check this out!.
http://www.cnn.com/2004/tech/science/03/18/wildlife.gone.ap/index.html.
dy
I always take these "the sky is falling" reports with a grain of salt- I've been burned too many times by getting reactionary over such things. It may take decades for the truth to come out. It may be a natural, temporary setback, or it may be a a catastrophic endangerment or even extinction- time willl tell.
Love_truth- Ardent, but experienced, environmentalist.
so do you brown bag it, skip it, drink coffee instead, take out or dine out?.
i love to go out for lunch...... we have good mexican restaurants around here and sushi bars.
we also have a bbq here at work and we will make grocery runs so we can bbq up some nice steaks!
Every single day is different.
Some days, no lunch.
Other days, eat at home (office).
Other days, take customers (or prospective customers) out to lunch.
Still others, I take my love, and/or friends and/or family, out to lunch.
It is truly random.
Which is why I suppose I live life day by day, or else it is a symptom of doing so.
Cheers,
Love_Truth
i don't know what eles to call it , i guess it is the user name....lol.......so what does yours mean?.
i think awhile back i might have asked this,,,,,,,but it was way back and so many new ones here that i am just getting to know, and ones who came in here while i was not here as much.
there may be a thread on this in the last recent months, i am not sure,,,,if so, if there are any new ones who want to tell why they choose their user names,,,,,please do.. i will tell you why my name is lyineyes,,,,,many have asked me that here lately.
Love_Truth:
Mulltiple Choice:
(1)- Likes Obstinate Vile Exchanges _ Terrifying Ridiculer Ultimately Trusting Himself
(2)- Loves Outdoors Vigorous Exercise_ Triumphant Rigorous Utilitarian Tested Hamiltonian
(3)- Love Truth
(4)- Likely Omniscient Victory Everyday_ Totally Right Undermining Tautologies Heartily
(5)- Love-Truth: The unique and most important fact about our world religions is that while the symbols differ and the "Mental-Truth" often appears to be in conflict with another "Mental-Truth," a great number of people in all religions (including the Atheist Religion and the Communist Religion) have found some positive factor in their symbols (perhaps a very tiny one) that has enabled them to find the ineffable mystery of a universal "Love-Truth." This Love-Truth is something of the spirit - something of the emotions - something beyond mental symbols (words, ritual, music, art) but realized and experienced through many of the symbols each person has come to accept through a spiritual interpretation of the symbol. While accepting them, the individual's feelings and experiences have modified them. To the Catholic who has found "Love-Truth", the symbol of the Mass will have been modified by his own feelings and experience till it is uniquely his own. Strangely, the Communist can do the same with the singing of the "International". If they have found "Love-Truth", both may experience through these conflicting symbols the same feelings - which one may call "Love of God" and the other "Love of man" or "rights of man". But the actual feeling - the experience, the attitude, the inspiration - is the same in each of them and will be reflected in some kindness or tenderness to their friends or neighbors.
Love_Truth- Cast yer vote.
earlier a thread emerged, as they do so often, on whether or not god existed.
i stated that he does, unequivocally and without doubt.
i refused to preface the statement with the phrase "i believe".
Donk,
Your "court of Law" reference is a good one. Circumstantial evidence is the best either side has today.
I'll continue "pleading my case" with all the circumstantial evidence available, Abaddon, Rem, and company will obviously do likewise.
In the end, I highly suspect no one's opinions will change fundamentally, but I'm always a sucker for a good debate. Whether an atheist is willing to admit or not (and many or even most, are) atheistic theories attempting to explain the origin of things are as much faith based as Theist's belief in a Creator.
Same evidence, different conclusions.
Much like Theist's constant debates over Trinity, or not.
Cheers,
Love-Truth
P.S.- You're not so bad for a donkey, dude.
earlier a thread emerged, as they do so often, on whether or not god existed.
i stated that he does, unequivocally and without doubt.
i refused to preface the statement with the phrase "i believe".
Donk,
If they're truly imaginary. God is not imaginary, but very real, as we shall see.
