"Humans 'very likely' making earth warmer" is wrong - Page 41

02-07-2007, 09:27 AM

no spam <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote:

>>>> My parents were Catholic when I was born and gave it up because of
>>>> the weekly donation issue. It seemed to them that the church was
>>>> out for the money and people were trying to buy their way into Heaven.

>>> Had to drop in here. Your up bringing is the problem. The Catholic
>>> church, in most non-catholic's opinions, DOES NOT follow the true
>>> teachings of Christ and therefore are not a true Christian church. A couple of quick examples:
>>> It teaches you need someone to stand
>>> between you and Christ (you have to confess your sins to the
>>> priest), you pray to people (Mary, Saint this or that), the believe
>>> that there have been many 'perfect' people (they call them popes. Also it teaches you can 'buy'
>>> and/or work your way into Heaven, to most true Christians would find this very close to
>>> blasphemy.

>>> True Christians have two rules to follow (if someone isn't following
>>> them then it doesn't matter what name they use) those rules are:
>>> Love God completely and love your neighbor as you love yourself.

>> How odd that that fool that was stupid enough to get
>> nailed up by the romans didnt say anything like that.

> Your ignorance is showing, where do you think it comes from?

Never ever could bull**** its way out of a wet paper bag.

That fool never ever said that there are just those two rules.

>>> One last thing, Christ told us we are to spread the Word but if the
>>> people don't want to hear or believe then we are to knock the dust
>>> off our feet and never visit them again. Its up to them at that point.

>> Or that either.

> Nearly a direct quote from the 'Christian manual'.

Bare faced lie. That fool said a hell of a lot more than that on that matter.

>>> As I have told many people talking about religions, any religion which has to use force to keep
>>> its people from hearing other> preachings is most likely a false religion because a religion of
>>> a God that could make the universe can easily stand up to a few words or thoughts.

>> Pathetic, really.

> False religion and false religious teachers are the problem.

Nope, all you stupid fundys are the problem.

> FYI, a religion does not need to believe in an all powerful god. Many of them 'worship' a man or
> idea.

That aint a religion, fool.

02-07-2007, 09:33 AM

no spam <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote:

>>>> My parents were Catholic when I was born and gave it up because of the weekly donation issue.
>>>> It seemed to them that the church was
>>>> out for the money and people were trying to buy their way into Heaven.

>>> Had to drop in here. Your up bringing is the problem. The Catholic
>>> church, in most non-catholic's opinions, DOES NOT follow the true
>>> teachings of Christ and therefore are not a true Christian church. A couple of quick examples:
>>> It teaches you need someone to stand
>>> between you and Christ (you have to confess your sins to the
>>> priest), you pray to people (Mary, Saint this or that), the believe
>>> that there have been many 'perfect' people (they call them popes.

>> The Pope is just the figurehead of the church and does not make many decisions. It is the
>> Cardinals that tell the Pope what to say.

> IIRC, the church still says he and his rulings are perfect and must be followed.

Its much more complicated than that, most obviously when the rulings change over time.

> Heck most of the Catholics I know don't even follow their own rules.

And you dont 'think' that the church isnt well aware of that ?

>>> True Christians have two rules to follow (if someone isn't following them then it doesn't matter
>>> what name they use) those rules are: Love God completely and love your neighbor as you love
>>> yourself.

>> You missed 60's and love, love, love.

> Still a lot of hate there.

Just another of your silly little fantasys.

> Racist have a lot of love, as long as you are the right color.

Most of them dont.

>>> One last thing, Christ told us we are to spread the Word but if the
>>> people don't want to hear or believe then we are to knock the dust
>>> off our feet and never visit them again. Its up to them at that
>>> point. As I have told many people talking about religions, any
>>> religion which has to use force to keep its people from hearing
>>> other preachings is most likely a false religion because a religion
>>> of a God that could make the universe can easily stand up to a few
>>> words or thoughts.

>> Actually, I wish it were that simple, but it is not.
>> What exactly is Iraq, a holy war, an anti-terrorist war, or an oil war??

> All.

Nope, it aint a holy war for starters.

> The terrorists are using false religious teachings to recruit people for a 'holy war' for control
> of the oil and the money it brings.

Have fun explaining the terrorists from countrys that have no oil.

