<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/QCRW7XPjlX8"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/QCRW7XPjlX8" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>

No embed for me :(

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QCRW7XPjlX8

Bullshit, but sexy background music

Another twist of the prophecies spoke about in the Bible, but with a bunch of sillyness. Just like most stories they have a grain of truth about them. The Nibiru basically combines fallen angels, demonic possession, the end of days, hell into one New Age garbled mess.

Well the Christians believe the fallen angel part and alien people believe in was aliens and so on.... Interesting alternative history/sci fi story... But a the scary thing is a lot of people believe we were bread from aliens to be slave labor.... Interesting conditioning if you ask me...

Sure. I can see what you mean. You do live in NM, so I could understand the fascination with aliens. Maybe you can research it a bit more from a side of trying to disprove the viewpoints instead of trying to believe them. I don't know if I said that right, but I think you kind of understand what I'm saying. Go into your research trying to disqualify anything that doesn't fit or make sense.

its just a theory

an attempt to explain why humans took a leap from sticks and stones to actual language and complex descriptions of reality, the jump seems too sudden to be natural for alot of people, combine this with the "evidence" left behind in the form of stories, wall cave drawings and statues etc etc

I don't believe this theory but I am open to it. My complaints come in when people start getting totally rediculous with it such as David Ickes "reptilians" and alot of the nibiru 10th 12th planet stuff, most of its just too goofy

Maybe we didn't make any leap at all. Maybe we were already communicating through speech and such. Caves are carved by waterflows and recessions. So caves would have been formed after a flood. Cave writings aren't as old as people claim them to be. We have people living in caves today. Does that mean we should call them cavemen? There are people using the same rudimentary tools that we are supposedly finding and saying are 50k yrs old. But there are people still using items like this for daily purposes. People still wear skins. All language appeared at the same time.

what idiotic point are you trying to prove?

and what cave writings are you talking about? i'd like to know how you were able to test their age.

http://www.sitchin.com/
http://www.sitchin.com/images/Hermitage.jpg

I didnt necessarily mean cave writings/paintings, check out the mysteries surrounding China's Yellow Emperor, the Dagon tribe, the Mayans, the egyptians etc ect the list goes on and on

Im skeptical about alot of this stuff but I wouldnt go as far as to say its completely impossible that visitors arrived here at some point and shared a little knowledge about the universe with us

its just one theory though, terrence mckenna had a theory that people really started to evolve when they tasted magic mushrooms

I got a chance to attend a Terrence McKenna lecture before he died. He had some very cool insights into human nature. His writings persueded me to try triptomines
(DMT, salvia, ayoasca)

I don't know but this guy seems to reach a a lot... He has no actual proof just his assumptions.

http://www.sitchin.com/

Yes, a lot of people seem to do that. No actual proof, just assumptions and they run with it. If they are writing a scifi journal, then that's great. But if it's supposed to be real information, then research should be done on it.

Here's something you might like.

http://www.officialdisclosure.com/giants.htm

this is funny from a guy that believes everything that's in the bible.

Who me? When did I say that?

no, xcept68

funny how a christian creationist demands proof! LOL

ask him for some and he'll read you a bible passage.

Not to knock your powers of deduction, but when was the Bible proven false?

the burden of proof lies in those who make a claim. state your case

and don't give me any passage or anything. just as easily as you could read one out, i could go to "scifi journal" as you say and read some made up article as well.

and don't give me any passage or anything. just as easily as you could read one out, i could go to "scifi journal" as you say and read some made up article as well.

okay. Actually I believe you have it quite backwards. The Bible already exists as an historical document that states many things proven in history. Times, dates, names, places all very accurate. So it would be the person wishing to take this existing document and state that it isn't true would be the person going against the grain and would need to show why you believe this historical document to be false. Not the other way around.

jajaja

typical rhetoric

Why would you say that? Just curious. I actually am interested in what you don't agree with that is in the Bible as being true. Maybe you can teach me something Deegs.

i already said that the onus is on those trying to prove the existence or truth of something.

if you're in a court of law, you have to prove guilt. ie, that the action was perpetrated by the person. if you can't, the person is assumed innocent.

in this case, you have to prove that the actions in the bible are true. im the sceptic, remember? i can be swayed either way with factual evidence. try to avoid doctrinal doublespeak.

it's standard onus probandi, you are making the claims.

ACtually, no I'm not the one trying to prove anything. I'm merely accepting what is already writtin. It is you that is disagreeing with it. Now if you are stating that I must prove that God exists because I'm claiming that God exists. Well again, I'm not claiming such. I'm merely agreeing with what the Bible states. Much like any written document, which makes a claim, within that document also gives it's reasons for such claim. The Bible does this on many occasion. I'm merely agreeing with them. It's you that is disagreeing. In your disagreement, there must be reasons behind the disagreement.