So the imaginary friend you referred to must be yours! Now, toilet tissue (donkey=ass?) isn't imaginary, so you must be talking about your split personality again! Wait, your split personality is a confirmed fact, so you'll need to discuss your imaginary friend with your psycholgist!
Cheers,
Love_Truth
earlier a thread emerged, as they do so often, on whether or not god existed.
i stated that he does, unequivocally and without doubt.
i refused to preface the statement with the phrase "i believe".
Donkey,
I wont debate you, then. You can continue debating amongst your split personalities.
Cheers,
Love_Truth
earlier a thread emerged, as they do so often, on whether or not god existed.
i stated that he does, unequivocally and without doubt.
i refused to preface the statement with the phrase "i believe".
Donkey,
For now, the answer is yes. Follow along and perhaps you'll understand why.
Cheers,
Love_Truth.
earlier a thread emerged, as they do so often, on whether or not god existed.
i stated that he does, unequivocally and without doubt.
i refused to preface the statement with the phrase "i believe".
Rem and Abaddon,
I of course will reply to both of your posts. But meanwhile, I wonder if you realize that on the one hand, you call on others to be "subject matter experts", and berate those who have differing views, while on the otherhand, you believe your opinions, and the opinions of your hand-selected "subject matter experts" superior. Tyranny of Authority? Perhaps. I've already stated my background somewhat, and I obviously see nothing wrong with an Engineer or Physicist ripping any theory to shreds, we're quite good at analysis. I believe in letting arguments be judged on their merit. You've yet to prove evolution is anything more than a silly, wishful, pipe dream.
Do you really want me to go back to punch by punch (you said this, here's my retort) dissection of your so-called "refutations? You've refuted nothing thus far. You simply hold a different opinion. And that opinion is on shaky foundation, or no foundation at all. But I'll get to that later, in my response. Nonetheless, it appears you're (Abaddon, at least) suggesting you like that format better. I did address all of your issues in my last post, but for the sake of keeping the reply as short as possible, I left out your original quotes.
I'll see if I can compose a post that keys to your original points in a more forthright manner, then.
Love_Truth- loves tearing the ridiculously silly religion of evolution and other atheist "how did that happen" theories to shreds! This be fun!
for the sake of argument lets assume that the current nwt is correct in rendering proskuneo as "obesiance" .
"but when he again brings his firstborn into the inhabited earth, he says: 'and let all god's angels do obeisance to him" hebrews 1:6 the new world translation.. 1. if all (as in 100%) of the angels of god do obeisance to him, then he could not be an angel.
all (as in 100%) must include michael.
Ozziepost,
They indeed are all false Gods, but not all are false gods. There is a distinction:
John 10:34
Jesus answered them, "Is it not written in your Law, 'I have said you are gods'[ 10:34 Psalm 82:6] ?
(Whole Chapter: John 10 In context: John 10:33-35)
John 10:35
If he called them 'gods,' to whom the word of God came?and the Scripture cannot be broken?
(Whole Chapter: John 10 In context: John 10:34-36)
Acts 17:18
A group of Epicurean and Stoic philosophers began to dispute with him. Some of them asked, "What is this babbler trying to say?" Others remarked, "He seems to be advocating foreign gods." They said this because Paul was preaching the good news about Jesus and the resurrection.
(Whole Chapter: Acts 17 In context: Acts 17:17-19)
1 Corinthians 8:5
For even if there are socalled gods, whether in heaven or on earth (as indeed there are many "gods" and many "lords"),
(Whole Chapter: 1 Corinthians 8 In context: 1 Corinthians 8:4-6)
for the sake of argument lets assume that the current nwt is correct in rendering proskuneo as "obesiance" .
"but when he again brings his firstborn into the inhabited earth, he says: 'and let all god's angels do obeisance to him" hebrews 1:6 the new world translation.. 1. if all (as in 100%) of the angels of god do obeisance to him, then he could not be an angel.
all (as in 100%) must include michael.
hooberus,
Yes, I know that. I included my original quotation for clarity, (or so I thought).
Ozziepost,
Call it what you will, the Scriptures indicate that there are many "gods"(mentioned 238 times), but only one God:
