Evidence for God from Science

abelcainsbrother wrote:

melanie wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:

neo-x wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:

Nope,you are not only ignorant but suicidal also.You want to see more Americans die from Islamic terrorist attacks and this is why you don't mind Obama flooding our countries with Muslims while thousands of investigations are already going on by the FBI and they warn that we have sleeper cells in America,you ignore it and say come on in and kill us.


You also ignore that I have been warning for months on here that Obama is setting us up for Islamic terrorist attacks.I predicted we would see them and I'm right and you are wrong. And we are going to see more,just like I said.I do not know the future,but all you gotta do is listen to the FBI.But I have been warning about future Islamic terrorist attacks in America,while you downplayed it.Yet I am right and you are wrong and you will continue to be wrong when we do see Islamic terrorist attacks in America just like I predicted based off my research.Your research is proving you wrong and me right.

Actually, Abel, I beat you to it a few years ago when I wrote that because of endless meddling in the middle east, drone strikes killing children and innocent people, America is creating a new generation of militants who see America as a bully and they will retaliate somehow. It is easy to recruit people who had suffered collateral damage. The hate doesn't come from religion alone it also comes from lots of other things.

Actually I've been warning about it for years also but for different reasons than you.But just more so over the recent months because of our election.Also it does have a lot to do with religion and the majde and they believe by carrying out jihad it speeds up his return. I heard about the Islamic terrorist attack ya'll had on easter and I thought about you.

Could you imagine the outcome of religious extremists using religion and religious prophetic ideologies where they believe devoid of any logic that an entire 'group' of people are 'evil' and it remains the responsibility for those in the 'religious know' to stamp out this threat by whatever means necessary all in the name of religion.

Pit a couple of these ideologies against each other and well......

We are just talking about a temporary ban on Muslim immigration until we can figure out why we see Islamic terrorist attacks everywhere they live in the world and to put a better system in place to properly vet Muslims.I don't see this as a religious war,Christianity vs Islam.

Abel you have not been alone in posting on his forum many times that you believe that there is a strong tie between Muslims and end times prophecy. I will go as far as to say that is what you mean when you say 'I have warned and predicted this'.
You think a Muslim will be the anti Christ in fact you believe the Muslim Mahdi will be the anti Christ. Hell bent on destroying Christian way of life and ushering in a satanic end times scenario.
I don't think I have misinterpreted you here?
When one thinks likes this how can there ever be any type of rational discussion or open minded, realistic ideas to tackle this issue when that is what lies in the background of ones thinking.

I am only going by numerous posts that I have read in the past. If this is not an accurate depiction then I apologise and set me straight.

melanie wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:

melanie wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:

neo-x wrote:
Actually, Abel, I beat you to it a few years ago when I wrote that because of endless meddling in the middle east, drone strikes killing children and innocent people, America is creating a new generation of militants who see America as a bully and they will retaliate somehow. It is easy to recruit people who had suffered collateral damage. The hate doesn't come from religion alone it also comes from lots of other things.

Actually I've been warning about it for years also but for different reasons than you.But just more so over the recent months because of our election.Also it does have a lot to do with religion and the majde and they believe by carrying out jihad it speeds up his return. I heard about the Islamic terrorist attack ya'll had on easter and I thought about you.

Could you imagine the outcome of religious extremists using religion and religious prophetic ideologies where they believe devoid of any logic that an entire 'group' of people are 'evil' and it remains the responsibility for those in the 'religious know' to stamp out this threat by whatever means necessary all in the name of religion.

Pit a couple of these ideologies against each other and well......

We are just talking about a temporary ban on Muslim immigration until we can figure out why we see Islamic terrorist attacks everywhere they live in the world and to put a better system in place to properly vet Muslims.I don't see this as a religious war,Christianity vs Islam.

Abel you have not been alone in posting on his forum many times that you believe that there is a strong tie between Muslims and end times prophecy. I will go as far as to say that is what you mean when you say 'I have warned and predicted this'.
You think a Muslim will be the anti Christ in fact you believe the Muslim Mahdi will be the anti Christ. Hell bent on destroying Christian way of life and ushering in a satanic end times scenario.
I don't think I have misinterpreted you here?
When one thinks likes this how can there ever be any type of rational discussion or open minded, realistic ideas to tackle this issue when that is what lies in the background of ones thinking.

I am only going by numerous posts that I have read in the past. If this is not an accurate depiction then I apologise and set me straight.

Yes,I do believe Muslims will see the Antichrist as their majde,but he won't really be a Muslim because he declares himself God in the middle of the tribulation after having decieved the world and it is too late,up until Jesus returns to kick butt.Satan decieves the whole world.and those who reject the mark of the beast are beheaded,which is what Islamic terrorists did to Christians,gay people and atheists in Iraq,etc.There have been many beheading videos put out by Islamic terrorists.

