I Wonder why gay marriage is legal in some states and the president is pushing for public healthcare?

 

I should have prefaced that by say some elements are drifting to the right. You just need to look at the Bluedog democrats to see what I'm talking about. I think it would also be interesting to compare and contrast the positions of democratic presidents/candidates from years gone by to illustrate my point. Just look at the extremely watered down healthcare bill that was passed by Obama, it sounds similar in some ways to Nixon's plan - (http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/Stories/2009/September/03/nixon-proposal.aspx). The Democrats may seem way to the left from a current American perspective but in reality they aren't that far to the left, especially compared to the Democrats of years gone by.

 

I read an interesting article (I don't have a link) which was basically comparing american politics to Canadian ones. The point it made is that Canada is in general a country with liberal viewpoints, thus it's harder for conservative governments to fare well and pass typical "conservative' legislation. Stephen Harper has been pretty sneaky about it and done well, but only because he's watered down everything. The article says it's the opposite in the states - in general people tend to be more conservative so successful democratic governing often has to be watered down a little bit.

polvCwJ.gif
"It's not a rest for me, it's a rest for the weights." - Dom Mazzetti

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The US is not like other developed countries. We have a population in the hundreds of millions with a huge amount of political diversity. Half them claim to want the government to stay out of their lives, and at least part of the other half would be fine with it. Both groups would rather block each other out than figure out how to pay for it... Or so it is here :lol:

 

America isn't that politically diverse, you have a right wing which lurches further to the right every year and a centrist party which is also drifting to the right. I wouldn't say that is too diverse. I agree whole-heartedly with your last point though, they're just playing the game and they'll go out of their way to disagree over anything.

Democrats are drifting to the right?

 

Yeah...right. I Wonder why gay marriage is legal in some states and the president is pushing for public healthcare?

 

He's not pushing for public health care. If he is, where is my public option? I'm forced to purchase private insurance without many cost control measures in place. This is not public health care. Moreover, as 1_man_army points out, this plan is a right-wing health care bill. The only way you could make it more right-wing is instead of mandatory health insurance you had mandatory health savings accounts. The only other option is to just accept that health care isn't a right, and deny people care; which clearly isn't true.

 

We would have single payer if Roosevelt pushed for it, but he didn't (where do you think Britain and other European countries got their idea? Eleanor Roosevelt). Truman took up the torch and pushed for it, and the AMA denounced it as socialism and the integration of hospitals would prove too difficult. The next person to try was LBJ, and he got single payer passed for seniors; he got a bungled up program to help poor people (Medicaid) which has proven less effective than Medicare because each state does it its own way. Nixon tried, and Ted Kennedy pushed single payer instead and called Nixon's plan a corporate bailout; their differences wouldn't be reconciled as Kennedy knew he could get his plan through with a Democratic president. He miscalculated. Then you have Bill Clinton, whose plan was more to the right than Nixon's. It failed, and the Republicans' plan then which was written by the Heritage Foundation would then be signed into law by Barack Obama. Although Obama's has more regulations in it, and didn't address tort law.

 

Read some history to understand 1_man_army's point. The parties in this country have lurched so far to the right, and one of them is so fringy that most of my European friends just don't understand how they're even a viable party. The reason this is the case is because of the Southern Strategy of pitting poor whites against minorities and focusing on their inner monsters. You'll notice that there used to be liberal Republicans (there already are conservative Democrats). What happened to them? The racist Democrats flipped to Republican after the Civil Rights Act of 1964, starting with Strom Thurman. The rest would later follow, as the Democrats quickly lost the South. As time went on, the parties became more ideologically rigid, although the rigidity of the Republicans remained far too much for most independents. This is why the parties are literally black and white (by their platform, not necessarily their members).

 

The Southern Strategy started to lose its umph, so to re-energize it, Ronald Reagan got the Religious Right to become a major political faction. Now instead of blacks being the problem--although they still were, as he used racist dog whistles to refer to people on welfare as Cadillac Welfare Queens--they had a new group to hate: Catholics and gay people.

