Topic:
A Womens wish poem
|
|
yep! I’ll go along with that! I’m not poetic either but I want everything this bloke wants and more.
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Are you a Good Kisser?
|
|
Kiss me and I will show you the stars! Love me and I will give them to you! Nice piece of poetry.... I was thinking of you when I copied and pasted that. |
|
|
|
Topic:
Is English A Crazy Language?
|
|
Eye halve a spelling checker
It came with my pea sea It plainly marques for my revue Miss steaks eye kin knot sea. Eye strike a key and type a word And weight four it to say Weather eye am wrong oar write It shows me strait a weigh. As soon as a mist ache is maid It nose bee fore two long And eye can put the error rite It's rare lea ever wrong. Eye have run this poem threw it Eye am shore your pleased two no It's letter perfect awl the weigh My checker tolled me sew. Margo Roark |
|
|
|
Edited by
DarkHour
on
Sat 11/06/10 02:33 PM
|
|
I'm really interested to know if anyone really seen a UFO ...no question about it. not a UFO but I still question what did we see? Taking a shortcut about 17 years ago with a friend on a dirt road to one of our favourite clubs. When 2 shooting stars fall very close to us. We immediately stopped and a friend of mine walks over to the spot where we thought they landed, when all of a sudden they fly back out of the ground taking the same arch they fell down with. I always wandered what did we see that night? Did you have 'field mushrooms' for dinner that night? I know I doubted my sanity, except the two other people saw what I saw, as I saw it....freaky sh*te! 17 years later I find that life does exist in space- well it might not be intelligent life but it still exists in a form of green and blue algae found on occasional meteor rocks. If there is one form of life, surely out there somewhere there must be other forms as well, perhaps even intelligent life, conscious life. Just a thought. |
|
|
|
Topic:
Are you a Good Kisser?
|
|
Kiss me and I will show you the stars!
Love me and I will give them to you! |
|
|
|
I'm really interested to know if anyone really seen a UFO ...no question about it. not a UFO but I still question what did we see? Taking a shortcut about 17 years ago with a friend on a dirt road to one of our favourite clubs. When 2 shooting stars fall very close to us. We immediately stopped and a friend of mine walks over to the spot where we thought they landed, when all of a sudden they fly back out of the ground taking the same arch they fell down with. I always wandered what did we see that night? |
|
|
|
Topic:
Man Tax
|
|
love it
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Is English A Crazy Language?
|
|
1) The bandage was wound around the wound.
2) The farm was used to produce produce. 3) The dump was so full that it had to refuse more refuse. 4) We must polish the Polish furniture. 5) He could lead if he would get the lead out. 6) The soldier decided to desert his dessert in the desert. 7) Since there is no time like the present, he thought it was time to present the present 8) A bass was painted on the head of the bass drum. (huh?) 9) When shot at, the dove dove into the bushes. 10) I did not object to the object. 11) The insurance was invalid for the invalid. 12) There was a row among the oarsmen about how to row 13) They were too close to the door to close it. 14) The buck does funny things when the does are present. 15) A seamstress and a sewer fell down into a sewer line. 16) To help with planting, the farmer taught his sow to sow. 17) The wind was too strong to wind the sail 18) Upon seeing the tear in the painting I shed a tear. 19) I had to subject the subject to a series of tests. 20) How can I intimate this to my most intimate friend? Let's face it - English is a crazy language. There is no egg in eggplant, nor ham in hamburger; neither apple nor pine in pineapple. English muffins weren't invented in England or French fries in France. Sweetmeats are candies while sweetbreads, which aren't sweet, are meat. We take English for granted but if we explore its paradoxes, we find that quicksand can work slowly, boxing rings are square and a guinea pig is neither from Guinea nor is it a pig. And why is it that writers write but fingers don't fing, grocers don't groce and hammers don't ham? If the plural of tooth is teeth, why isn't the plural of booth, beeth? One goose, 2 geese. So one moose, 2 meese? One index, 2 indices? Doesn't it seem crazy that you can make amends but not one amend? If you have a bunch of odds and ends and get rid of all but one of them, what do you call it? If teachers taught, why didn't preachers praught? If a vegetarian eats vegetables, what does a humanitarian eat? Sometimes I think all the English speakers should be committed to an asylum for the verbally insane. In what language do people recite at a play and play at a recital? Ship by truck and send cargo by ship? Have noses that run and feet that smell? How can a slim chance and a fat chance be the same, while a wise man and a wise guy are opposites? You have to marvel at the unique lunacy of a language in which your house can burn up as it burns down, in which you fill in a form by filling it out and in which, an alarm goes off by coming on. English was invented by people, not computers, and it reflects the creativity of the human race, which, of course, is not a race at all That is why, when the stars are out, they are visible, but when the lights are out, they are invisible. |
