Mister P-Mosh

So what would be correct then? God is all good and all powerful so his acts of evil are good, yet he is not powerful enough to give us the understanding to see why his acts are really good? So's the bible, now where does that get us? A polio vaccine could prevent illness, but it's not 100%, nor was it created by the doctor from nothing. The doctor isn't the one curing, but he gives the vaccine that cures. In the case of a doctor, I could still have a valid concern or other ideas even though I do not have as much expertise on an issue as he would. With the bible, the same thing holds true. The fact that I don't have a PhD in studying the book of Acts doesn't mean I can't find flaws with what is written. The point is that what would be mistakes to me would be "God meant to do that" to you. There's no point in arguing it I guess, but I am distrustful of these things by nature so unless your mythical god could prove he is real and that he has a plan, there's no reason for me to believe it. If I am dodging it, I'm not the only one. The problem is that your analogies are too limited in nature. Either your god is finite in some way, or you can't really make analogies that will stick. Trying to solve math equations with infinity as one of the values will get you nowhere. Since 100% of people have died or will die, I don't really see Christianity, which is supposed to result in eternal life, as saving anyone at this point. Maybe it will happen, who knows, but there's no proof that Christianity is right and everything else is wrong. That's my point. Any effect Christianity has can be replicated with other religions and experiences, including the lack of religion. Why do Christians believe that Jesus talked to God but scoff at the idea of the priestesses at Delphi? There's no way to prove either are more valid than the other. Why do you accept Christianity but not believe in Santa Claus? How can you tell which is true and which is false? You've yet to prove me wrong though. I disagree, I'm simply stating the problems with believing in an all-knowing all-powerful god. As far as striking you down with lightning, I wouldn't do it. I'd only reveal myself as a god to you and convince you to go around trying to tell others about me. The person who writes the rules of physics would not be bound to mathematics, except as he wishes but even then it wouldn't really be true. There is no logical way to prove that any gods exist. Perhaps, but the point is that it is not logical for there to be any all-knowing all-powerful beings. So what rules do you think exist for non-Christians? If everyone will be judged, there should be a set of guidelines somewhere for those that don't believe in gods but do try to be good people. The bible is obsessed with demanding devotion to biblegod, and the morals surround that concept. I'm not a "theophobe" but instead unwilling to put the blinders back on that I had in TWI. I see things clearly now and I don't feel like backing down for those that arrogantly believe I am going to go to Hell or that I am inferior because I find flaws with the bible and the concepts therein. If "no man come unto the father but by me" according to Jesus, and most of the world doesn't believe Jesus was god/son of god/whatever then we should be bound for Hell. So, my estimation would be accurate unless you have some other source of morals that biblegod would be judging people based on. How do you know these things if you don't subscribe to the Christian dogma? The bible is pretty clear in it's stance on some of these things, and if you don't believe them why do you consider yourself a Christian? It sounds like a lot of your beliefs come from external sources, some of which would contradict the bible. What makes those sources valid enough for you to believe in things that contradict the bible? Well, if he exists, and if it happens in the way that you believe, I'd ask him where the hell he's been and why did he make such a f*cked up place. I'm limited in every way as a human being, a creature, a member of the most intelligent animal species on Earth. If biblegod does view us as children, he created a race of latchkey children, and I see no reason to respect such a thing. Perhaps hypocracy is a word to describe it, but honesty is a better one, in my opinion. I see no reason to suck up to a being that may not exist and has no tangible benefit for believing in. If anything, I don't appreciate the idea of extorting "love" out of people by holding the thought of eternal damnation over their heads if they don't love you. That's not free will, it's coercion. If God exists and he wanted me to know differently, well he had the foreknowledge and the power to do something about it but failed to. I would just be a shadow of a thought in his lucid dreams.

Sorry, I just get frustrated with the new GOP attacks against anyone who doesn't agree with them comparing them to Nazis and Communists, which they complained about very vocally before when some people compared Bush to Hitler.

