America's #1 Online Cigar Auction
first, best, biggest!

Last post 7 years ago by frankj1. 126 replies replies.
3 Pages123>
Bible passage predicts presidential race result
tonygraz Offline
#1 Posted:
Joined: 08-11-2008
Posts: 20,253
http://www.theparsnippety.com/latest/2016/9/2/bible-foretells-triumph-of-pale-woman-over-preliterate-man-beast-in-2016-us-presidential-election
Speyside Offline
#2 Posted:
Joined: 03-16-2015
Posts: 13,106
Have been drinking?
jjanecka Offline
#3 Posted:
Joined: 12-08-2015
Posts: 4,334
Funny article. I always hated how the book of Apopcalypse/Revelation gets touted as a prophetic book. It's nothing of the sorts and was almost completely voted to not be included in the Bible during the 2nd Council of Nicea. The Bishops for it's inclusion argued that it was necessary to be added specifically because it addressed the destruction of the Temple of Jerusalem and established the rubric for the design of the Christian Altar for the New Law.
gummy jones Offline
#4 Posted:
Joined: 07-06-2015
Posts: 7,969
Revelation is a fantastic and frightening prophetic book, written by an Apostle with much of the imagery paralleling that found in Old Testament Scriptures and in a time frame reasonable to that Apostle's and Jesus' lives. Seems to fit in the Bible (regardless of criteria used for selection) at least as well as many of the other chapters. While there was some debate (if I am remembering my history) you seem to be overstating it.

now as to literal vs metaphorical and past vs present vs future time frames that debate is endless and brutal amongst believers.

for the record i did not even click on the link posted
jjanecka Offline
#5 Posted:
Joined: 12-08-2015
Posts: 4,334
I'm pretty sure the Ecumenical Council that discussed it and approved of it for Biblical usage 1700 years ago was pretty clear on what it meant. Lol
Mattie B Offline
#6 Posted:
Joined: 12-12-2005
Posts: 6,350
I'm just excited to see a liberal using the Bible finally


Now find what it says about other social topics PLEASE!!!!
frankj1 Offline
#7 Posted:
Joined: 02-08-2007
Posts: 44,221
be very careful not to make the mistake of claiming conservative ownership of the Bible...!
jjanecka Offline
#8 Posted:
Joined: 12-08-2015
Posts: 4,334
Hey! We gave y'all half credit!
frankj1 Offline
#9 Posted:
Joined: 02-08-2007
Posts: 44,221
jjanecka wrote:
Hey! We gave y'all half credit!

HA!
yeah, for the Prequel, right? (I've been trying to get that to catch on for evah).
jjanecka Offline
#10 Posted:
Joined: 12-08-2015
Posts: 4,334
I still think the best part of the Bible was when those she-bears decapitated those forty-two kids just for making fun of Elisha because he was bald. From that point it was clear, nobody **** with a bald man.

The prequels rocked, you had all sorts of war and wild seductresses and just sin in general but then we followed up with Jesus who got accused of being a major drunk, glutton, and friend of sinners. I mean the dude ran around with two guys called the Sons of Thunder and there was this vicious evil dude they called Iscariot that hung himself in the end and some jerkwad called Magus that tried to commercialize miracles. Not only that but dealing with Romans got pretty intense for a while.
frankj1 Offline
#11 Posted:
Joined: 02-08-2007
Posts: 44,221
I'm thinking the Ten Commandments
jjanecka Offline
#12 Posted:
Joined: 12-08-2015
Posts: 4,334
Yeah man that movie was good too.
ZRX1200 Offline
#13 Posted:
Joined: 07-08-2007
Posts: 60,604
Thou shalt not lose a bid
Thou shalt not reference competitors
Thou shalt not mention platinum membership
Thou shalt not eat shellfish or animals with cloven hoofs
Thou shalt not covet thy neighbors wife (or goat if Muslim)
Thou shalt not rat out Hillary Clinton
Thou shalt arm thyself to protect the herd
Thou shalt halve thine toilet paper roll down in the front
Thou shalt not put ice cubes in your scotch
Thou shalt not **** it, if thou won't eat it.
frankj1 Offline
#14 Posted:
Joined: 02-08-2007
Posts: 44,221
jjanecka wrote:
Yeah man that movie was good too.

