The Messiah is Coming!

[notyou2]

Already done.
http://content.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,2072678_2072683_2072696,00.html

[Phatscotty]

there will be no raping of any kind of anyone on my watch

[_sabotage_]

White Man's Burden is a good book on foreign aid, but you know what really aids foreigners? Freer markets.

People in the past didn't live like Kings with their rocket stoves and tiny farms. If you scorn trade (by supporting greater self-sufficiency), then you scorn all those possibilities toward prosperity. It's not beneficial to promote a life of subsistence, and all of your ideas rely on freer markets in order to be more efficiently implemented.

Permaculture is great if the prices of electricity and water justify it, but what works for you may not work for everyone. Value and the cost of opportunities foregone are subjective, so there's more to the price of permaculture. You can't use certain products, and you can't use certain capital; therefore, the costs of permaculture can be greater than once imagined. It's not as efficient as imagined.

However, the market for permaculture depends on the prices (and the production) of electricity, water, sewage, and garbage disposal, all of which are heavily controlled--sometimes, monopolized by government(s), no it's surprise that the market for permaculture hardly takes off. I see permaculture as a solution for many 'public goods' problems that are touted in defense of government monopolization and control, so I agree with you there. Same with the hemp houses.

But again, for those goals to be realized, you'd need freer markets. Hopefully, you're comfortable with that.

No, not like kings, like emperors.

Naomi Klein wrote a good book on free trade. Seems to be not very free when you have the most money and plan the events.

I don't need everyone to join, just those who are on the bottom left part of the supply/demand graph and those who wish to be free from the monetary system which doesn't advantage them.

I don't scorn trade, I scorn wasted effort. God has provided us with all we need, we just haven't fully recognized it. Why spend so much effort going against nature to turn a buck, when we can work with it and do away with the buck? Doesn't mean there won't be a surplus or a way to deliver it.

Will the government try to prevent people from independence? They are damned if they do and damned if they don't. The need for a government is a mirage as is the need for money, but a little oasis will clear things up.

[hahaha3hahaha]

-deleted-

[_sabotage_]

And we should be on the lookout for the two witnesses.

[BigBallinStalin]

White Man's Burden is a good book on foreign aid, but you know what really aids foreigners? Freer markets.

People in the past didn't live like Kings with their rocket stoves and tiny farms. If you scorn trade (by supporting greater self-sufficiency), then you scorn all those possibilities toward prosperity. It's not beneficial to promote a life of subsistence, and all of your ideas rely on freer markets in order to be more efficiently implemented.

Permaculture is great if the prices of electricity and water justify it, but what works for you may not work for everyone. Value and the cost of opportunities foregone are subjective, so there's more to the price of permaculture. You can't use certain products, and you can't use certain capital; therefore, the costs of permaculture can be greater than once imagined. It's not as efficient as imagined.

However, the market for permaculture depends on the prices (and the production) of electricity, water, sewage, and garbage disposal, all of which are heavily controlled--sometimes, monopolized by government(s), no it's surprise that the market for permaculture hardly takes off. I see permaculture as a solution for many 'public goods' problems that are touted in defense of government monopolization and control, so I agree with you there. Same with the hemp houses.

But again, for those goals to be realized, you'd need freer markets. Hopefully, you're comfortable with that.

No, not like kings, like emperors.

Sure, like all the 'emperors' of modern day Chad.

Naomi Klein wrote a good book on free trade. Seems to be not very free when you have the most money and plan the events.

'seems' is the key word.

You can plan any event with as much money as you like, but if no one cares to exchange in order to go to that event, then you won't last long on the market. You--and probably Naomi--forget the power of buyers, upon which the sellers rely. Buyers/consumers and sellers/suppliers are in an interdependent relationship, which is maintained so long as the participants are still willing to trade with each other.

inb4 Naomi/sabotage mistakes "capitalism" or "free markets" as "political capitalism/crony capitalism."

I don't need everyone to join, just those who are on the bottom left part of the supply/demand graph and those who wish to be free from the monetary system which doesn't advantage them.

I don't scorn trade, I scorn wasted effort. God has provided us with all we need, we just haven't fully recognized it. Why spend so much effort going against nature to turn a buck, when we can work with it and do away with the buck? Doesn't mean there won't be a surplus or a way to deliver it.

Will the government try to prevent people from independence? They are damned if they do and damned if they don't. The need for a government is a mirage as is the need for money, but a little oasis will clear things up.