Your still ignoring the fact that if 1) God is completely good, and 2) God is omniscent, he would have to do everything within his power to prevent problems, which should mean that problems would never occur because he's omniscent. It's very simple logic. I'll take that into consideration, but I'm pretty sure you know what I meant anyway. --> There is no way to compare a doctor to a god because doctors can not prevent problems in the first place, nor do they have infinite power. That's why the argument is very important, in my opinion. Great, but there are people who adamantly believe that drinking their own urine cures cancer as well. That doesn't mean I have to believe it. Also, I can find stories of non-Christians who say their faith, whether Islam, buddhism, etc. saved them just as much. That contradicts the idea of biblegod saying, "Thou shalt put no other gods before me." So either the bible is wrong, or all of the other religions out there are and their adherents are liars. That's too egotistical of a statement for anyone to really say and believe, since as you agree there's not much proof as to the existance of any gods. I base it on common logic, which if I was created by an infinitely powerful god who lives outside of time and space, would have known I would come to these conclusions based on the tools of reasoning that he gave to me. Therefore, my logic of questioning of the existance of biblegod would be exactly what he wanted me to do, since he would have seen in his foreknowledge that this is what I would say when he created me. The same would apply to you as well, which would mean that if your god is real, and the information in the bible is accurate, he created both of us in such a way that we would be opposed on issues like this and he would have purposely set us up in a way that we would argue. It would also mean that our free will is a joke, unless he found some way to limit himself, which would mean that he is not all-powerful. If he didn't make the rules, then there would be one higher than him and thus the bible would not be accurate. If he did make the rules and still allows bad things to happen to innocent good people, then the bible is not accurate in stating that he is just. I am happy though, because with that statement I think you're starting to understand where I am coming from as to how it is not logically possible for an omniscent and good being to create something like the world we live in. Game theory would not apply to gods. If you are incapable of mistakes, and write a computer program that would play chess against you using a specific pattern of moves, you would always be able to beat it, and if not, you could simply rewrite it and recompile, but if you were perfect you would have gotten it right the first time. Is this not your post stating that? The pit is a fiery place which is what most people think of as Hell. You know as well as I do that the bible says that biblegod is no respecter of persons and that the conditions of being "good" according to the bible all wrap around and start with respecting some diety from a branch of Judaism, whether it's Judaism, Christianity, or Islam. The rest of us fail the 1st commandment test as well as other areas of the bible, so the rest of us would go to Hell.

I believe that in reality it's saying, "I can see flaws in this doctrine, so if it is based on a supposedly perfect being, then that being is not really perfect as the doctrine isn't." You know, the word of god is the will of god, and all that. Add to that the fact that there is no solid evidence of the existance of any of the dieties in question, and it makes a fairly compelling case for atheism or agnosticism. The fallacy in your argument is because doctors would not be supreme beings, because if a doctor actually was omniscent, they could save the person from cancer without any surgery. They could simply want the person to be cured and they would be cured. Plus, there's no proof that Christianity ever saved anyone from anything. Not at all, because if there was a supreme being that wanted us to be it's "children" then it would have given us the capability to recognize it and then choose to love it or not to love it. The fact is that I've personally not found any reason to believe that such a being exists, so that would mean that if omniscent gods do exist they are purposely being decietful and hiding themselves from my limited understanding. If your god made the rules, then he could make exceptions, particularly at the beginning when his supposed foresight should have been used to look for places where the rules would not be right. The inventor of chess also didn't have the foresight to see every game of chess that would ever be played, as well as the ability to make sure that every person who played the game that he wanted to win would win based on the way he set up the rules. An omniscent being could do that. Most protestant sects of Christianity do think that their god is to blame for all of that, and that their god will send most people to hell. Even you seem to believe that many if not most people will go to hell for not believing in an invisible diety that you can't prove exists.

I'll remind you of this when this piece of propaganda is released. Of course, they already lie in the title, at least Moore can't be accused of something that bad right from the start. Face it, the Republicans have a lot more in common with the rise of the Nazi party and the Communist party in Russia than the Democrats do. The Democrats can't be both wimpy fag-loving cowards who cry whenever someone cracks a joke about people from Instanbul, and evil terrorist supporters trying to turn America into a communist wasteland at the same time. The Republicans have so demonized anyone that dissents from them that the conservatives are too afraid to think logically and realize that it's a load of B.S. because they're too busy being afraid. Just like the Nazis made the average German afraid of the Jews, the Republicans have demonized everyone that is not a white Christian conservative. Conservatives seriously contemplate styrofoam coolers as implements of terrorism, while North Korea threatening to nuke us is just posturing that they would never follow up on. The Republicans push a culture of fear, and unfortunately a good number of people buy into it. Right now, there are enough ....ed off people pushing for such un-Republicanlike ideals as personal responsibility and government accountability, while saying that an important part to fighting terrorists is to not cower in fear behind duct tape and plastic sheeting.