Edward G. Robinson was an enlightened bit of casting.
jjanecka Offline
#15 Posted:
Joined: 12-08-2015
Posts: 4,334
Agreed, he played Dathan better than none other. He was a very believable villian. Wish they still made movies like that. The scale, the vision, the epic length.

I liked the music so much I bought the soundtrack. Elmer Bernstein was a genius.
jjanecka Offline
#16 Posted:
Joined: 12-08-2015
Posts: 4,334
ZRX1200 wrote:
Thou shalt not lose a bid
Thou shalt not reference competitors
Thou shalt not mention platinum membership
Thou shalt not eat shellfish or animals with cloven hoofs
Thou shalt not covet thy neighbors wife (or goat if Muslim)
Thou shalt not rat out Hillary Clinton
Thou shalt arm thyself to protect the herd
Thou shalt halve thine toilet paper roll down in the front
Thou shalt not put ice cubes in your scotch
Thou shalt not **** it, if thou won't eat it.


If I can't have pork or shrimp I might as well die.
Brewha Offline
#17 Posted:
Joined: 01-25-2010
Posts: 12,175
ZRX1200 wrote:
Thou shalt not lose a bid
Thou shalt not reference competitors
Thou shalt not mention platinum membership
Thou shalt not eat shellfish or animals with cloven hoofs
Thou shalt not covet thy neighbors wife (or goat if Muslim)
Thou shalt not rat out Hillary Clinton
Thou shalt arm thyself to protect the herd
Thou shalt halve thine toilet paper roll down in the front
Thou shalt not put ice cubes in your scotch
Thou shalt not **** it, if thou won't eat it.

Not to argue with you Z, as your standing as one of Cbid's pillars is well known and respected, but isn't writing the third commandment the samething as breaking it?

Oh, and in the new testimament, God ordained ice for scotch as special dispensation for Americans. In his words; "That we might be great again".
Speyside Offline
#18 Posted:
Joined: 03-16-2015
Posts: 13,106
Only an Atheist would put ice in Scotch, even Pagans drink it neat with the smallest splash of water!
Brewha Offline
#19 Posted:
Joined: 01-25-2010
Posts: 12,175
Speyside wrote:
Only an Atheist would put ice in Scotch, even Pagans drink it neat with the smallest splash of water!

That sir, is a common misnomer, started by FoxNews to disenfranchise the upper middle lower class. But properly characterized and an American convention it is traced back to early agnostics. Who sold ice for a living.....


But above all, the simple truth of it all is (an you may quote me):
"Scotch is a drink that is best served cold....
It is very cold - in a bar"
Speyside Offline
#20 Posted:
Joined: 03-16-2015
Posts: 13,106
Well, as Cbids finest asset, I am sure you are correct. These Agnostics you speak of, we're they patriots?
frankj1 Offline
#21 Posted:
Joined: 02-08-2007
Posts: 44,221
jjanecka wrote:
Agreed, he played Dathan better than none other. He was a very believable villian. Wish they still made movies like that. The scale, the vision, the epic length.

I liked the music so much I bought the soundtrack. Elmer Bernstein was a genius.

did you like EGR's authentic Egyptian slave accent?

I think Elmer did a better job on Wrong Side Story.
DrafterX Offline
#22 Posted:
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 98,551
Axl wrote that man.. Not talking
jjanecka Offline
#23 Posted:
Joined: 12-08-2015
Posts: 4,334
I mean believable as in well acted. I could give a chit less about accents so long as it's acted well.

I'm not a WSS fan by any means. It had some great points but was not earth shattering.
Speyside Offline
#24 Posted:
Joined: 03-16-2015
Posts: 13,106
Are there any passages about Hillary being the antichrist?
jjanecka Offline
#25 Posted:
Joined: 12-08-2015
Posts: 4,334
No but there is something in there about her giant ass covering the world in darkness for 40 day or something.
TMCTLT Offline
#26 Posted:
Joined: 11-22-2007
Posts: 19,733
Speyside wrote:
Are there any passages about Hillary being the antichrist?




Yes.....any one that you may find with the description " Like a Rabid Angry DOG " ( that can't remember her name ) that was a Hillary reference fog
gummy jones Offline
#27 Posted:
Joined: 07-06-2015
Posts: 7,969
jjanecka wrote:
No but there is something in there about her giant ass covering the world in darkness for 40 day or something.


i think i remember one passage that talks about benghazi and another couple that talk about pant suits Think
MACS Offline
#28 Posted:
Joined: 02-26-2004
Posts: 79,776
Mattie B wrote:
I'm just excited to see a liberal using the Bible finally

Now find what it says about other social topics PLEASE!!!!