|
|
|
Topic:
I HOPE NOBODY READS THIS
|
|
I looked but I never read
|
|
|
|
Topic:
math
|
|
Mathematics
From a strictly mathematical viewpoint it goes like this: What Makes 100%? What does it mean to give MORE than 100%? Ever wonder about those people who say they are giving more than 100%? We have all been to those meetings where someone wants you to give over 100%. How about achieving 103%? What makes up 100% in life? Here's a little mathematical formula that might help you answer these questions: If: A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z is represented as: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26. Then: H-A-R-D-W-O-R- K 8+1+18+4+23+15+18+11 = 98% and K-N-O-W-L-E-D-G-E 11+14+15+23+12+5+4+7+5 = 96% But, A-T-T-I-T-U-D-E 1+20+20+9+20+21+4+5 = 100% And, B-U-L-L-S-H-I-T 2+21+12+12+19+8+9+20 = 103% AND, look how far *** kissing will take you. A-S-S-K-I-S-S-I-N-G 1+19+19+ 11+9+19+19+9+14+7 = 118% So, one can conclude with mathematical certainty that, while Hard work and Knowledge will get you close, and Attitude will get you there, it's the ******** and *** kissing that will put you over the top. Don't you just Love it!!! |
|
|
|
Christianity is a combination of may Pagan beliefs.
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Are you sure?
|
|
i often wonder, how can an atheist be so sure that there is no god, that they are willing to jeopardize eternity for a mere 70-100 years of life. its kinda funny because you can be certain that there is a God if you truly know him, but you can never really be certain that there is not if you dont know him. Please consider a sanity check. |
|
|
|
Topic:
Atheism and Suicide
|
|
There are studies which indicate that atheism is a causal factor for suicides. http://www.conservapedia.com/Atheism_and_Mental_and_Physical_Health#Atheism_and_Suicide so funny and so untrue. |
|
|
|
Topic:
Just saying hello
|
|
Hello to you all and thankyou for the hellos
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Scientifific Bible evidence.
|
|
So how do you explain Animism which was probably the olds belief around, claiming thousands of years before your bible appeared what these so called quantum scientists clam now?
Hindus is another religion that had trinity way before Christians did. Bible is not science it never has been. Judaism, Christians and Muslims stolen the idea from each other and from may other older beliefs. |
|
|
|
Topic:
Richard Dawkins
|
|
It does support Christianity thank you very much. Give me one incident where God had someone judge someone in the NEW TESTAMENT. In the old testament people were judged on earth for their sins, eg., being stoned to death. The coming of Jesus changed that, Jesus is now the judge and has specifically told us not to judge anyone, for with what judgement we judge others it will be judged towards us as well now. You seem to miss the point here entirely. You can't use Jesus as an excuse for the Biblical God. If the Biblical God had commanded people "Thou shalt not Kill" and then went on to give a myriad of exceptions where this commandment doesn't hold. Then it truly doesn't matter what Jesus might have done at all. That would have been way too late. You can't have a schizophrenic God. Either the God of the Old Testament has validity in its own right, or it doesn't. Jesus can't fix a badly written mythology after the fact. I agree with you that Jesus did indeed reject the teachings of the Old Testament. But as far as I'm concerned that just serves to prove that he couldn't have possibly been the son of that God. He didn't even agree with those teachings! He was obviously teaching the wisdom of Buddha and not the absurdities of the old Hebrew folklore. Absurdities that even YOU recognize and would like to separate Jesus from. The best way to do that is to simply recognize that Jesus was not the only begotten son of the fictitious godhead of the Old Testament but instead he was teaching the wisdom of the ways of Indian Buddhism. That solves everything right there. I didn’t know Jesus rejected the teaching of the old testament? KJV -Matthew 5:18-19 “For truly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass the law until all is accomplished. Whoever then relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but he who does them and teaches them shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.” Jesus didn't reject the teachings of the old testament. Matthew 5:17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. Jesus came to fulfil the old testament, not to destroy it, not to amend it, not to do anything with it but complete it. Exactly, so that would suggest that the old and the new Testaments are binding. They are binding?........ can you be more specific? I don't comprehend what you're meaning. Binding in what way? The old testament was the laws for the people before Jesus, with the prophecy of a saviour coming. Jesus "the saviour" came thus fulfilling the old testament and gave us the new testament. you are not correct here Jesus keeps telling the prophets that he did not come here to rewrite or make any new laws but to uphold them. John 10:35 the scripture cannot be broken referring to Matthew 5:17 again - Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets. Luke 16:17- It is easier for Heaven and Earth to pass away than for the smallest part of the letter of the law to become invalid I already used that verse, next time try using the entire verse not just a part of the verse. And notice the BUT TO FULFIL. Matthew 5:17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. ============================== Luke 16:17- It is easier for Heaven and Earth to pass away than for the smallest part of the letter of the law to become invalid This is from the new testament so the law that is being mentioned here is the law Jesus was giving us. the same old law which part don’t you understand. John7:19Did not Moses give you the law, and yet none of you keepeth the law and )& John 1:17 For the law was given by Moses The law moses was given is in the old testament. Why do you guys not like putting the entire verse? ============================================== John 7:19 Did not Moses give you the law, and none of you keepeth the law? Why go ye about to kill me? =============================================== Again, the law moses was given *old testament* gave a prophecy of a savior coming *Jesus*. So he's asking them why they didn't keep that law and why they want to kill him for all he's doing was fulfilling the law which was given to moses. you are twisting things to suit you, you very well know in numerous scriptures Jesus keeps saying he did not come to make any new laws as the old laws cannot be broken once thy are written and are binding forever. I think it is pretty clear. Here is a reminder for you if you are a believer that you are committing a sin right now. 2 Peter 20-21 Know this first of all, that there is no prophecy of scripture that is a matter of personal interpretation, for no prophecy ever came through human will; but rather human beings moved by the holy Spirit spoke under the influence of God for affirmations that you are wrong just thought of this one. Jesus gets upset with the Jews for not killing their children according to the old testament. Mark 7:10 Mark.7:9-13 "Whoever curses father or mother shall die" I could spend all day proving you wrong. If you read the old testament*old law* it has prophecies of a saviour coming. The old testament *old law* was fulfilled with the coming of Jesus. So nothing changed, nothing canceled out, nothing made null, nothing loss power....... it was FULFILLED, completed, finished, finalized. read this http://www.debunkingskeptics.com/Debunking_Christians/Page26.htm |
|
|
|
Topic:
Richard Dawkins
|
|
It does support Christianity thank you very much. Give me one incident where God had someone judge someone in the NEW TESTAMENT. In the old testament people were judged on earth for their sins, eg., being stoned to death. The coming of Jesus changed that, Jesus is now the judge and has specifically told us not to judge anyone, for with what judgement we judge others it will be judged towards us as well now. You seem to miss the point here entirely. You can't use Jesus as an excuse for the Biblical God. If the Biblical God had commanded people "Thou shalt not Kill" and then went on to give a myriad of exceptions where this commandment doesn't hold. Then it truly doesn't matter what Jesus might have done at all. That would have been way too late. You can't have a schizophrenic God. Either the God of the Old Testament has validity in its own right, or it doesn't. Jesus can't fix a badly written mythology after the fact. I agree with you that Jesus did indeed reject the teachings of the Old Testament. But as far as I'm concerned that just serves to prove that he couldn't have possibly been the son of that God. He didn't even agree with those teachings! He was obviously teaching the wisdom of Buddha and not the absurdities of the old Hebrew folklore. Absurdities that even YOU recognize and would like to separate Jesus from. The best way to do that is to simply recognize that Jesus was not the only begotten son of the fictitious godhead of the Old Testament but instead he was teaching the wisdom of the ways of Indian Buddhism. That solves everything right there. I didn’t know Jesus rejected the teaching of the old testament? KJV -Matthew 5:18-19 “For truly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass the law until all is accomplished. Whoever then relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but he who does them and teaches them shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.” Jesus didn't reject the teachings of the old testament. Matthew 5:17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. Jesus came to fulfil the old testament, not to destroy it, not to amend it, not to do anything with it but complete it. Exactly, so that would suggest that the old and the new Testaments are binding. They are binding?........ can you be more specific? I don't comprehend what you're meaning. Binding in what way? The old testament was the laws for the people before Jesus, with the prophecy of a saviour coming. Jesus "the saviour" came thus fulfilling the old testament and gave us the new testament. you are not correct here Jesus keeps telling the prophets that he did not come here to rewrite or make any new laws but to uphold them. John 10:35 the scripture cannot be broken referring to Matthew 5:17 again - Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets. Luke 16:17- It is easier for Heaven and Earth to pass away than for the smallest part of the letter of the law to become invalid I already used that verse, next time try using the entire verse not just a part of the verse. And notice the BUT TO FULFIL. Matthew 5:17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. ============================== Luke 16:17- It is easier for Heaven and Earth to pass away than for the smallest part of the letter of the law to become invalid This is from the new testament so the law that is being mentioned here is the law Jesus was giving us. the same old law which part don’t you understand. John7:19Did not Moses give you the law, and yet none of you keepeth the law and )& John 1:17 For the law was given by Moses The law moses was given is in the old testament. Why do you guys not like putting the entire verse? ============================================== John 7:19 Did not Moses give you the law, and none of you keepeth the law? Why go ye about to kill me? =============================================== Again, the law moses was given *old testament* gave a prophecy of a savior coming *Jesus*. So he's asking them why they didn't keep that law and why they want to kill him for all he's doing was fulfilling the law which was given to moses. you are twisting things to suit you, you very well know in numerous scriptures Jesus keeps saying he did not come to make any new laws as the old laws cannot be broken once thy are written and are binding forever. I think it is pretty clear. Here is a reminder for you if you are a believer that you are committing a sin right now. 2 Peter 20-21 Know this first of all, that there is no prophecy of scripture that is a matter of personal interpretation, for no prophecy ever came through human will; but rather human beings moved by the holy Spirit spoke under the influence of God for affirmations that you are wrong just thought of this one. Jesus gets upset with the Jews for not killing their children according to the old testament. Mark 7:10 Mark.7:9-13 "Whoever curses father or mother shall die" I could spend all day proving you wrong. |
|
|
|
Topic:
Richard Dawkins
|
|
It does support Christianity thank you very much. Give me one incident where God had someone judge someone in the NEW TESTAMENT. In the old testament people were judged on earth for their sins, eg., being stoned to death. The coming of Jesus changed that, Jesus is now the judge and has specifically told us not to judge anyone, for with what judgement we judge others it will be judged towards us as well now. You seem to miss the point here entirely. You can't use Jesus as an excuse for the Biblical God. If the Biblical God had commanded people "Thou shalt not Kill" and then went on to give a myriad of exceptions where this commandment doesn't hold. Then it truly doesn't matter what Jesus might have done at all. That would have been way too late. You can't have a schizophrenic God. Either the God of the Old Testament has validity in its own right, or it doesn't. Jesus can't fix a badly written mythology after the fact. I agree with you that Jesus did indeed reject the teachings of the Old Testament. But as far as I'm concerned that just serves to prove that he couldn't have possibly been the son of that God. He didn't even agree with those teachings! He was obviously teaching the wisdom of Buddha and not the absurdities of the old Hebrew folklore. Absurdities that even YOU recognize and would like to separate Jesus from. The best way to do that is to simply recognize that Jesus was not the only begotten son of the fictitious godhead of the Old Testament but instead he was teaching the wisdom of the ways of Indian Buddhism. That solves everything right there. I didn’t know Jesus rejected the teaching of the old testament? KJV -Matthew 5:18-19 “For truly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass the law until all is accomplished. Whoever then relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but he who does them and teaches them shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.” Jesus didn't reject the teachings of the old testament. Matthew 5:17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. Jesus came to fulfil the old testament, not to destroy it, not to amend it, not to do anything with it but complete it. Exactly, so that would suggest that the old and the new Testaments are binding. They are binding?........ can you be more specific? I don't comprehend what you're meaning. Binding in what way? The old testament was the laws for the people before Jesus, with the prophecy of a saviour coming. Jesus "the saviour" came thus fulfilling the old testament and gave us the new testament. you are not correct here Jesus keeps telling the prophets that he did not come here to rewrite or make any new laws but to uphold them. John 10:35 the scripture cannot be broken referring to Matthew 5:17 again - Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets. Luke 16:17- It is easier for Heaven and Earth to pass away than for the smallest part of the letter of the law to become invalid I already used that verse, next time try using the entire verse not just a part of the verse. And notice the BUT TO FULFIL. Matthew 5:17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. ============================== Luke 16:17- It is easier for Heaven and Earth to pass away than for the smallest part of the letter of the law to become invalid This is from the new testament so the law that is being mentioned here is the law Jesus was giving us. the same old law which part don’t you understand. John7:19Did not Moses give you the law, and yet none of you keepeth the law and )& John 1:17 For the law was given by Moses |