I think that the difference is that in the old testament, they based Jehovah off of the ancient Babylonian religions, which had stories of Marduk which eventually evolved into Jehovah. If you look at some of their stories and some of the earlier old testament, you'd be suprised at their similarities. The new testament "God" has changed his nature because society changed since then. Where the Babylonians were a more vengeful people, the ancient Greeks had introduced ideas of equality and fairness, which must have rubbed off on those other societies in the area over the years, up through the time of the Romans. I think that is why the early Christians were different than the older religious, including Judaism.

However, Jehovah would have been responsible for both using his power to create Lucifer, as well as knowing that he would turn on him, yet doing nothing to prevent that. That makes Jehovah at least an accessory, if not directly responsible.

Heh, well as bad as Michael Moore can be, he's no Wierwille, or as I used to say when I was a little kid, "Doctor Werewolf." He tries to make his movies to be fairly simple, for whatever reason. Hmmm...I would agree with you, but the cheap shots are the humor I think. I don't really recall anything funny that wasn't a cheap shot at someone. I agree completely. He pretty much avoided the controversial claims and although he said things without saying them (e.g. saying A + B equals something, and C exists" I don't think he really said anything that wasn't documented somewhere. I'm pretty sure you're right in your estimation of the movie as being geared towards the uninformed. Even for those of us that agree with his views on Bush, it was nice to see because it made a case for what people like me have been saying long before Michael Moore got around to it, and with the video clips he uses it seems a little more credible than me saying, "Bush did this" when you have a video of Bush saying it. The example of Bush playing golf was an attempt to show his hypocracy by showing him saying something about how all the politicians in the other countries need to do something about terrorism, then he doesn't miss a beat and goes straight to playing golf. It insinuates that if he really cared, he wouldn't have been out playing games. That is combined with the statistic of Bush spending 42% of his first 9 months as president on vacation, plus the fact that he didn't immediately order attacks against the Taliban, and actually was looking for a way to blame Iraq at first. Actually I was impressed with how non-partisan most of the film was. He was very damning of the Bush administration and the Bush family, but I think he made the Democratic party look worse as a group than he did the Republican party. It was a Democrat that he recorded admitting that none of congress actually reads anything they sign, he blamed the Democrats for failing to support Gore, and he condemned the Democrats for blindly supporting the war in Iraq. I'm not sure why either, although the woman who lost her son was a very interesting case. The fact was that she supported the war in Iraq at first, as well as saying she encouraged her kids to join the military to pay for school because she couldn't afford it, and was your typical somewhat conservative person before her son was sent to Iraq. Afterwards, she got letters from her son that complained about the war, and then when his blackhawk went down, she gravitated completely against Bush where she had been a lukewarm supporter before. I think the point Moore was trying to make is that it's ok to not support the war in Iraq, because it's not just fringe elements that are against it. A point he probably should have made clearer is that we should respect the position of President of the United States, but that doesn't mean we have to blindly respect the person occupying it either. Combining your opinion with mine, I'm still sure we come up short to how humorous Moore views himself. From what I hear, a lot of people were relieved that he didn't focus this movie on himself like he apparently did in his previous films. I think that another strong quote was when the Marine that refused to go back to Iraq said that he sees no reason for him to be sent over there just to kill other poor people. I think because we're in the middle of this culture we don't see the huge gulf between the rich and poor on many levels. We do have it a lot easier than many other nations to move from one to another, but it still seems to me like the wealthy are trying to fight to keep their club exclusive...as well as trying to have sort of a feudal system where they call the shots. All in all, I've not really heard anything too bad about this movie from anyone that has actually seen it. I even read on FreeRepublic (a far-right discussion and news site) a review where the guy grudgingly said that it was effective and would be difficult for the right to counter.

That has nothing to do with the film, but it's just a typical discussion of a bunch of ex-cultist loonies with a Wierwillian background. Hopefully as this thread gets longer, you can apply the key of scripture buildup.

I meant so in a first-hand sort of experience. The comfort of thongs is something that I accept without worrying about because it is a benefit for women, but I'd not want to wear one to see just how comfortable it really is.