 

Now the RR has taken over the party for the most part, and they've adopted the "limited government" stuff from the early elements of racism from whence the Southern Strategy developed. This is why they're opposed to taxes for any social program, love the military, love their form of "big government," hate science and climate change, and love authoritarian figures.

 

See Lee A[bleep]er:

 

As to the whole Southern strategy that Harry Dent and others put together in 1968, opposition to the Voting Rights Act would have been a central part of keeping the South. Now [the new Southern Strategy of Ronald Reagan] doesn’t have to do that. All you have to do to keep the South is for Reagan to run in place on the issues he's campaigned on since 1964 and that's fiscal conservatism, balancing the budget, cut taxes, you know, the whole cluster.

 

You start out in 1954 by saying, "[racist term], [racist term], [racist term]." By 1968 you can't say "[racist term]" — that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states' rights and all that stuff. You're getting so abstract now [that] you're talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you're talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is [that] blacks get hurt worse than whites. And subconsciously maybe that is part of it. I'm not saying that. But I'm saying that if it is getting that abstract, and that coded, that we are doing away with the racial problem one way or the other. You follow me — because obviously sitting around saying, "We want to cut this," is much more abstract than even the busing thing, and a hell of a lot more abstract than "[racist term], [racist term]."

 

If Barack Obama governed the way he's governing in America in say, Britain? He'd be a Tory, through and through, although probably to the left of David Cameron. In Germany he'd be to the right of Angela Merkel.

 

I know the response to that is "America is a center-right nation," but we're not. If you ask people about each issue, we'd be a center-left nation. Probably to the left of Britain, but to the right of most Western Europe. There's just too many reactionaries here who love Medicare and the VA yet denounce socialism.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

He's not pushing for public health care. If he is, where is my public option? I'm forced to purchase private insurance without many cost control measures in place. This is not public health care. Moreover, as 1_man_army points out, this plan is a right-wing health care bill. The only way you could make it more right-wing is instead of mandatory health insurance you had mandatory health savings accounts. The only other option is to just accept that health care isn't a right, and deny people care; which clearly isn't true.

 

Sorry, I'll rephrase that. He's pushing for a affordable healthcare with public options for some. I absolutely agree that it's not public in essence, but it is an improvement in that regard. Note: I agree with the legislation and wish he could have done more.

 

We would have single payer if Roosevelt pushed for it, but he didn't (where do you think Britain and other European countries got their idea? Eleanor Roosevelt). Truman took up the torch and pushed for it, and the AMA denounced it as socialism and the integration of hospitals would prove too difficult. The next person to try was LBJ, and he got single payer passed for seniors; he got a bungled up program to help poor people (Medicaid) which has proven less effective than Medicare because each state does it its own way. Nixon tried, and Ted Kennedy pushed single payer instead and called Nixon's plan a corporate bailout; their differences wouldn't be reconciled as Kennedy knew he could get his plan through with a Democratic president. He miscalculated. Then you have Bill Clinton, whose plan was more to the right than Nixon's. It failed, and the Republicans' plan then which was written by the Heritage Foundation would then be signed into law by Barack Obama. Although Obama's has more regulations in it, and didn't address tort law.

 

Don't really know what to say here, I don't know much american history.

 

Read some history to understand 1_man_army's point. The parties in this country have lurched so far to the right, and one of them is so fringy that most of my European friends just don't understand how they're even a viable party. The reason this is the case is because of the Southern Strategy of pitting poor whites against minorities and focusing on their inner monsters. You'll notice that there used to be liberal Republicans (there already are conservative Democrats). What happened to them? The racist Democrats flipped to Republican after the Civil Rights Act of 1964, starting with Strom Thurman. The rest would later follow, as the Democrats quickly lost the South. As time went on, the parties became more ideologically rigid, although the rigidity of the Republicans remained far too much for most independents. This is why the parties are literally black and white (by their platform, not necessarily their members).

 

I agree to an extent - once again I'm no expert on American history. My point is that while elements of the political spectrum may have become more conservative, the left wing has done some pretty left-wing stuff as well. (legalize abortion, gay marriage on the way, stem cell research, etc etc.) You can't deny these things follow liberal ideologies.

