Bwild: I have enough trouble with science without trying to figure out how or why visions are parcelled out. For instance, if light takes about 8 minutes to get here from the sun, how long would it take to get here if you could get light to travel twice as fast? You would think the answer is 4 minutes, but it's not. Anything traveling towards us faster than light speed would get here before it left... I still have trouble wrapping my head around things like that.

oops, it's Ezekiel, not Ezekial. I'm bad with names, always misspelling them or mispronouncing them...

Did you know that the word 'pronounce' is usually mispronounced? Neither did I.


I do now

Bwild: "the book of Ezechiel describes what I believe to be,an ALIEN encounter."

Depends on what you mean by "ALIEN". If it was a strictly physical phenomenon then the people he was with would have seen it too. But the passage doesn't mention anything about the other people witnessing the event.

"Now it came to pass in the thirtieth year, in the fourth month, on the fifth day of the month, as I was among the captives by the River Chebar, that the heavens were opened and I saw visions of God . . .

Since only Ezekial is refered to as witnessing the event, it really doesn't fall under the catagory of an alien encounter (physical creatures from another planet). Also, it was not a subtle event... if it was any kind of natural phenomenon (including alien encounters) everyone there would have seen it as well.

"Then I looked, and behold, a whirlwind was coming out of the north, a great cloud with raging fire engulfing itself; and brightness was all around it and radiating out of its midst like the color of amber, out of the midst of the fire.

Not the sort of thing only one person would have noticed. But then the vision refers to a man in linen told to gather coals and scatter them over a city, harldly a message you would expect to hear in an alien encounter.

"Then He spoke to the man clothed with linen, and said, 'Go in among the wheels, under the cherub, fill your hands with coals of fire from among the cherubim, and scatter them over the city.' And he went in as I watched."

"Then it happened, when He commanded the man clothed in linen, saying, 'Take fire from among the wheels, from among the cherubim,' that he went in and stood beside the wheels"

Parts of Ezekials vision sound a little bit like an alein encounter, but it better fits the picture of a vision apparently given specifically to Ezekial. Anytime the Bible talks about an event visible to everyone present, then it's always mentioned that everyone witnessed it.

If nothing else, then getting Obama out of there would mean not having to listen to him anymore. If you're not enchanted by the sound of his voice, then what else is there?

mckinley: "I heard that last night and am very disappointed."

I haven't read the entire Bible, but I'll bet you won't find anything in there that says just because you voted for a stinker the first time around, you have to vote for him again. I'm not saying you did, I'm just saying you always have a choice.

In the Garden of Eden man voted for a stinker and ever since then God has been trying to win us back. If you listen closely you might even hear Him saying "Miss me yet?" or "Had enough?" We always have a choice.

Bwild: That one I never could figure out. I assumed the parts of that vision represented something rather than being something. Or maybe he was seeing something in the future that wouldn't make sense to someone living then. I don't know. I've heard different explanations, but I still don't get it. This is what happens when I don't read things all the way through.

Some people read the health bill all the way through... I wasn't even going to try slogging my way through that one.

mckinley: Artful Dodger: "Too bad he isn't the nominee."

It doesn't hurt for Ryan to get some White House experience before considering him as a candidate later on down the road. The fact that Romney picked him for VP position says a lot about Romney. There may have been political considerations, but I don't think Romney is playing a strictly political game. He knows as well as the rest of us what that can lead to, and four years of it are more than enough for me to choke on. And if there are times that Ryan looks like the smartest guy in the room, I don't think that would bother Romney. When I look at the contrast between Romney/Ryan and Obama/Biden it almost makes me laugh.

So the bottom line for me is I like Ryan too, but a little seasoning can only make him better.

rod03801: "I don't enjoy religious talk."