However I stated above that the Bible states many historical facts correctly, which is good reason to believe the remaining portions of the document. Since you haven't offered any counter evidence as to the Bible being wrong on these histories, then I would assume that no amount of evidence is going to make you think of the Bible in a positive light. So why try? I'm really not here to convince you in either direction, I'm only answering questions asked. I have no gain in performing a circus act of a dissertation on why you should believe the Bible true and not some other religious writ. I'm keeping up with a good conversation, that's all.

By the way, if a person is in a court of law and they are on trial because someone claims they are guilty. This doesn't work for the bible. You have to put the Bible in a position of being wrong before you can have it proved right. This is where your arguement is severely lacking.

well, actually, the fact that christians seem to regurgitate answers taught to them in sunday school as proof of god, is enough evidence.

'god is all around you'

'God is that He is'

'Always and He is unchanging and eternal'

'Because we are a part of God we are also eternal. This is why there must be a Hell'

it's a hypothesis with no backing. and that if that isn't reason enough, well then OJ is innocent too.

as for the historical facts, which i would like to know what they are, many works of fiction take place around historical facts. how many world war II fiction books have been written? does the fact that wwII happened mean that the work was truth and not a story?

to make statements like that and not back it up, is so sketchy to me. religions use faith as a way to sidestep having true answers.

science works as it's own worse critic and takes it upon itself to disprove any unfounded claim. if religious sects were more like scientists instead of being so elusive, more intelligent people would be inclined to take it seriously.

well, actually, the fact that christians seem to regurgitate answers taught to them in sunday school as proof of god, is enough evidence.

'god is all around you' = TRUE

'God is that He is' = TRUE because of below

'Always and He is unchanging and eternal' = TRUE

'Because we are a part of God we are also eternal. This is why there must be a Hell' = TRUE.

it's a hypothesis with no backing. and that if that isn't reason enough, well then OJ is innocent too.

as for the historical facts, which i would like to know what they are, many works of fiction take place around historical facts. how many world war II fiction books have been written? does the fact that wwII happened mean that the work was truth and not a story?

All the country names, people's names, timeframes, customs, traditions and kings are all historical facts. King Xerxes, King Nedbuchanezzar... etc. All fact in History. King Ceasar, King Jesus :sifone:

science works as it's own worse critic and takes it upon itself to disprove any unfounded claim. if religious sects were more like scientists instead of being so elusive, more intelligent people would be inclined to take it seriously.

Science isn't a religion that is against God. Science is a discipline and a study that can be used correctly or incorrectly, just like any other tool. You can mis-use science and do a silly magic trick and fool someone. The Bible has stood the test of time and scrutiny throughout the ages. You aren't going to disprove the Bible now. Mainly because if it were to be disproved, they would have done it by now and ended this silly religion of Jesus and we wouldn't be having this discussion at all. We'd probably all be wiped out by natural selection and survival of the fittest... don't ya think? Or perhaps we'd all be wearing dots on our heads and turbins? We certainly wouldn't have God given rights, they would be given to us by some ruler that can be taken away at his will and command. I like having freedoms and God given rights. I like to express my freedom of speech and allow others the same luxury, even if I don't agree with what they are speaking. You can say my belief in God is false and a lie, I don't have to listen to you, but there's nothing I can do about it, because God allows you to say all you wish against him and me. However if you were to attack the Koran publicly as the man attacked Moses on Mt. Sinai, by saying Muhammad didn't have the visions in the cave, I'm sure he would fear for his life about now. People can say all they wish about God, and Christians because we all have grace. Grace affords those that do not yet understand the ability to come to know God before they die in their sins. I hope you come to know God before you die in your sin.

when epileptics see blinky lights and say it's the voice of god; I'm scepticle

All the country names, people's names, timeframes, customs, traditions and kings are all historical facts. King Xerxes, King Nedbuchanezzar... etc. All fact in History. King Ceasar, King Jesus :sifone:

I read a historical fiction book last week that had many historical facts - names, places, timeframes, customs, traditions and kings. But it was still fiction.

Please provide historical evidence of "King Jesus".

http://www.probe.org/content/view/18/77/

http://www.westarkchurchofchrist.org/library/extrabiblical.htm

http://www.jdstone.org/cr/files/nohistoricalevidenceofjesus.html

http://home1.gte.net/deleyd/religion/appendixd.html

Wow, isn't duelling URLs fun. xcept68 I read both of those pages you posted. Will you do me the courtesy of reading mine?

Absolutely! Sorry about the long delay, I forgot about this topic.

of course u did, bcos deegs pwnt you.

of course u did, bcos deegs pwnt you.

He did... Well good for him, now get back to your WoW game. I won't bother ya.

He did... Well good for him, now get back to your WoW game. I won't bother ya.


http://www.225.ca/ivan/nov03/crybaby.jpg

Hahahaha. Nice one Mahakashyap.