 

The Southern Strategy started to lose its umph, so to re-energize it, Ronald Reagan got the Religious Right to become a major political faction. Now instead of blacks being the problem--although they still were, as he used racist dog whistles to refer to people on welfare as Cadillac Welfare Queens--they had a new group to hate: Catholics and gay people.

 

Now the RR has taken over the party for the most part, and they've adopted the "limited government" stuff from the early elements of racism from whence the Southern Strategy developed. This is why they're opposed to taxes for any social program, love the military, love their form of "big government," hate science and climate change, and love authoritarian figures.

 

Not going to argue that, as I said...not well versed on this period in history.

 

See Lee A[bleep]er:

 

As to the whole Southern strategy that Harry Dent and others put together in 1968, opposition to the Voting Rights Act would have been a central part of keeping the South. Now [the new Southern Strategy of Ronald Reagan] doesnt have to do that. All you have to do to keep the South is for Reagan to run in place on the issues he's campaigned on since 1964 and that's fiscal conservatism, balancing the budget, cut taxes, you know, the whole cluster.

 

You start out in 1954 by saying, "[racist term], [racist term], [racist term]." By 1968 you can't say "[racist term]" that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states' rights and all that stuff. You're getting so abstract now [that] you're talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you're talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is [that] blacks get hurt worse than whites. And subconsciously maybe that is part of it. I'm not saying that. But I'm saying that if it is getting that abstract, and that coded, that we are doing away with the racial problem one way or the other. You follow me because obviously sitting around saying, "We want to cut this," is much more abstract than even the busing thing, and a hell of a lot more abstract than "[racist term], [racist term]."

 

If Barack Obama governed the way he's governing in America in say, Britain? He'd be a Tory, through and through, although probably to the left of David Cameron. In Germany he'd be to the right of Angela Merkel.

 

I know the response to that is "America is a center-right nation," but we're not. If you ask people about each issue, we'd be a center-left nation. Probably to the left of Britain, but to the right of most Western Europe. There's just too many reactionaries here who love Medicare and the VA yet denounce socialism.

 

It seems a little contradictory of you to say here that American is a center-left nation when most of your previous posts have been attempting to show that America has become more right wing..

 

Certainly the American left isn't anything like the Canadian left, same goes for the right.

polvCwJ.gif
"It's not a rest for me, it's a rest for the weights." - Dom Mazzetti

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is....Sad...

300K people rallying for smaller government and less morons in office? Yup. I like it. I really find it dumb, however, that you think that (almost) everyone protesting the Ground Zero Mosque is Christian, and the only factor is they are Christian. Maybe they don't want to disrespect everyone who died? I'm sure if you had a relative who died there, you would be a little less inclined to let them build a religious site for the same religion as the people who FLEW A PLANE INTO A BUILDING.

 

I think the hatred against America is a problem too, but making an US VS THEM campaign is not the way to alleviate it. Sounds like it would just make Islams even angrier.

 

It's just too bad atheists tend to be the quiet minority.

 

Not on internet forums.

 

O:)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Remember how I was soooo crazy and shrill for saying the Republicans are doing nothing on purpose? How I was being partisan and not hearing the GOP's ideas fairly?

 

Take it away, Jim DeMint:

 

DeMint doesn't care. He tells Bloomberg Businessweek his goal for the Senate is "complete gridlock" and that he wants to stop programs that violate his anti-Big Government ideology. "What happens in the Senate is the Republicans sink to the lowest common denominator," he says, taking a quick break between TV appearances. "People want an alternative to some kind of watered-down Republican philosophy."

 

http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/10_39/b4196031953733.htm?chan=magazine+channel_news+-+politics+%2B+policy

 

Complete gridlock. It's exactly what I said earlier in this thread. The Republican Party has been out of governance for so long that their ideology cannot handle actually governing the Federal government. It's absolutely against it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So... Are you just trying to justify your liberalism to someone? We get it - Right wing politics are evil.