Neither do I. Anywho, I coudn't find the chart I mentioned before, but I did find this one.

rod03801: Saying "I dunno" actually puts you ahead of the curve. When I started looking into these things it wasn't from the approach of do I believe it or not. The approach I took was, Was it possible for it to happen. Did it have to be a supernatural event, or was it physically possible for a flood like that to occur, and was it possible to get enough samples of animal life on something the size of the ark to account for all of the animal life we see today. Another question I needed to answer for myself was, Given what we know about the earth early on, and what a one supercontinent land mass might look like, was it even possible for a flood like that to cover the entire land mass... was there enough water, where did it all come from, etc etc. And by the way, the research I did was for myself, I wasn't trying to collect material for persuading anyone else.

To make a long story short, I eventually concluded that yes, it would have been possible for the event to literally occur as the Bible said. Why? Because the topography of the ocean floor and of the land mass back then was likely more uniform than it is today, which means it wouldn't have taken near as much water as it would today to cover every square inch of land mass. And evolutionists can be thanked for showing us how a relatively few samples of animal life could have easily multiplied into all of the species we see today, through what they call speciation. I meant to go find and show you a chart showing how the mastodon branched out into an almost unbelievable number of different species, it was a few years ago but maybe I can find it again. Anyway, seeing as how I found that information on an evolutionist website, I suppose there is no reason to not believe it... they aren't exactly in the business of trying to support the creationist viewpoint, if ya know what I mean.

There is more, but maybe this is enough for you to understand that maybe (I'm just saying maybe) a world wide flood and an ark carrying animals is not as farfetched as it sounds.

The Col: "I fail to see the connection between Noah's Ark and the current President of the USA"

Think about it for awhile, and it may come to you.

"if you can, please enlighten me."

I don't see it being do-able now, let alone ever.

The Col: "When did Noah's Ark become a USA thing?"

When did the USA become a Canadian thing?

The Col: "I wouldn't want sewage and feeding duties on that cruise , not to mention the illnesses and atrophy from standing/sitting in a very small place for weeks and weeks.I don't see it being do-able now, let alone then."

Not do-able now for sure. The unions wouldn't stand for it, and experts would show up to explain how it couldn't possibly float because the proportons are all wrong. Obama would not sign off on it even if he thought it could work, because it would show a lack of confidence in his administration. How dare anyone for thinking he couldn't keep them all safe and snuggly warm in their own beds. And Michelle would point out that the on board meals are unacceptable, and that only the flys and dung beatles were being properly fed.

So the overwhelming consensus today would be that conditions outside the boat are far better and more suitable to sustaining life. Now that I think about it, that was the consensus back then, but Noah just blew them off and did it anyway.

rod03801: I don't recall anyone arguing about there being one large supercontinent at one time. It even has a name. Pangaea, or Pangea.

As for how could all those animals get into one little ark? You could ask an evolutionist about speciation, but if he thinks you are talking about the ark he might forget what speciation is. lol

I wondered about how animals could make it from one continent to another after the continents began separating. Maybe they hadn't started separating yet. Or maybe it has something to do with the continents being much farther apart today than they were when they BEGAN to separate. oops, darn that caps lock button... must have touched it when my fingers weren't looking.

I wasn't trying to start up another recycle of the same old questions, but I suppose the atheists have had more than enough time to forget all about it and start this all over again.

mckinley: "I'm thinking Noah's Ark will be found if it petrified."

It's already been found. Aerial photographs were taken as well as close up pictures. A few chunks of it were taken and analysed. It was very heavy and hard, so they think the wood had been waterproofed in some way. For years bible scholars thought gopher wood was supposed to be a type or species of tree, but what it means is the wood has been treated with some kind of hot oil or heated wood sap. The ark itself has split in half, and some of the inside chambers could be seen.

The evidence however will be disputed, when not ignored, so don't expect to see any atheists to suddenly convert based on the evidence of there being an ark... instead expect to hear it's not there, it didn't happen, etc etc.

mckinley: "Some of the ammo athiests use is why do bad things happen if there is a God."

Atheists manufacture their own ammo. First they tell us it's a fairy tale, then they over simplify it by treating it as a fairy tale. See how that works? They don't want us to tell them why bad things happen to good people. They want to tell us that bad things happen to good people and then ask why, as though simply asking the question is enough to answer the question. It doesn't matter how many times you answer their question. They will always ignore your answer, then argue with answers you don't give, and then start all over again by asking the same questions. I watched this cycle go on for a few years at another site, and I'll bet it's happened here as well.

They also manufacture their own inconsistencies when looking for contradictions. Apparently the only rule for them is that there are no rules, and they are free to say or do anything... even if it make no sense to anyone else.

rod03801: "Is it "anti Christian" to believe there may be life else where in the universe?"

I don't think so, but that's my own personal opinion. I don't know enough about what the Bible says to be able to answer that definitively and without any doubt. But if God wanted there to be other life forms in other parts of the universe, and not tell us about it, I don't see why that couldn't happen.

One thing that occurred to me when I watched the Narnia movies is that if God can do anything, and He wanted to create a place like Narnia, then what could stop Him from actually doing that? I don't assume that everything there is to know can be found in the Bible. I am assuming that Paul was correct when he said we will know as we have been known, and we are looking through a glass darkly... what that means to me is I'm only seeing a very small fraction of what I'll know later.

But if someone says it's arrogant for me to not believe there is life on other planets, that's where I draw the line on the speculation... because it's just as arrogant to assume there is life on other planets. Either way it's only a guess, because we don't know.

mckinley: "I thought I was helping you discredit Stephen Hawking in a poetic fashion."

My point was not to discret Hawking. I'm aware of Hawkings desire to discredit a belief in God, but I think he's fallen into the trap of trying to use science to promote his own personal beliefs. It's a mistake some Christians make if they don't take the science side seriously enough. But then atheists will also make the mistake of thinking just because they are atheists, then science will automatically support anything they believe. They don't like Intelligent Design, even though the principles of intelligent design are used in forensics and archeology and other established areas of science. There was no point in building SETI for looking for signs of intelligently designed signals if the principles outlined in the intelligent design theory are invalid. It's a sore point for atheists, so what they'll do is call the theory "religion" and hope no one looks too closely at the deception.

Anyway, I'm glad you came back to explain why you gave me those particular chapters out of that particular book. I thought maybe it had something to do with me being proud or something like that. I'm not against a little self exaltation and self promotion, as long as it doesn't cut too deeply into my profound sense of saintly humility... I'm also a bit of a nut, but you may have already figured that out.

rod03801: I really don't care about some of the mistakes Bush made, because he did the one thing I believed was important during those eight years. Now the focus should be on the economy. What the president said about the economy and what he would do about it got people excited, but here it is four years later and he is singing the same old tune. And the pupose for all of the distractions and side issues is for the Dems to have something to talk about other than what has actually been done. Which is less than nothing, so it's actually nothing to brag about. They know it and we know it, but you won't hear any of them admit it. This board reflects what is going on everywhere else, so we will just have to roll with it until after the election.

Don't forget, after the election the big news will be how the republicans stole the election. The other downside to winning will be the attacks on republican leaders children. They were all over the Bush kids for eight solid years, and even went after Sarah Palins kids even though she was only running for vice president. The left will always tell you who they are afraid of when they go looking for stories about someones children. I almost forgot that Obama had kids, because apparently the mainstream news media think his kids are a big whopping snore... yeah, that must be it.

(V): "McDonald's 4 Year Old Cheeseburger"

America's Four Year Old Diet

(V): Wo dude! That's almost exactly what someone was somewhere else that said the same thing!

Cool! So like, can you like tell me where the secret location is, 'cause like you know, I don't know where that is, man. Shoot, half the time I don't know where my head is at, man... what did you say?

