Jump to content

Still Alive

Diamond Member
  • Content Count

    2,300
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    3

Still Alive last won the day on July 11 2018

Still Alive had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

987 Good

3 Followers

About Still Alive

  • Rank
    Diamond Member

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Kentucky
  • Interests
    Photography, bass player, clearing my property

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. We're in agreement on this. If I see an old car rusting away in a field, it doesn't mean it came into existence through rust.
  2. Ever heard that phrase, "You think health care is expensive now, just wait until it's 'free'."? Whenever something is free to one person, somebody else paid for it.
  3. It's actually "you shall not murder". And no, they are not "legalistic". That term is very subjective. Regarding "overly legalistic and ritualistic", I just look at it this way: What did Jesus and the apostles say and do? Doing that is useful. Some modern congregations are legalistic about alcohol. Some are legalistic about how you pray. Some are legalistic about when to be at church. But none of that is supported in the bible. And regarding the one church, it is important to consider the actual multiple meanings of the word. e.g.: I go to church. I belong to a church. My church is non-denominational. My church is denominational. The body of believers is the church. There is one church. The thing is, we are all catholics. for the word simply means "universal". So we are all part of the "church", but one Roman organization took on the word as part of the title of their organization. My church is called the "Christian" church, an offshoot of "Church of Christ". It doesn't mean we are the only Christian church nor that we are "the" church. It simply means that that is the name the particular congregation used. There are thousands of "churches", but we are all part of THE church. The Catholic church is one, Ethiopian Orthodox is another, Assembly of God is another, etc. None of them are "the" church but all are a part of "the church". And we all add our share of "extra" stuff in church. Mine has a "Christian flag". Baptists think drinking is a sin. Catholics have added a LOT of nonsense too. They have more only because they've been around longer. The one church is the body of believers. Do you believe Jesus is your savior from death, and that he died and was resurrected as a perfect sacrifice? Do you believe he chose you? It's all good! My relationship with Him is pretty much 24/7. He is my creator and my savior. Everything else is about learning more and more about him, not about various churches and the extra stuff they've added to the message to make it seem more, um, formal and other stuff. It's not. This world is almost like a hologram. It's not really real in the way eternity/heaven is real. It is woefully temporary. God created us for a purpose, and that purpose is to serve and worship him. And how do we do that? I know he doesn't need my money or my muscle or my brain, but he "lets me" use those things to do His will. And every day is an opportunity to learn about him and his will for my life through study of his word, prayer, analyzing the world he created, building solid relationships with my fellow "found sheep" and meditating on all three. That is my Christian experience. I don't need a fancy building. I don't need robes. I don't need a script. I don't need specific hours to meet (though I abide by them in my church to prevent chaos). I really don't even need a bible, but it very much helps. I only need the knowledge of my creator and His plan for me and this particular creation. And regarding being my own pope: That is not a Christian concept. It is a Catholic Church concept. Jesus is my high priest. I go to him directly. It does no good to pray to dead people to intercede. I am instructed in his word to pray to him with other LIVING believers, yes. but certainly not the dead. Is it effective? We have two bonefide miraculous healings regarding my wife and me, not to mention other miracles as well as answers to prayer that, though not technically "miraculous", but we believe either they are answers to prayer or mind-bogglingly detailed coincidences. And once I became a Christian, I stopped believing in coincidences. And yes, I've been bombarded with accusations of falling into YOPIOS. I think that is how it is SUPPOSED TO work.
  4. I completely agree. And I think God is behind that!
  5. I don't see the bible as "God's word". I see it as books written by men who were inspired by God. It's why there are four gospels. Each man put his personal stamp on the story. If it were "God's word", we'd only need one gospel. This is why the Book of Mormon and the Quran only have one writer. They claim to be the word of "god" handed down to this guy... The bible is different. I was just reading Ephesians (I posted a link to a few scriptures earlier. It is a letter. Written to a church. By Paul. And there is some very good stuff in there from which we can learn, partly because he is one of the apostles - part of the foundation on which the church is built. But even he came up with some, um, interesting stuff. E.g. http://www.michaelsheiser.com/TheNakedBible/1 Cor11 head covering testicle.pdf Edit: I forgot to clarify - I do believe it CONTAINS the words of God. When it prefaces things with something like "And then God said" or the lettering is in red, then I think it is "the word of God."
  6. I see love as a decision and an action. And what the other person does does not affect it. On a side note, I tell young people that are planning on getting married that if they want to marry that person to devote their entire life to working to make that other person happy, great. But if they are doing it because they know that other person will make them happy, they need to not go through with it.
  7. And what is meant by "love"? http://blog.adw.org/2010/07/going-deeper-with-the-parable-of-the-good-samaritan/
  8. If being saved is not on the list of options, everything else is utterly irrelevant.