LMAO!!! Mattie friggin' B!! That was hilarious.
Speyside Offline
#29 Posted:
Joined: 03-16-2015
Posts: 13,106
Aren't pant suits a plague?
jjanecka Offline
#30 Posted:
Joined: 12-08-2015
Posts: 4,334
Along with poorly brewed IPA's and fat strippers.
Speyside Offline
#31 Posted:
Joined: 03-16-2015
Posts: 13,106
So true.
MACS Offline
#32 Posted:
Joined: 02-26-2004
Posts: 79,776
jjanecka wrote:
Along with poorly brewed IPA's and fat strippers.


IMO all IPA's are poorly brewed. Bitter beer sucks.
Mattie B Offline
#33 Posted:
Joined: 12-12-2005
Posts: 6,350
Amen Macs!!!

Brewha Offline
#34 Posted:
Joined: 01-25-2010
Posts: 12,175
Speyside wrote:
Well, as Cbids finest asset, I am sure you are correct. These Agnostics you speak of, we're they patriots?

Of cource. What could be more patriotic than selling ice?

Even I will have to think about that.....


In fairness agnostic beliefs are more philosophical than religious.
Interesting point about that; Agnostics believe that there are some things that are "unknowable". As for example whether or not there is a god. But if you think about it, the most basic tenet of any faith is that one "believes". Dispite the unknowable nature of the proposition. So, as a matter of logistical progression, faith begins with agnostic reasoning.
tonygraz Offline
#35 Posted:
Joined: 08-11-2008
Posts: 20,253
No, faith begins when you ignore the facts and buy into a theory you like.
Brewha Offline
#36 Posted:
Joined: 01-25-2010
Posts: 12,175
tonygraz wrote:
No, faith begins when you ignore the facts and buy into a theory you like.

Well, I suppose we would need a new thread on where faith begins.

Or more interesting still, where it ends.
Speyside Offline
#37 Posted:
Joined: 03-16-2015
Posts: 13,106
What facts Tony?
TMCTLT Offline
#38 Posted:
Joined: 11-22-2007
Posts: 19,733
Speyside wrote:
What facts Tony?






+1
jjanecka Offline
#39 Posted:
Joined: 12-08-2015
Posts: 4,334
tonygraz wrote:
No, faith begins when you ignore the facts and buy into a theory you like.


I can't speak or build a case for all Christians but the Church is like a sword and science is like the whetstone at least from the perspective of Catholic Churches. In fact outside of the well defined and structured rubrics of the Mass (church service) speculative inquiry is probably the most fundamental aspect of the Church.

Historically, Catholics are numbered among the most important scientists of all time, including Rene Descartes, who discovered analytic geometry and the laws of refraction; Blaise Pascal, inventor of the adding machine, hydraulic press, and the mathematical theory of probabilities; Augustinian priest Gregor Mendel, who founded modern genetics; Louis Pasteur, founder of microbiology and creator of the first vaccine for rabies and anthrax; and cleric Nicolaus Copernicus, who first developed scientifically the view that the earth rotated around the sun. Jesuit priests in particular have a long history of scientific achievement; they contributed to the development of pendulum clocks, pantographs, barometers, reflecting telescopes and microscopes, to scientific fields as various as magnetism, optics and electricity. They observed, in some cases before anyone else, the colored bands on Jupiter's surface, the Andromeda nebula and Saturn's rings. They theorized about the circulation of the blood (independently of Harvey), the theoretical possibility of flight, the way the moon affected the tides, and the wave-like nature of light. Star maps of the southern hemisphere, symbolic logic, flood-control measures on the Po and Adige rivers, introducing plus and minus signs into Italian mathematics — all were typical Jesuit achievements, and scientists as influential as Fermat, Huygens, Leibniz and Newton were not alone in counting Jesuits among their most prized correspondents.

Hell even Einstein was pretty close with that priest that developed the Big Bang theory.

The notion that Science and Religion must be separate from each other is outright absurd and is one of the most ignorant arguments that relativists have concocted.
Brewha Offline
#40 Posted:
Joined: 01-25-2010
Posts: 12,175
And Galileo.