This is an emotional issue.
On all sides. There is a lot of passion and also a lot of fear. Fear makes us irrational. Seeing the threat in every scenario.
Finding a middle ground is really hard, which is why this debate creates such polar opposites.
I don't think it's because it's anyone's intention to be unwavering or dogmatic. I don't mean that as an insult towards anybody but could purely be taken from my own stance.
This is an issue I'm very passionate about. How could it not be. It dominates our social fabric, it's the biggest elephant in the room at the same time as being the most hotly debated topic. Not to mention the way in which we deal with these 'threats' stands to have long term consequences to global peace.
Here is where the polar opposites lie;
Those that believe allowing Muslims to have immigration access to our countries is the threat,
And those that believe instilling, progressing and legislating such fears in the long run poses a far bigger threat.
At the heart of it we are all worried about our families, our countries and society in general and where it is headed.

From my perspective, in my understanding it seems to be pretty split down the middle.
Caring, passionate people from both sides at unwavering logger heads.
I think we stand at a precipice in history.
And I know what way I want the tide to fall.
This isn't a simple issue by any means. There is the fanatic Muslim religious aspect, there is the history of military action in the Middle East by the West and its consequence and there is the ever present threat of terrorism and their barbaric actions.
But I think the biggest threat lies in the every day moderate person. Raising their families and basically just trying to live a decent life. Christian, Muslim, athiest and everything inbetween.
The biggest atrocities in human history have taken place in the face of the society allowing it to do so. Our greatest enemy has always been humanities propensity to lower another's dignity and worth to a standard where actions taken against them that we would never tolerate for our 'own' become acceptable.
I don't care if that's the Muslims view of the West or our view of them.
It isn't okay no matter who holds the view. It spells nothing but bloodshed and another notch in our history of violence, oppression and war.
I believe there is another way.
People may say it's idealistic, even if that's so I'm not settling for anything less.

abelcainsbrother wrote:Yeah and there is no way they can be going by the Constitution by ignoring "We the people" I mean it starts off our Constitution.

Did you read past the first sentence? Because it goes on to empower the Supreme Court to decide whether or not a law is in violation of the Constitution, and it fails to include the caveat that popular laws must be upheld. As I've said before, many people vehemently disagree with the Citizens United decision (and by many I mean upwards of 80%), but that doesn't mean that the Supreme Court doesn't have the authority to make that ruling.

The Supreme Court interprets the constitution, to see if a law is constitutional or unconstitutional. That's why this presidential election is so important. The next president may be appointing 2 or 3 new judges to the Supreme Court.

If Hillary gets elected, she's going to appoint justices that want to do away with the 2nd amendment regarding gun ownership. Or at least that's what's commonly believed that she'll do.

No matter which side of the right to own issue one stands on, we have to realize the possibility of a civil war erupting if people's rights to own start getting taken away.

There are a lot of gun owners that will fight to the death, their right to own guns.

I don't know what you guys did to rile up Ed, but keep doing whatever you're doing

Hortator wrote:I don't know what you guys did to rile up Ed, but keep doing whatever you're doing

Ed is a liberal. It doesn't take much to get them riled up.

RickD wrote:

Hortator wrote:I don't know what you guys did to rile up Ed, but keep doing whatever you're doing

Ed is a liberal. It doesn't take much to get them riled up.

I'm not riled up. Large, red letters is two clicks. Not a big deal. I was going with the possibility that maybe ACB had some sort of eye problem and that was why he's pathologically incapable of understanding words. It didn't help.

RickD wrote:The Supreme Court interprets the constitution, to see if a law is constitutional or unconstitutional. That's why this presidential election is so important. The next president may be appointing 2 or 3 new judges to the Supreme Court.

If Hillary gets elected, she's going to appoint justices that want to do away with the 2nd amendment regarding gun ownership. Or at least that's what's commonly believed that she'll do.

Commonly believed by paranoid people. Let's look at the facts:

1) Clinton is a centrist. She's not even in favor of banning guns. Regulation, yes. An outright ban, no. Banning firearms isn't part of the Democratic Party platform, and I doubt that it ever was.

2) Laws have to be passed by Congress. The Republicans will never go for a major gun control initiative, and neither will many of the Southern or Midwestern Democrats.

3) The 2nd Amendment gives people the right to bear arms. That's cut and dried, and SCOTUS will never uphold an outright ban, regardless of whether or not there's a liberal majority. That would be blatantly unconstitutional.

4) The 2nd Amendment could be eliminated via a new constitutional amendment, but that's pretty much impossible. The Constitution provides that an amendment may be proposed either by the Congress with a two-thirds majority vote in both the House and the Senate or by a constitutional convention called for by two-thirds of the State legislatures. That bar is just way, way too high.