 

Right-wing politics aren't evil. I've said time and time again I can accept and respect conservatives. I cannot and will not respect Republicans in their current state. I'm not convincing anyone of anything politically, just that the GOP is not interesting in governing. I was explicitly told on this very thread that the GOP just "has different ideas," when it's blatantly obvious that they're shutting down the government for political purposes.

 

This isn't an argument for my ideology, but a plead for people to wake the [bleep] up to what the GOP is doing. I was told by several people that I was more or less crazy for believing the GOP was willing to shut down the government for politics.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They're shutting the Democrats out for policies they don't want. That's honestly what the Dems should have been doing during the Bush years.

 

No, they're shutting out ALL policies (the small business bill was their policy). This is exactly what I'm combating (notice that they're against all policies that were theirs). That's the point I'm making, and obviously people still aren't getting it.

 

In retrospect, considering how childish and adolescent they are, you're right, though. As I said, they are ruthless, and you don't deal with bullies by placating and working with them. The reason that happens, though, is because there are conservative, moderate, and liberal Democrats. It's hard to remain in unison with a Tent this Big.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I say we let sleeping dogs lie.

And let old dogs die.

 

 

The more I read about the Senate, the more convinced I am that it needs some sort of reform. George Washington, upon declining a third term as President, gave three pieces of advice: Limit national debt, avoid getting involved in the affairs of other nations, and don't form political parties*. Oops, oops, and oops.

 

Anyways, the party politics have gotten to the point where there is no real debating in the Senate. Every Republican votes with the interests of the Republican party, and the Democrats do the same. Occasionally, a Senator will give a speech to an empty room and some television cameras. The speech will be written by aides, as will most of the opinions the Senators argue for. Very rarely are there many Senators in the actual room for debating. More often than not they will be in a side room talking to aides, giving press conferences, or campaigning for re-election.

 

 

* http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/washing.asp

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yay!!! Nothing is more effective then the combination of politics and comedy.

99 Hunter - November 1st, 2008

99 Cooking -July 22nd, 2009

99 Firemaking - July 29th, 2010

99 Fletching - December 30th, 2010

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

The way I see it, those rallies are compliments to Glenn Beck. Why? Glenn attracted enough media attention and drew enough people to D.C. to get a parody!

 

If only 10,000 people showed up, do you really think that Jon Stewart would bother with this?

99 dungeoneering achieved, thanks to everyone that celebrated with me!

 

♪♪ Don't interrupt me as I struggle to complete this thought
Have some respect for someone more forgetful than yourself ♪♪

♪♪ And I'm not done
And I won't be till my head falls off ♪♪

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 months later...

Just wanna break down a few arguments here.

 

First, science and religion may not have all the answers, but we can all agree science has brought much more answers and even proven religion to be wrong many times. Therefore, science is at very least more reliable.

 

Second. There may be no solid proof on God's inexistence, but the whole belief doesn't make sense. If you look carefully, the Universe is in progress. Dust becomes life, life becomes intelligent, and intelligent life creates artificial intelligence. The existence of a God would assume that we're in regression, since he would be many thousands of times more intelligent than us and would be creating beings inferior to him. And when you look around, Nature clearly isn't in regression (except for a few idiots out there, that is).

 

Third, have a look at this (it's a satire.. not to be taken seriously):

 

 

First of all........ it's never ever a good thing to get into a religious discussion... but, since you started I can't help but put in my 2 cents worth on the subject. :rolleyes:

 

Everyone has a right to their own opinion. And "EVERYONE" believes in something. If you don't believe in God, that is your belief. You have a right to your belief. When you say you believe "SCIENCE" you apparently haven't done much research if you say science proves there was a big bang that created the earth, first, they have not proved that.. it is a theory. If you say you believe in evolution, then we would all have to have evolved from an ameoba. So... evolution doesn't just stop. A monkey had to come from somewhere....an ape had to come from somewhere... we are all supposed to have evolved from apes? Hmmm... why aren't the apes still evolving into people then??? :?: Also.. scientists used to say that the earth was only 6,000 years old... now it has been proven it's millions of years old... IF you say there is no proof that there is a God... tell me why the bible exists today? How for thousands of years the scrolls were protected (and some are just now being discovered) yet the bible has survived? How the birth of Christ was foretold thousands of years before his birth?