Ok, the church exiled him for saying the earth orbited the sun.......so bad example.....
Brewha Offline
#41 Posted:
Joined: 01-25-2010
Posts: 12,175
Truth is, religions have long been at odds with science. Lot of reasons for this, but the obvious one is that discoveries often fly in the face of Church doctrine. Like evolution vs. Genesis - Now there is a good sticking point between faith and science for many. Did you know a church group actually has a Creation Musem that shows people with dinosaurs?
jjanecka Offline
#42 Posted:
Joined: 12-08-2015
Posts: 4,334
Brewha wrote:
And Galileo.

Ok, the church exiled him for saying the earth orbited the sun.......so bad example.....


Actually, he was excommunicated for his religious views not his scientific views.

Additionally the Church finds evolution to be an acceptable theory there is only a small percentage that still believes creationism is valid and the Church accepts that viewpoint too mainly out of tolerance of the older generations.

As far as the rogue church you mentioned, it's not the same as what 1.5 Billion Catholic and Orthodox believe. The doctrine for Catholiscism and Orthodoxy are fairly identical, everything is decided Ecumenically, and their viewpoints are the same regarding science. It is to be cultivated.

Even when we account for Protestantism I would say at least 75-80% of the 800k Protestants wordwide accept evolution. So you're only left with a relatively small minority that can't accept science's findings from the Christian standpoint.

There is a need for uniformity and Science has a huge role to play in religion. Without science integrated as the catalyst for religion you get superstition and extremism.

Without Religion the only thing that exists is psuedo-truth and conspiracy. The only absolute truths are bound in a religious context; I mean those to be moral and ethical truths, "treat your neighbor as yourself," "all men are equal," et cetera. Why are these important? Because pure science is indifferent and religion's role is to set the tone of what is moral and ethical so that Science doesn't cross into extremism as well.
jjanecka Offline
#43 Posted:
Joined: 12-08-2015
Posts: 4,334
Here's a perfect example of science misinformation.

The current GMO vs Organic craze.

Most farmers farm GMO because it feeds more people, uses safer pesticides, and is overall less damaging to the soil than organic crops.

The organic market claims that organic foods are safer even though tbey use harsher pesticides and they also claim that GMOs mutate animals/people.

The reality is that there have been over 1 trillion feedings of GMO crops to people and animals. By the organic food industry's claim you would think everyone should be writhing in cancer; however, In some clinical studies, they're beginning to find that GMO feedings may actually reduce the cancer rate in animals. Additionally no slaughter houses are reporting any irregular number of cancerous animals or mutilated meat from GMO fed cattle.

Farmers see Organic crops as a way to diversify their portfolio so the money is still going to the same farmer's pocketbook.

Why do scientifically inclined people such as doctors, teachers, et all still tout organics as a better alternative to GMO even though the facts are settled? It's only because they accept that some conspiracy must be taking place.
MACS Offline
#44 Posted:
Joined: 02-26-2004
Posts: 79,776
There is one thing science can't quite resolve.

Scientists believe you can't create something from nothing. The big bang doesn't explain how the entire universe was created out of nothing. It just popped into existence?
jjanecka Offline
#45 Posted:
Joined: 12-08-2015
Posts: 4,334
The prevailing theory is that before the universe there existed an object of supermassive density that exploded.
ZRX1200 Offline
#46 Posted:
Joined: 07-08-2007
Posts: 60,604
Where did the object come from.
jjanecka Offline
#47 Posted:
Joined: 12-08-2015
Posts: 4,334
So here's the debacle, according to science. If God created the object then what created God? Religion is really the only thing that can answer at this point by saying God existed before time was created and he will never cease to exist. His age is infinite/eternal.
ZRX1200 Offline
#48 Posted:
Joined: 07-08-2007
Posts: 60,604
LMMFAO.......


So GOD has to come from somewhere, but they don't need an answer for objects just being created. And they are infallible more so than a fictitious being and a made up book.

Got it.
jjanecka Offline
#49 Posted:
Joined: 12-08-2015
Posts: 4,334
Does God have to come from somewhere? He can't just be begotten before all time?
frankj1 Offline
#50 Posted:
Joined: 02-08-2007
Posts: 44,221
and that might be where the faith part begins...?
Users browsing this topic
Guest
3 Pages123>