Add it all up and maybe - MAYBE - a Clinton White House with a liberal Supreme Court majority could scrape together something modest. Maybe. Still, I'm sure that gun sales will go through the roof again if Clinton is elected because, you know, paranoia.

RickD wrote:No matter which side of the right to own issue one stands on, we have to realize the possibility of a civil war erupting if people's rights to own start getting taken away.

There are a lot of gun owners that will fight to the death, their right to own guns.

Really? That seems kind of unlikely. A few maybe, but a lot? To the death? I don't know...

edwardmurphy wrote:The Supreme Court didn't write a new law!!! And no, they don't automatically uphold the law! They rule on whether or not the law is Constitutional and then either uphold or invalidate it based on that ruling!

Yes, that is what the Supreme Court is supposed to do. Supreme Court justices do not make laws in the USA. Yet.

You probably have not been aware of what is happening in Canada.

Last Fall, the Canadian Supreme Court struck down the law that had been on the books for over a hundred years; that the Federal government would not interfere in matters of assisted dying, as they deemed the old law, unethical and unconstitutional. The Court demanded that the Canadian government enact a new law by the 6th of June this year. Most Canadians considered that as too short a time period in order to bring in a new law that covered how best to treat the terminally ill and at the same time, to protect the weakest in society and medical practitioners.

The newly elected Liberal government (who has a majority in the House), quashed any attempts by the opposition parties, to put in clauses to protect the mentally ill from seeking medical assistance to end their lives. The government did not meet the deadline and the law is now under debate in the Canadian Senate and most Canadians are expecting the Senate to unanimously pass the law, which will mean virtually anyone who wants to legally die, can go seek medical help to do it.

Not only that but just over a week ago, the Canadian Supreme Court struck down the bestiality law; another law that had been on the books for over a hundred years, in which those who had sex with animals would go to jail, which stems from a case in one of the Canadian provinces where a father forced his daughter to have sex with him and a dog. It is now legal in Canada to have oral sex with animals and not be arrested.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government ... x-animals/

If you do not believe that judges make laws, then listen to what Canada's top Supreme Court Judge, Beverly McLaughlin said a few years ago. The video only shows a part of what she said. her full statement is this:

"Judges are now social policy lawmakers. And the Secret of judicial lawmaking finally came out of the closet. There is little point in decrying the fact that judges make law, they do and they must."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mgScaIyRBN8

Canada's Parliamentary democracy is historically based on the British Common Law system, as Canada is a member of the British commonwealth. Canadian people contact their elected members of Parliament to bring in laws or change old ones. When the elected government deems that enough people want a new law or change an old one, they write a law, debate it with the opposition. It is voted on and if it passes it is then passed to the Senate. The Senate debates the law and if it passes through a second vote, it is then sent to the courts and the Supreme Court judges write it into law and it becomes part of the Constitution. At least that is the way it is supposed to happen.

You probably will not agree with the following statement but that does not matter.

Modern Western democratic culture is in turmoil. It cannot reconcile its philosophy of atheistic materialism, with its aspirations of purpose, justice and equality, part of the foundational bedrock of Christianity upon which all Western democratic nations were founded. So instead of rejecting its atheistic materialism, it instead rejects Christianity. And it is doing its best to eliminate Christian influence. The judges here are atheist and activist.
If the Democrats in the USA get elected in November, it is just a matter of time before you have Supreme Court judges in the USA which make their own laws against the will of the people. The leftist Liberal government that Canadians elected last Fall (as far as I am concerned they are Marxists), are hand in hand with the Supreme Court. The judges claim they are impartial. Impartiality is a pompous name for indifference, which is an elegant name for ignorance.

Katabole wrote:Not only that but just over a week ago, the Canadian Supreme Court struck down the bestiality law; another law that had been on the books for over a hundred years, in which those who had sex with animals would go to jail, which stems from a case in one of the Canadian provinces where a father forced his daughter to have sex with him and a dog. It is now legal in Canada to have oral sex with animals and not be arrested.

I'm kind of tired, so I'm just going to pluck the low-hanging fruit and call it a day. Based on your clear bias I'm guessing I can poke holes in the other stuff as well, but I'm not going to try. Sorry.

Anyway, no, they didn't strike down the law. The guy argued that the law didn't specifically prohibit non-penetrative sexual contact with an animal, and apparently it didn't because the judges accepted the argument.

Justice Thomas Cromwell, writing for all concurring judges, said in the decision that penetration has always been required to secure bestiality convictions and courts do not have the power to rule otherwise.

"Any expansion of criminal liability for this offense is within parliament’s exclusive domain," he wrote.