> The more money they have the faster they can force their religion on the rest of the world under
> the threat of terrorist and death.

It aint about money.

> As I have said, if you have to threaten your followers with death to
> keep them following your religion then you are following a false religion.

There is no such animal as a 'true' religion.

> Do you follow my line of thought?

No such animal. Just the usual mindless fundy raving.

> (sorry I had to put one more follow in there)

Do the decent thing and top yourself or sumfin.

02-07-2007, 09:35 AM

Bill Sornson <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote
> no spam wrote

>> Top posting to save time.

> It doesn't -- because without scrolling down, one has no idea whom or what you're addressing.

Wrong when you're reading a thread with a number of new posts in it, which is how most read.

02-07-2007, 10:05 AM

Oh I see.

{WHOOSH!}

Rod Speed wrote:
> Bill Sornson <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote
>> no spam wrote
>
>>> Top posting to save time.
>
>> It doesn't -- because without scrolling down, one has no idea whom
>> or what you're addressing.
>
> Wrong when you're reading a thread with a number of new posts in it, which
> is how most read.

02-07-2007, 10:26 AM

> You said best. There's one hope though: THE REVOLUTION (coming
> soon)...
>
> WORLD REVOLUTION
> "The World Revolution is an idea for a new, global activist social
> movement for progressive social change. It aims to resolve in a

<stuff cut>

If it does come you will find out what every other 'winner' of a 'peoples
revolution' has found. Power flows from the barrel of a gun and those with
the power (i.e. guns) will suddenly not be so friendly. I don't think most
of the supporters Castro thought he was going to take away all the guns they
used to win their freedom and use them to keep himself in power.

02-07-2007, 10:26 AM

> I might just pass on that but I suggest you read some of the scientific
> data on what happens when population exceeds resources.
> Give it about 10 years and see what happens.

<sigh>

Heard the 'in 10 years', 10 years ago and we are still here.

Heard the 'in 10 years', 20 years ago and we are still here.

Heard the 'in 10 years', 30 years ago and we are still here.

Read about the 'in 10 years', 40 years ago and we are still here.

The only thing that has changed is just what is going to wipe us out 'in 10
year'. Warming, cooling, population, air pollution, water pollution, farm
chemicals, DDT, diseases, the BOMB, rock and roll, illegal drugs, nazism,
communism, capitalism, and on and on and on.

Sometimes I wish we'd just reach the end of the 10 years and get it over
with

02-07-2007, 10:26 AM

> What bull****? As soon as some real estate developer gets his hands on
> good property he will build as many houses as he can cram onto what used
> to be good farm land. All the corn fields that I used to play in as a
> child are now housing, 3 houses in 14 years, and they are all developed.
> The food generating capacity is going down, like it or not.

And yet the price of food hasn't gone up the much. . .hum. Could it be the
fact that today the crop yeild per acre has risen? When I was a kid you go
one ear of corn for each corn seed you planted. Today you get two or three.
That in means in effect that you can sell 2/3 of your farm to the developers
and still make the same amout of corn.

Add to that the fact farmers are losing less and less of the crop to bugs
and disease the odds are he could make the same crop on 1/4 to 1/8 the same
land.

Anyway if it does reach that point it will become self correcting. The
places w/o the ability to grow food will see their populations drop due to
war and starvation thereby reducing their need. That circle of life thing
you know.

02-07-2007, 10:26 AM

>> We don't, but until you start considering forced abortions, genocide and
>> euthenasia, there's not much we can do about the population.
>>
>> Are those options acceptable to you?
>
> I would prefer to limit the baby factories somehow, whether trough
> education or, if need be, by a fertility inhibitor in the food.
> Now the choice would be food and no children or children and starve.

And who gets to pick the breeders? What criteria do we use? Do we only
allow the 'perfect' people to breed?

02-07-2007, 10:26 AM

> How about doing away with tax breaks for more than one child per
> person? No deductions. Maybe we stop "family" insurance plans and
> charge for each kid. Folks with 4 kids pay more than folks with 1.

How about starting with doing away with the welfare system? That would get
my vote

02-07-2007, 10:26 AM

> Time to put these ****ing neocons on trial and let them

Take a deep breath and tell us on what charges?

Just as no one can have you arrested for being totally stupid you can't just
put someone on trial for no reason