Are the republicans worried about driving away undecided voters? Of course they are, just like McDonalds is worried about driving away loyal Burger King customers.

If you were to poll those undecided voters and ask them questions to see which way they lean, instead of asking point blank who they would vote for, I'll bet the overwhelming majority could be found leaning towards Democrat candidate(s).

Besides, even if an undecided is truely sitting on the fence and isn't leaning either way, then what's the point of trying to influence them? How do you convince an undecided to change their mind if they haven't yet made up their mind?

Artful Dodger: "The egomaniac thinks we're talking about him!"

I didn't see that one coming. My mentalist abilities are failing me today.

Artful Dodger: "We're better off if he stays quiet."

Maybe you're right. He's too cagey to fall into another trap.

Artful Dodger: "I'll be waiting for one predictable response in particular... I'll let you know when I see it."

I should have said "...if I see it." I may have tipped my hand by mentioning it. Darn!

mckinley: "Book of Job chapters 38-42."

Not sure what your point is, but if it's what I think it might be then I could say the same about anyone else here. What made you think of those chapters?

mckinley: "NKJV is easier to read."

I have that version. I'll look at the chapters you suggested. Hopefully I'll know what your point is after reading, but I may have to come back to ask anyway.

This may or may not have anything to do with politics (I happen to think it does) but have you heard of this theory about where the universe came from? It basically says first there was nothing, then the nothing spontaneously turned into two separate but equal realities. The two realities are kept separate, because if they came together they would cancel each other out and then we'd be back to nothing again. One has a positive value and other negative, and are either kept apart by some means that wasn't explained, or for the time being are simply separated with no force holding them apart.

I am not making this up. I listened to Stephen Hawking talk about it. It sounds like how a credit card company operates. They are able to give you money (the positive value) because they also create a negative value to ballance it with. In other words, you get free money in exchange for you owing them that money (plus interest and other charges).

The reason I see politics written all over this theory is because the reasoning sounds familiar. First, there's something from nothing. And the word spontaneous is misleading, making you think it just happened for no reason. Or without a cause. The reason it's misleading is because "spontaneous" doesn't mean there was no force acting on it, 'spontaneous' means the force acting on it came from within instead of outside the system. In other words, the reasoning is flawed because in a state of nothingness there would be no force present (internal or external) to act at all. There is nothing there to cause nothing to become something.

The reason I think this is significant is because if a brilliant mind like Hawking's can overlook a glaring error such as this, what does that say about the average Joe who is being treated daily with political messages that make no sense?

It's not just America that has been dumbed down. Gore and Obama have both won Nobel prizes for basically doing nothing but spout off about things they know nothing about.

Artful Dodger: I'll be waiting for one predictable response in particular... I'll let you know when I see it.

Artful Dodger: "You can't legislate morality"

It's bizzare. The same people who tell me morality is an outdated concept (because it's grounded in religion) will then try taking the moral high ground for preaching their own brand of morality. If right and wrong are outdated concepts, then how can anything I do or say be wrong?

As you can imagine, I wasn't just a bad atheist... I was also a very confused one.

Artful Dodger: "a person that describes his/her unborn child as a parasite"

The abuse is usually mental, although it can become physical. This is no joke. What a person thinks of children, especially their own children, figures prominently in how they treat those children.

The person using this kind of language (calling an unborn child a parasite) usually fancies himself a science minded person, and is often surprised or disappointed that not everyone shares his fantasy. He doesn't mean to offend anyone, his purpose is to get people to think of him as being objective and accurate. Never occurs to him that people have their own opinions about objectivity and accuracy. I've even listened to (lectured by) some who talk about boundaries, but then they'll act as though they don't seem to know where those boundaries are. And when it comes to other peoples children... well, let's just say they would be better off concentrating on their money.

Artful Dodger: "....another woman told what to do with her body!"