|
|
|
Topic:
Richard Dawkins
|
|
It does support Christianity thank you very much. Give me one incident where God had someone judge someone in the NEW TESTAMENT. In the old testament people were judged on earth for their sins, eg., being stoned to death. The coming of Jesus changed that, Jesus is now the judge and has specifically told us not to judge anyone, for with what judgement we judge others it will be judged towards us as well now. You seem to miss the point here entirely. You can't use Jesus as an excuse for the Biblical God. If the Biblical God had commanded people "Thou shalt not Kill" and then went on to give a myriad of exceptions where this commandment doesn't hold. Then it truly doesn't matter what Jesus might have done at all. That would have been way too late. You can't have a schizophrenic God. Either the God of the Old Testament has validity in its own right, or it doesn't. Jesus can't fix a badly written mythology after the fact. I agree with you that Jesus did indeed reject the teachings of the Old Testament. But as far as I'm concerned that just serves to prove that he couldn't have possibly been the son of that God. He didn't even agree with those teachings! He was obviously teaching the wisdom of Buddha and not the absurdities of the old Hebrew folklore. Absurdities that even YOU recognize and would like to separate Jesus from. The best way to do that is to simply recognize that Jesus was not the only begotten son of the fictitious godhead of the Old Testament but instead he was teaching the wisdom of the ways of Indian Buddhism. That solves everything right there. I didn’t know Jesus rejected the teaching of the old testament? KJV -Matthew 5:18-19 “For truly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass the law until all is accomplished. Whoever then relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but he who does them and teaches them shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.” Jesus didn't reject the teachings of the old testament. Matthew 5:17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. Jesus came to fulfil the old testament, not to destroy it, not to amend it, not to do anything with it but complete it. Exactly, so that would suggest that the old and the new Testaments are binding. They are binding?........ can you be more specific? I don't comprehend what you're meaning. Binding in what way? The old testament was the laws for the people before Jesus, with the prophecy of a saviour coming. Jesus "the saviour" came thus fulfilling the old testament and gave us the new testament. you are not correct here Jesus keeps telling the prophets that he did not come here to rewrite or make any new laws but to uphold them. John 10:35 the scripture cannot be broken referring to Matthew 5:17 again - Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets. Luke 16:17- It is easier for Heaven and Earth to pass away than for the smallest part of the letter of the law to become invalid |
|
|
|
Topic:
Richard Dawkins
|
|
It does support Christianity thank you very much. Give me one incident where God had someone judge someone in the NEW TESTAMENT. In the old testament people were judged on earth for their sins, eg., being stoned to death. The coming of Jesus changed that, Jesus is now the judge and has specifically told us not to judge anyone, for with what judgement we judge others it will be judged towards us as well now. You seem to miss the point here entirely. You can't use Jesus as an excuse for the Biblical God. If the Biblical God had commanded people "Thou shalt not Kill" and then went on to give a myriad of exceptions where this commandment doesn't hold. Then it truly doesn't matter what Jesus might have done at all. That would have been way too late. You can't have a schizophrenic God. Either the God of the Old Testament has validity in its own right, or it doesn't. Jesus can't fix a badly written mythology after the fact. I agree with you that Jesus did indeed reject the teachings of the Old Testament. But as far as I'm concerned that just serves to prove that he couldn't have possibly been the son of that God. He didn't even agree with those teachings! He was obviously teaching the wisdom of Buddha and not the absurdities of the old Hebrew folklore. Absurdities that even YOU recognize and would like to separate Jesus from. The best way to do that is to simply recognize that Jesus was not the only begotten son of the fictitious godhead of the Old Testament but instead he was teaching the wisdom of the ways of Indian Buddhism. That solves everything right there. I didn’t know Jesus rejected the teaching of the old testament? KJV -Matthew 5:18-19 “For truly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass the law until all is accomplished. Whoever then relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but he who does them and teaches them shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.” Jesus didn't reject the teachings of the old testament. Matthew 5:17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. Jesus came to fulfil the old testament, not to destroy it, not to amend it, not to do anything with it but complete it. Exactly, so that would suggest that the old and the new Testaments are binding. |
|
|