  9. Check out Ephesians 1, Paul says two things, and amplifies those two thing by saying them THREE TIMES. The two things: 1. God chose US! 2. He did it before we were born. Three times: Verse 4: even as he *chose* us in him *before* the foundation of the world... Verse 5: he *predestined* us for *adoption* to himself as sons through Jesus Christ Verse 11: In him we have obtained an *inheritance*, having been *predestined*... Paul says the same thing, three different ways and contexts. He makes it abundantly clear that we don’t choose Him - He chooses us. And that he did it before we were born. This is why it is such a blessing to spread the gospel. We get to enjoy seeing the lost sheep brought into the fold. Sometimes we preach to goats, but we never know if we are dealing with a lost sheep or a goat. Only God knows, so we go forward accordingly.
  10. I'm done. Gotta move on. When you get some time, look at the things I linked to. They answer all your concerns in all of your posts, in spades. No need for me to go through this again. The broader your news sources, the more confidence you can have in your opinion on this. But at the end of the day, people are gonna believe what they believe, especially if they have some sort of skin in the game. And you trust the MSM at your peril.
  11. Have you seen CNN's numbers, or MSNBC's? A subject of no small significance on political sites on which I post talk about this very issue - that major news sources have lost track of the fact that we are no longer in the 20th centuries and their stories are easily fact checked - and more and more people are doing it. CNN especially has eviscerated their reputation through increasingly poor and transparently biased stories. I just went for some low hanging fruit here, so consider the source. But still: CNN mired in a credibility crisis as ratings continue to collapse
  12. Luigi, they are not joined together in a conspiracy crusade. They just want to keep their jobs. And, again, the 97% thing is bogus. Here are some links to that point: https://www.econlib.org/archives/2014/03/16_not_97_agree.html https://www.forbes.com/sites/alexepstein/2015/01/06/97-of-climate-scientists-agree-is-100-wrong/#6b1d67573f9f https://www.wsj.com/articles/joseph-bast-and-roy-spencer-the-myth-of-the-climate-change-97-1401145980 The 97% consensus meme is marketing and nothing more. It has nothing to do with actual reality. BTW, notice how old some of these articles are. This is not new news to those of us that follow this. I started a thread on this topic on another site in 2006 that reached over 6,000 posts. That's why I'm not getting into the weeds on this. Been there, done that. But more importantly, the whole AGW thing is so easily debunked these days that my take is that if a couple of articles or youtube videos I point people to don't convince them, well, I'm wasting my time. They simply believe what they want to believe and I have to move on. I don't believe you are doing that, but I've seen plenty of CNN zombies do that.
  13. Nope. If you are actually trusting CNN, FOX, etc. You and I are on different planets. I can show you the articles, but seriously, google will get you there. Here is the problem: The news outlets, in the 20th century, could tell you anything they wanted and we had no way to really check up the validity of their stories. So we mostly believed them. Like when Walter Cronkite told us the Tet Offensive was a disaster for the US and a great success for the Viet Cong. And it caused a public outcry to end the war and we did. But in reality, Tet was a last, final gasp by the Viet Cong, and it failed. We held up and were ready to finish it for good. But Cronkite changed the course of history. And now they are doing it with "global warming". Except they now call it "climate change" because the warming stopped. Seriously, go to the links and sites I provided. It's all there. Even discussions of the "urban heat island" affect on earth weather stations. And actual ice levels at the poles. There is no AGW or ACC. It's a myth. We are simply in the normal cycles that have been going on since the creation of the planet and are within the more stabilized period that started a few tens of thousands of years ago. And it's actually cooler than some of the spikes. If you watch some of those Tony Heller videos with an open mind, I promise your mind will be blown.
  14. The answer was actually in my post. I'm sorry I was so verbose. Here, from that post, is MY answer: I prefaced it with the link to a good video to give my response "teeth", to avoid a possible response that I was just making up my answer. I also explained why the 97% thing is bogus. And google will lead you to lots of sites and videos that get to exactly WHY it is bogus. Scientists are regular people. And just like other occupations, there are 10% or so that are the movers and shakers. The rest are at various stages of mainly just showing up for a paycheck. I'll stop here. I get into it in my original response. Bottom line is that argumentum ad verecundiam doesn't fly with me.
  15. Very good question. Interestingly, those that adhere to AGW or ACC actually try to apply motive to those that claim it to be a hoax. The motive is money, working for big oil, etc. They do this even though they don't really supply any evidence to back up the claim. But regarding motive for the "top" people pushing CO2 as a "bad" thing and AGW/ACC being real, it's about control, and may also be about wealth redistribution. But to the specifics of your question, regarding the tens of thousands of scientists, it's remarkably simple, and well explained here: Go to this youtube channel: https://www.youtube.com/user/TonyHeller1/videos And find the video called "why Scientists remain silent" I'm doing this roundabout because we are not allowed to link directly to videos here. It basically explains extremely clearly why scientists will allow this nonsense because, in each individual case, they want to keep their jobs (or grants). It is real. It matters. When you have kids and a mortgage this stuff matters. And when you consider what the scientific community does to a scientist's career who tries to expose that the emperor has no clothes, it's amazing that any of them come out and expose it. And the 97% is a fraud. I would fall into the 97%. The question you have to ask yourself is, "What exactly did the 97% actually agree with?" Good luck even finding the question posted anywhere. It's a farce. In the world before the internet, this would have been easy to push. But people have the ability now to ask questions and publicly. And the answers are either not forthcoming, lousy, or the questioner is told, in various ways, to shut up. That no longer flies.
×
×
  • Create New...