Money is simply a medium of exchange. It makes exchange more efficient (which entails less waste, thus more wealth--in whatever form you'd like(time, labor, materials, etc.)). Instead of trading cows for whatever, you can simply trade with more useful items (like gold coins, or US dollars). If you take issue with government fiat currency, then sure. If you take issue with money as the medium of exchange, then that doesn't make sense because (a) many goods can serve as money, and (b) you "scorn wasted effort" yet scorn money, which simply leads to creating more costs, thus "wasted effort."

'Need' is a misleading term. And if the Sky Man provided us with all we need, then it follows that any of the raw materials provided can be converted into more useful products which we need. Some people need penicillin. Your position supports anything because 'need' is vague and because the 'cuz God' argument is very flexible.

[_sabotage_]

Ask your monkey man to forgive me, but until need is eliminated from the equation, there will never be such a thing as a free market.

Secondly, as long as one set of people cannot fulfill their needs without another set, there will always be dependence. Once need is eliminated, will we be truly independent. We were not created masters of the known universe with all of its resources at its disposal to fulfill the desires of a few. We will be judged by the least among us. When you explain your theories of economics with its embedded economic disparity, starvation, war profiteering, the monopolization of resources and heavy dependent chains placed on existence, you may regret not preparing for the inquiry better.

You suggest that free markets will solve all ills, but it does not intend to solve those ills as it is busy profiting off them.

The chance of life is quite slim. The chance of any specific life is even slimmer. The resources of this planet were not created by man, so why may he own them and partition them? Why is one man's work enough to earn him the land of 50 men or fifty thousand? We are born naked and will leave empty handed but if to hurt each other for more toys in between, is that a bet to make with your soul? The chance of you getting that soul was after all pretty slim.

[mrswdk]

Klein is bat shit. She's one tin foil hat away from believing that Bush planned 9/11.

[betiko]

So you re one of these guys that believes the earth is 6000 years old and thinks that quoting the bible makes a factual point about anything?
The bible is supposed to be about spirituality and metaphores, very scary to see how far the catholic integrism can go in the americas.

Catholics teach that the world is 13.7 billion years old (they are evolutionists by doctrine), so your point is sort of void.

sorry, meant christian integrism, not catholic. My point being that many americans believe word for word what is written in the bible and think that a few quotes from that book proves something.

[hahaha3hahaha]

-deleted-

[betiko]

My point being that many americans believe word for word what is written in the bible and think that a few quotes from that book proves something.

What do they attempt to prove, using Scripture, that you disagree with in particular?

anything in contradiction with scientific proofs; and anything that can't be verified that is presented as a fact just because the bible says so.

[hahaha3hahaha]

-deleted-

[_sabotage_]

Science is in the continual act of proving itself wrong. We should seek the truth by any means necessary, but also recognize the limits on the data we have acquired. Our limits are both self imposed and through lack of tools. We have enough data to answer a key question, should we be here? The simple answer is no. How come we are here then?

What force caused the initial matter to rip itself apart and become our universe? In answering this question, we can say this force or that, but this neither adds to or takes away from God. If we call that force God, it is so, but atheists may give it another name and it doesn't change what it is. It is the force which sent matter throughout the emptiness in such a way as to create life for us. Saying that this was an accident is like saying that a one in 10^9000000 chance is the obvious answer instead of going with the info that makes it a 1 in 1 chance. Science backs up this slimmest of chances by suggesting there may be multiple universes just appearing all the time and as such the chance they suggest becomes almost possible. It would appear that science isn't following either probability or evidence in their assumption. And therefore it is not science.

On the other hand, suggesting that force which gave birth to the universe and us is God, is neither avoiding our spiritual understanding of God or our physical understanding of the universe. The chance of life hits 100%. You of course are free to ignore this, but I don't think it would be very scientific of you.

[BigBallinStalin]

Ask your monkey man to forgive me, but until need is eliminated from the equation, there will never be such a thing as a free market.

Secondly, as long as one set of people cannot fulfill their needs without another set, there will always be dependence. Once need is eliminated, will we be truly independent. We were not created masters of the known universe with all of its resources at its disposal to fulfill the desires of a few. We will be judged by the least among us. When you explain your theories of economics with its embedded economic disparity, starvation, war profiteering, the monopolization of resources and heavy dependent chains placed on existence, you may regret not preparing for the inquiry better.

You suggest that free markets will solve all ills, but it does not intend to solve those ills as it is busy profiting off them.

The chance of life is quite slim. The chance of any specific life is even slimmer. The resources of this planet were not created by man, so why may he own them and partition them? Why is one man's work enough to earn him the land of 50 men or fifty thousand? We are born naked and will leave empty handed but if to hurt each other for more toys in between, is that a bet to make with your soul? The chance of you getting that soul was after all pretty slim.