So it seems that having oral sex with a dog has always been legal in Canada. The legislature is working on that now, though, so it probably won't be the case for too much longer.

RickD wrote:
No matter which side of the right to own issue one stands on, we have to realize the possibility of a civil war erupting if people's rights to own start getting taken away.

There are a lot of gun owners that will fight to the death, their right to own guns.

Ed wrote:
Really? That seems kind of unlikely. A few maybe, but a lot? To the death? I don't know...

You must not be familiar with southern gun owners. They're a species all to themselves.

Mel, of course predators gravitate toward positions of trust overseeing children. Yes, many massacres HAVE taken place by unstable loons. And stopping such determined predators or unstable people s exceptionally difficult, unless someone becomes aware of them in time. But when you have a preventable pipeline through which dedicated individuals recruited and financed by large terrorist organizations, it should be a no-brainer that you shut off those channels of access that we all know make us particularly vulnerable - that is, unless you disbelieve the organizations that have repeatedly declared such intent, or unless you disbelieve the intelligence agencies that are constantly warning of the danger.

Arguing that one risk is acceptable just because disturbed people cause the same issues is nuts! One you could do a lot to prevent. The other we will be lucky to ever prevent.

As for guns, yes, it would be nice if limiting their legality would stop those determined to obtain them. But it's WAY too late, as vast millions of high-caliber, large magazine, easily reloadable clips are all over. Anyone so determined can buy virtually whatever they want. So, people intent upon murder and mayhem will rarely be stopped by stricter gun laws - remember, we're speaking of murderous loonies here. And if you legally restrict the law-abiding from protecting themselves from a violent criminal element that will NEVER run out of illegally owned guns, due to the vast millions of them already out there, well, then youve just made society much more dangerous for everyone. In America, the "gun genie" has been out of the bottle for almost two centuries - without any way of putting him back in.

Philip wrote:As for guns, yes, it would be nice if limiting their legality would stop those determined to obtain them. But it's WAY too late, as vast millions of high-caliber, large magazine, easily reloadable clips are all over. Anyone so determined can buy virtually whatever they want. So, people intent upon murder and mayhem will rarely be stopped by stricter gun laws - remember, we're speaking of murderous loonies here.

I keep hearing that argument, and I think it's bogus. The Orlando shooter was able to drive to the store and buy an AR-15 and all the ammo he needed in one easy step. Prepping for a massacre involved no risk whatsoever.

If there's been a 90-day waiting period to buy one then it would have increased the odds of the FBI looking into it and maybe stopping the whole thing. If AR-15s were illegal then he'd have had to go out and find an illegal gun dealer. He might have been unable to find one. The price might have been higher than he could afford. He might have gotten caught trying to purchase an illegal firearm. If he'd hit a wall trying to get his AR-15 and decided to go with a suicide vest then he'd have had to figure out how to make bombs. He might have gotten caught looking at websites being monitored by the FBI or NSA. He might have messed up and blown himself up, or made a dud and been apprehended by the crowd while standing there looking dumb and wondering what went wrong. If he'd been forced to go with a hand gun or a hunting rifle he'd still have killed and wounded some people, but not nearly as many. Hand guns don't pack as much punch as high-powered rifles, and hunting rifles are often bolt action and don't have the high capacity clip that allowed him to put 45 shots per minute into a crowd.

With every road block, speed bump, or even yield sign that you put in a potential shooter's path you lower the odds of him being successful. That seems like a worthwhile goal, even if there's no guarantee that it'll work every time.

I sometimes wonder, what if the early church had the right to use guns?...

Ed: If there's been a 90-day waiting period to buy one then it would have increased the odds of the FBI looking into it and maybe stopping the whole thing.

Do you REALLY think a guy with terrorist organization contact and funding is going to be stopped by such - that is delusional! And I say that as having no problem with a 90-day wait.

Ed: If AR-15s were illegal then he'd have had to go out and find an illegal gun dealer. He might have been unable to find one.

More wishful thinking. PLUS he doesn't need an AR-15. All he needs is a large-caliber handgun with multiple clips that are far more concealable. Illegal sellers are all over. Drug deals all over have them. All one needs is enough cash and contacts. And you can bet terrorist organizations will equip their plants with whatever they need.

I'm not denying that some sensible laws and waiting periods aren't a good idea - they ARE. But we better also better be focusing on shutting the pipeline of vast numbers of people coming from areas radicalized or heavily influenced by such. That's just common sense. If you get enough well-funded operatives with the support of technology and bomb-making skills coming in - or people that are communicating with their terrorist backers and those with the expertise to train and advise them, we'll start seeing large bombings as well. Now we can see the problem of illegals is much greater - don't know who or what people are illegally here - it's danger that will likely begin to be exploited by terrorists.