Two solutions: If I have to use a public bathroom, I don't sit down but instead squat, my rear hovering above the seat. At home or elsewhere, if I have to sit down, I don't let my wang hang down into the bowl and instead leave it above on the seat. This often results in me having a .... and flushing that before I sit down. I have no idea why the two are connected, but I do them seperately and it's ok.

From what I've been told by a thong-wearer, they are good because they don't show pantylines on tight pants. They are also supposedly comfortable somehow (I don't understand nor do I want to.)

Well, some were probably questioned, and others were completely let off the hook, which is why the 9/11 Commission looked into this. There's no question that they were let off the hook entirely too easily. Of course, there were exceptions made at least for Saudis to be able to fly around while all others were grounded. Here is another example. It doesn't list any bin Ladens, but the government initially denied that any such flights took place, and changed their stories for the 9/11 Commission. Ummm, I don't know what snopes site you read, but the normal one says this: Perhaps you read the original which was incorrect (nobody is perfect) but the bin Ladens did get a break. Of course, they were not the only ones. There is a lot of confusion about this event, but the fact that our government was allowing Saudis to fly out of the country when we had just been attacked by Saudi terrorists is not a good thing. Also, in the movie Moore doesn't claim that they were never questioned, but that they were not extensively questioned. E.g. someone asked their name and to see their passports before they left the U.S. Anyway, the point is that what Moore said in the film was not B.S., although many people have mischaracterized what he said as such. Also, it's not suprising that you believe much to be false since the government lied about it until fairly recently.

If you don't see it and have no idea what it's really about, what will be the basis for your unfounded criticism of the film?

My wife and I saw it too. It's probably the most pro-military movie I've ever seen, which suprised me. It seemed like half of the movie was spent on telling the stories of the military and their families. I was also impressed how even though Moore is very against Bush (and thus seemingly pro-Democrat) he did get some jabs in on the Democrats as well, such as how they failed to support Gore when he seemingly won, even to the point of refusing to support the recounts. This was an excellent film, and I agree that everyone should see it. It was all old information, but it was presented in such a way that your average person would be able to understand and pay attention.

So a pirate walks into a bar with a steering wheel attached to his crotch. The bartender looks at him and says, "Excuse me sir, but doesn't that steering wheel attached to your privates hurt?" The pirate stands firm, looks at the bartender and says, "Aye matey, it's drivin' me nuts."

Nope, but other people seem to be climbing closer to the top of the ****pile that I wouldn't have expected. Of course, I don't know them from outside of TWI but they do seem like they are decent people, so perhaps they can't progress higher without being corrupt. I have a feeling that to be on the BOD "cabinet" or higher you have to have stopped believing in TWI doctrine.

He has the right because this is his website. That doesn't mean we have to agree with him or do what he says, but he does have that right. It's his "house" and he can set the rules for it. That's not to say we have to be blind like in TWI, but that when we are guests on someone else's property, we should try to concede to their rules.

I've had some major computer problems lately, just getting XP to install on a new PC. I've given up and installed Mandrake Linux real quick, but I'm going to change to Fedora I think to get a more modern version. Microsoft screwed me over for the last time!

Actually, my family was not in TWI yet, and I was still in diapers during that time. :D-->

No offense, but this site belongs to pawtucket and he is the only one who has any right to tell us how we should behave and what we should talk about around here. It may not have been your intention but it sounded like you were trying to get bossy over the rest of us because you want all of us to change to make you happy, rather than you either changing yourself or simply not reading the stuff you don't like. Granted, this thread was started by you, so I can see why you wouldn't like sarcastic responses, but given that the general theme of this site is negative towards TWI, it is expected. What you did was effectively logged into a holocaust survivor message board, then asked if anyone has a copy of Mein Kampf.

Probably, if it's the one that deals with the guy who the clown insults, then he goes off and spends years coming up with a good response before going back to the circus and giving the clown a response. Of course, another joke in that same theme is one that I know, which is absolutely the most offensive joke of all time.

I got the joke, but it was no clown joke. I expected that.

I'll be nice as long as they don't come at a bad time (such as at 7am on a Saturday), and that if I tell them I am not interested, they don't tell me I'm going to hell or keep trying to sell me on their religion. If a witnesser were to be rude to me, I'd have to tell them to STFU (crossposted from another thread because it seemed appropriate.)

The ministry is behind your family, but since "God" comes ahead of your family, they sneak the allegiance to TWI in there by making themselves seem inseperable from God.