Postulating post-scarcity utopias is useless. May as play with your belly button.

Also, much of what you written to describe my stance is incorrect, and it's becoming obvious that you're simply ignoring any contradiction and falsehood revealed with your position, so please, sir, continue playing with your belly button.

[BoganGod]

What makes the messiah cum? People suffering? Children dying? Religious nutjobs killing people in his name? Pro life goons killing? Messiah has a messed up spank bank. Bible quoting is evidence of a delusional personality. As quotes are always selective.... No quoting the bits advocating killing fornicators(unless they are gay, as any quotes that hate on gays are used often), slavery, lying with your female slave, stoning folks for working on the Sabbath, not being allowed to wear cloth made from two or more substances, and the list of lunacy could to on. Bible quotes are like statistics, only used if someone thinks will further their view.

[betiko]

Science is in the continual act of proving itself wrong. We should seek the truth by any means necessary, but also recognize the limits on the data we have acquired. Our limits are both self imposed and through lack of tools. We have enough data to answer a key question, should we be here? The simple answer is no. How come we are here then?

What force caused the initial matter to rip itself apart and become our universe? In answering this question, we can say this force or that, but this neither adds to or takes away from God. If we call that force God, it is so, but atheists may give it another name and it doesn't change what it is. It is the force which sent matter throughout the emptiness in such a way as to create life for us. Saying that this was an accident is like saying that a one in 10^9000000 chance is the obvious answer instead of going with the info that makes it a 1 in 1 chance. Science backs up this slimmest of chances by suggesting there may be multiple universes just appearing all the time and as such the chance they suggest becomes almost possible. It would appear that science isn't following either probability or evidence in their assumption. And therefore it is not science.

On the other hand, suggesting that force which gave birth to the universe and us is God, is neither avoiding our spiritual understanding of God or our physical understanding of the universe. The chance of life hits 100%. You of course are free to ignore this, but I don't think it would be very scientific of you.

i guess according to your logic that when you play CC and fail 30vs3 there is an explanation, a conscious force that made it happen. You just need a reason for everything.
Don't you think that pulling the god card for anything is a little simplistic?
Religions are just there to give answers to things our specie cannot and most probably will never be able to answer. Since the dawn of ages people have stuffed their ignorance in a giant bag and found a big answer for everything, god. Very convenient, I have to agree. Does it mean we all have to buy that shit and all the mind masturbation that goes with it?
Do you think that small chances means it didn't happen? Not to mention that our universe is far too big to even imagine how big it is, infinite from a human standpoint. So in an infinite universe, infinite small odds (which is not the case for the appearance of life) not happening has infinite small odds of not happening. Therefore, it had to happen.

[BigBallinStalin]

What makes the messiah cum? People suffering? Children dying? Religious nutjobs killing people in his name? Pro life goons killing? Messiah has a messed up spank bank. Bible quoting is evidence of a delusional personality. As quotes are always selective.... No quoting the bits advocating killing fornicators(unless they are gay, as any quotes that hate on gays are used often), slavery, lying with your female slave, stoning folks for working on the Sabbath, not being allowed to wear cloth made from two or more substances, and the list of lunacy could to on. Bible quotes are like statistics, only used if someone thinks will further their view.

Our minds are too feeble to penetrate the mind of Christ. The reasons for his fetish will forever be unknown--except by a few ITT who claim to know with absolute certainty because they know that they know.

[_sabotage_]

BBS, I have an outie, and will play on. I wonder which of Nash's invisible friends helped him postulate game theory. Good thing your stance is substantiated, eh?

Betiko, sure when I lose 30 vs 3 there was a conscious force which made it happen. I pushed the auto button, or kept hitting attack. I am conscious and I did it.

You need a reason for everything, says the guy who claims to rely on science.

Don't you think pulling the big bang card is a little simplistic?

Religion is there to glorify our existence and recognize the glory of the existence of those around us. Science is there just to give answers to questions our species cannot answer.

I think the small chance as compared with the certain chance means that those who take the small chance over the certain chance aren't honestly drawing conclusions from the figures. BTW, I know that it happened, as I am here.