 

If you ever bothered to read the bible and study it in it's original language, it was written in, to get the correct meaning you would see the whole history of earths existance and creation is there, as well as, the earthly creation of people (created in earthly bodies so that every soul could have the free will to decide on their own whether to believe and love God, or not) and that we existed in spiritual bodies before our earthly bodies were created. That there really is a Satan, Devil, Lucifer, Serpent... he has many many names and he was thrown out of heaven because he wasn't satisfied to guard the mercy seat and wanted to be God, and do you know he was a most beautiful angel, nothing like everyone pictures him. :twisted:

 

Everything that is written in the bible is found mentioned in more than one place by different writers as a witness to the truth. Also, if you would study the book of Revelation (the meaning of which is "to reveal") you would know that the Arch Angel Michael has Satan locked up now. He will be released soon onto the earth claiming to be Christ and will come in peace and do miraculous miracles and so many will be deceived by him thinking he really is Christ because he will claim to be Christ.

 

Do you know that Satan and God had conversations?? God asked him once what he had been doing and he said he had been going to and fro on the earth. But, no matter what I say or believe (I'm not a minister or a preacher or a religious teacher) I still say you have a right to believe in your own beliefs and I have the same right and no matter what anyone tells you most people do not have eyes to see or ears to hear the truth.

 

Do you know, in the bible, that dinosaurs are described? Do you know, in the bible, that spaceships are described? Do you know, angels don't really have wings? Do you know, that heaven used to be on earth and will be again when Christ returns?

 

And, I certainly would not want anyone to believe anything I say, I would want to you research it for yourself and study what the bible says and not take anyone's word just because they say it's so.

 

BTW.... being a Christian is not a religion, it's a reality! :pray:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You ever get the feeling you're being trolled...

 

Anyway, I skimmed over your post, because after the first paragraph it became apparent you have not read the other debates here at all.

 

It has been said many times before. The people on this forum admit the big bang and evolution is just a theory. And do you know why scientists said the earth was only 6000 years old? Because the bible said so. So I find it confusing that you would say that scientists have proved the earth to be older as proof that the bible is right.

 

And then the other part of your post:

 

Have you read the bible in its original language? I doubt it considering it was written in Latin. Also the original bible would be the Jewish bible, not the Christan bible. Funny how history works aint it?

 

I don't remember hearing that the birth of christ was foretold, i'll need some evidence on that.

 

So tell me, what "truth" is a 9 headed immortal hydra? I'd love to know what that refers to in the Christan bible. What about a magical bag that has an infinite amount of space? (little known fact, the hydra Heracles faced was actually immortal)

 

And spaceships are described in the bible, huh? Tell me, what does a spaceship look like. Me, I don't know, we don't have spaceships yet.

 

And the last sentence makes it apparent I probably shouldn't have even bothered to reply.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Have you read the bible in its original language? I doubt it considering it was written in Latin.

Ummm, what? The Old Testament (basically what you called the "Jewish Bible") was mostly written in Hebrew (makes sense right? Jewish=Hebrew), other parts were written in Aramaic. The New Testament was written in Koine Greek. Between the 3rd and 2nd centuries BC, the Hebrew Bible was translated into Koine Greek (this was before the New Testament was written) as it was the major language of the time. This version of the Bible is called the Septuagint (often abbreviated LXX).

 

During the early years of the Church, various scriptures were translated into Latin. Collectively these are known as the Vetus Latina. But it wasn't until sometime about 382 AD that the entire Bible was translated into Latin by St. Jerome. This version is know as the Vulgate. Honestly, I don't know where you got the idea that the Bible was originally written in Latin.

 

Also, there is no "9-headed immortal hydra" in the Bible. I think you're confusing Greek/Roman mythology for Christianity. To be fair, there is a 7-headed beast mentioned in Revelation, but that book is full of metaphor, allegory, and symbolism. And one last thing, I disagree with Chandra that the Bible describes a spaceship.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.