Repped

That's pretty good. I'm glad to see you care enough about me to spend the time looking up photos online to post in here. Makes me feel important.

nice av

thanks man!! It's not me, but stil he's a cool homeless dude online with that hot blonde.

The Bible has stood the test of time and scrutiny throughout the ages. You aren't going to disprove the Bible now. Mainly because if it were to be disproved, they would have done it by now and ended this silly religion of Jesus and we wouldn't be having this discussion at all.

Ah, and this can only be applied to the Bible? What about any other religious text that's been around for a long, long time?

Ah, and this can only be applied to the Bible? What about any other religious text that's been around for a long, long time?

Great point!! So point one out and I would be glad to give you some reasons. If that's what you would like.

Bhagavad Gita. This predates Christianity so it has stood the "test of time" much longer. Well go ahead and "disprove" it like you offered.

A first difficulty in the philosophy of the Gita concerns the relation between the law of karma and the grace granted by Krishna in helping his followers to attain liberation. On the one hand it seems that Krishna is sovereign over the law of karma, and uses it as an instrument for punishment or reward. He says: "Those who are envious and mischievous, who are the lowest among men, I perpetually cast into transmigration, into various demoniac species of life" . And also: "Those who worship me and surrender all their activities unto me, being devoted to me without hesitation, engaged in devotional service and meditating unto me, I deliver them quickly from the ocean of birth and death"

On the other hand, karma seems to be a law that functions by itself, with no external control. One has to struggle alone against its drive and attain better incarnations from one existence to the next. God’s interference with it is an artificial construct of Hindu theism, so that the Hindu commentators of the Gita had to choose between holding to the supremacy of Krishna and the ultimate power of karma in ruling the world. Consequently, we have theistic and pantheistic interpretations (and even translations) of the Gita, indebted to one or the other alternative. Those belonging to the first category see Krishna as a super-personal god using karma as an instrument for awakening humans from ignorance, while the others see him as a mere form of Brahman's manifestation, with no real power in controlling karma. The two positions contradict each other and the Gita leaves enough room for both sides. The view of grace in the Gita is a far cry from the meaning it acquired later in the prapatti devotional trend.

I will give you more information upon further research.

A first difficulty in the philosophy of the Gita concerns the relation between the law of karma and the grace granted by Krishna in helping his followers to attain liberation. On the one hand it seems that Krishna is sovereign over the law of karma, and uses it as an instrument for punishment or reward. He says: "Those who are envious and mischievous, who are the lowest among men, I perpetually cast into transmigration, into various demoniac species of life" . And also: "Those who worship me and surrender all their activities unto me, being devoted to me without hesitation, engaged in devotional service and meditating unto me, I deliver them quickly from the ocean of birth and death"

On the other hand, karma seems to be a law that functions by itself, with no external control. One has to struggle alone against its drive and attain better incarnations from one existence to the next. God’s interference with it is an artificial construct of Hindu theism, so that the Hindu commentators of the Gita had to choose between holding to the supremacy of Krishna and the ultimate power of karma in ruling the world. Consequently, we have theistic and pantheistic interpretations (and even translations) of the Gita, indebted to one or the other alternative. Those belonging to the first category see Krishna as a super-personal god using karma as an instrument for awakening humans from ignorance, while the others see him as a mere form of Brahman's manifestation, with no real power in controlling karma. The two positions contradict each other and the Gita leaves enough room for both sides. The view of grace in the Gita is a far cry from the meaning it acquired later in the prapatti devotional trend.

I will give you more information upon further research.

You dont know shit about the gita, you just copy pasted stuff

http://www.comparativereligion.com/Gita.html#03

xcept68, I've read about half of the bible, so I feel that I can meaningfully comment on it. Why do you feel that you are qualified to comment on the gita when you've never read any of it?

This is a serious question. Please answer it.

You dont know shit about the gita, you just copy pasted stuff

http://www.comparativereligion.com/Gita.html#03

The Gita is a joke, get over it already. It's a contradictory cultic ramma lama ding ding that has no part in anyone's life.

Yeah I copy and pasted that stuff!

xcept68, I've read about half of the bible, so I feel that I can meaningfully comment on it. Why do you feel that you are qualified to comment on the gita when you've never read any of it?

This is a serious question. Please answer it.

Probably because someone asked me to disprove that crap. I just did. Now stop the waterfalls and go find something else to waste your time with me. Honestly you bore me, I haven't found anything interesting to read that you have written on here yet.

Maybe you can just stick to commenting in the mma topics, because you aren't getting any better at this.

xcept68 resorts to insults = xcept68 just lost another argument

The Gita is a joke, get over it already. It's a contradictory cultic ramma lama ding ding that has no part in anyone's life.

Yeah I copy and pasted that stuff!


your mom is a contradictory cultic ramma lama ding ding that has no part in anyone's life:stfu:

uh oh, someone is resorting to your mom jokes! BTW, I saw your gay photo in some other topic. May I refer to you as Dhalism from now on???