Unfortunately, in your infinite universe we have a thing called gravity. The range in which life as we know it can exist is not that broad. The distances from the sun required to sustain life is quite narrow. The sizes of a planet which can sustain life is quite narrow. The ingredients needed to sustain life have not been observed elsewhere and there is no evidence that they are common on other planets. The size of the moon which tilts the axis to disperse sunlight throughtout the planet is narrow. It's distance from the planet is narrow. The speed it must travel is narrow. The speed of the rotation around the sun needed is narrow. The series of physical laws which enable all of this is, is specific. Life emerging from nothingness has never been shown. Life mutating to form a conscious being hinges on thousands of factors not being affected by millions of variables. The cambrian explosion cannot be justified by evolution. In fact the whole series of postulations made to explain the view of the planet held by atheistic scientists has gaping holes and grave improbabilty. And yet, this is accepted. It is like calling Andre the Giant a short black woman because a small cooked chicken bone was discovered a thousand miles from his grave. I like chicken, too. I am not short, black nor a woman. And when the fact that the "evidence" actually points away from Andre the Giant being a short, black woman, you say that I'm racist, sexist and hate tall people. The bone was cooked you fool, you say, he must be a woman. It's chicken, must be black. It is small and could not sustain a large man. I say, it was found a thousand miles away. And you say, there could be an infinite number of Andre the Giants with no evidence.

[BigBallinStalin]

BBS, I have an outie, and will play on. I wonder which of Nash's invisible friends helped him postulate game theory. Good thing your stance is substantiated, eh?

Yeah, that means nothing, but nice try.

Do you feel comfortable in spouting off falsehoods? Satan would be proud.

[_sabotage_]

Satan is not proud of his adherers, he despises them.

He merely attempts to prove his point, that man is unequal to him, an angel. In doing so, he is able to obtain the souls that he has deceived so that they may be his subjects.

God, on the other hand, gave us free will so that we would not be slaves and this elevates us above the angels. We have the choice to admire or despise him. Those that take the gift of life and are amazed by it, and praise him for it are those that he wants to chill with. Those who take the gift and are selfish and limited themselves to earthly ends, have judged themselves unworthy of heaven. They are sated in the world and refuse to seek heaven and will not find it.

But do tell, in which way have I told a falsehood?

[Scorba]

You are all terribly deluded. Angels are not slaves, they are God's friends. Oops said too much. Never mind, you're all too mother fucking reality blinkered to realise what the f*ck I am saying anyway. But you shall see next year when the Messiah rises. He's gonna blow your fucking socks off our feet and have them dangling from your ears like absurdly epic earrings.

And oh yes, Jesus is not coming back, because he is dead. Dead people do not come back, because they are fucking well dead. Kaput, deceased, gestapoed, etc. Jesus was a prophet of God, not the Messiah. You can tell this is true because the world was the same old shit hole it always was after his death. The true Messiah is coming next year, and he will change everything. The Earth will never be the same again.

Ta ra for now. I'm not posting in this thread again because it is fucked by prodigious pope piped propaganda. But I do not blame any of you for this, because it is in the nature of fools to do very foolish things. But your fountains of foolishness are finite because the Messiah can make wisemen of the most foolish of fools, so do not be fooled into thinking your foolishness has foolishly fucked up the framework and foundations of your foolishly founded faith forever.

[AndyDufresne]

--Andy

[_sabotage_]

One problem with your prediction, we have not seen the two witnesses and if you claim to be one, then your timing is off.

[universalchiro]

I am pretty sure scorba is referring to something wholly different than what's in the Bible. For the Bible declares that those that are saved will bear fruit authenticating their converted heart. But scorba has resorted to foul language to get his point across. A clear violation of God's word and of posting in public forums. Seems his earlier comment of soul raping children was a clear indication of who his master really is.

Will the Messiah return? yes, and his name is Jesus. Which every knee will bow, either in adoration as a believer or in abject humiliation. The choice is yours, but don't delay. For your time is running out.
And the sexually deviant double entendre posts above is further revealing the quality of your heart. You have not fled youthful lust and you snicker and he haw thinking you are wise, but you are fools only wise in your own eyes.

If you want to be free from your hatred, turn your heart to Jesus and give all your sins to Him, For He paid in full the cost of your sins on the cross so that you can have eternal life and live free from the corruption of sin on earth.

[BigBallinStalin]

Satan is not proud of his adherers, he despises them.

He merely attempts to prove his point, that man is unequal to him, an angel. In doing so, he is able to obtain the souls that he has deceived so that they may be his subjects.

God, on the other hand, gave us free will so that we would not be slaves and this elevates us above the angels. We have the choice to admire or despise him. Those that take the gift of life and are amazed by it, and praise him for it are those that he wants to chill with. Those who take the gift and are selfish and limited themselves to earthly ends, have judged themselves unworthy of heaven. They are sated in the world and refuse to seek heaven and will not find it.

But do tell, in which way have I told a falsehood?

If you sincerely care, then go reread what you've typed, then reread what I typed.