I don't think that one counts. The judge is a woman, and it's only wrong if a man tells a woman what she can and cannot do. But then this begs the question, is it legal for a woman to tell a man what to do with his body?

Obama needs to take a more dignified approach this time... that rock star image routine has played itself out.

I'm seriously thinking of watching the convention this year. If they could get Clinton to complain about republicans not respecting women and Carter to speak on the economy, then I would definitely want to see that. It won't happen, but who knows? Stranger things have happened, and are happening, and will continue to happen.

Julian Castro

Can't wait to hear what Biden will say eight years from now.

Speakers at 2012 DNC:

Democratic Senate candidate Elizabeth Warren will speak on economic policy, followed by former president Bill Clinton, who will formally nominate Barack Obama.[18]

First Lady Michelle Obama will also address the convention, followed by keynote speaker Julian Castro, mayor of San Antonio.[19]

Former President Jimmy Carter will address the gathering by videotape because he will not attend.[20]

Artful Dodger: "Then one foggy Christmas Day, Jesus came to say....."

I like happy endings. The truth is my conversion was not a happy moment, but CS Lewis said the same thing about his. He said it was like a mouse searching for the cat. Apparently being a reluctant Christian is okay with God... that was a relief, because I thought that might be held against me.

It looks like Bill Clinton will not be the key note speaker at the convention this year. Apparently the Dems are serious about trying to win this election, so they want to repeat the success they had when they got Obama to do the keynote speech in 2004.

Good for them. I for one want to encourage them to milk this strategy for all it's worth.

Artful Dodger: "Who made God"

When I was an atheist I assumed that was a rhetorical question. Even I knew there was no "before there was God" from the Christian perspective. And trying to tell them what they really believed didn't make a whole lot of sense, because once you do that you've completely discredited yourself. At least I took some pride in not being a sloppy atheist, but that didn't exactly please the other atheists... they would all laugh and call me names, and not let me play in any atheist games.

Whatcha doing?
Nothing.
Where ya going?
Nowhere.
How ya going to get there?
I'm already there.


Tired of not knowing where to go or how to get there? Join the Nothingists, and all your problems will disappear... into nothingness.

Read "How to Make a Lot out of Nothing", and you will never lose another debate.

Artful Dodger: That cartoon cracks me up. After carefully reading a blank piece of paper, who wouldn't be convinced in the existence of... nothing?

Artful Dodger: Okay, we've covered the Mormons and Jehovah Witnesses. But what would you say to these guys if they came to your door?

The Col: Your application has been pre approved, and your card activated. enjoy yerself.

Artful Dodger: "They skip by my house for some reason."

Sometimes rejection is a good thing. If you tripped and fell down a hole and landed in hell, they would just toss you back... they don't want your kind down there.

Artful Dodger: LOL You have less patience that I do. I endure the pitch for as long as I can, and then I tell them. You're right though, it's all down hill after that.

It's probably better your way. I just make it worse by leading them to think I don't know anything before dropping the hammer. For me it's all about time and interest... do I have the time to deal with this, and do I feel at all interested in going through with this again? LOL

Artful Dodger: I always accept the comic books, except for the one time I was expected to pay a quarter for it. I don't think that was supposed to be part of the routine, I think the young lady just didn't like the idea of the cost coming out of her own pocket. It was funny, she didn't mention the quarter until I reached out to take the offered comic book, so there we were both holding onto it. But I did think about it for a few seconds before letting go of the book. LOL

(V): Okay, then I'll rephrase the question. When did your parasitic lifestyle end and... oh forget it.

It's obvious when an answer is too much for you. You either spam the board until it leaves the page, or you start fights that end in a moderator deleting it for you. I have news for you, the moderators won't automatically delete the parts only YOU find offensive. Grow up.

Artful Dodger: I remember Jehovahs Witnesses coming to my door, but not any Mormons. There are Mormons where I live, but I don't think they do a lot of door to door visits unless it's with someone they already know... meaning, other Mormons.