georgerussia

Twisting the reply the same way, didn't you say that the government needs to control their spending? Military is part of the government. However I didn't say that cost should be the primary consideration. I said that for them it's MUCH easier just to cancel the current contract, and build another facility for exclusive military use. You want it - no problem, it's on your money anyway. This is the answer to your "why did they apoligize and canceled this contract" - because this is the easiest way for them, and costs involved are not a concern. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

So could anyone explain why it has been appropriate all the time to cremate HUMANS and pets on those facilities before the media brought this bullshit up? After all, this facility wasn't opened yesterday, and I guess this is not the only facility which cremates both pets and humans on site. It looks like this is kind of "dead body discrimination" - i.e. if you die in U.S., it is completely appropriate to be cremated in such facility (otherwise I have no idea why the State allowed it to be constructed this way). Do you think that what is appropriate for remains of dead humans who die in America might not be appropriate for remains of dead humans who died in Iraq? I cannot understand your point. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

Because our media already made shit out of nothing - as they typically do. And for military it doesn't make sense to fight the media crap - it's much easier to request extra 10M dollars and build several more crematories. The only problem, the media won't pay those 10M. We will. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

The question was, how was what that family believed different from what you believe? Iraq was is completely irrelevant. But we just got to conclusion that nobody could be sure they are following true teaching of Jesus. You said it yourself that humans can be easily deceived, and you say it yourself that you cannot test the God, and therefore there is no reliable way to test whether you follow true teaching or not. So if you allege that the family did not follow true teaching of Jesus, and therefore expecting an act of mercy from your God was "putting God to the test", it might be true as well that you do not follow true teaching of Jesus, and expecting an act of mercy from your God (like saving you from eternal life in Hell - much more significant that saving someone with medically curable disease!) will also be "putting God to the test". So basically by this you are saying that your beliefs are not different from theirs, and although you think you follow true teachings of Jesus, you acknowledge you might be just deceived, and will end up in Hell because of that. Thus there is no real reason even to try to follow any teachings of Jesus - the chance you're deceived is too high, and not worth it. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

It's "free" in terms of "free lunch" you didn't pay for. The main problem, however, is the efforts needed to collect this energy. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

That's really funny how you ignore and remove important chunks of conversation. Nevertheless: Well, it's much more. You are now telling us what to do (like to read Gospels) - how could we know you are not deceived? How could you suggest anything to anyone who looking for the truth if you KNOW you might be deceived, and therefore could spread the wrong information? You cannot speak truth from your heart (which is just a muscle-based pump), because you do not know whether what you speak is truth, or you are just deceived. Note that you cannot test it, and therefore you will never know if you got the truth, or you are just deceived (because "you will not know you are being decieved"). This is irrelevant. How do you know? You think you do, but maybe in fact you do not. I'm sure the parents of the deceased girl were also one hundred percent sure they trust the grace of God in Jesus, and in fact they did put her life in his hands. I'd say that in this case your "loving" and "caring" God revealed to be just a heartless snob - he let the girl die because their parents maybe violated (in your interpretation) some rule. Even non-loving and non-caring courts would not do that. But your Jesus just did. Shame in him. I want you to follow your own logic, and agree that: 1. You might be deceived (and in fact not following Jesus); 2. There is no way for you to test whether you folllow Jesus or not; 3. Therefore you should assume you are deceived (the stake is high - ethernal torture in Hell!) until proven otherwise. That's your interpretation, and you could be deceived. Why should I trust you? Maybe that's Satan talking to me through you! * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

Has anyone asked about characteristics of fruit? Does anyone here ever discussed characteristics of fruits? Why is it so hard to answer a question directly? "Great faith" is nonsense. If you have faith, it is either true (i.e. the subject of your faith exist), or it is not. It doesn't matter how great it is. Since when asking God to save your loved one from pain became putting God to the test? Ok, I see your point now. If they prayed and she got better - you would tell us it's a proof the God exist, and that "the good always comes to the believer". And if they pray and she dies - you still see it as a proof the God exists. You just change the message with "they were putting God to the test". Basically no matter what happens - according to you it will always be proof of God existence. You will only change the message. That is the reason you cannot prove your point to any reasonable person. Maybe you're the one who has been deceived already. You cannot prove otherwise, since you cannot test your God, and your own perception/opinion could obviously be wrong (since you said that "the very nature of deception is that you will not know you are being decieved"). So how could you be sure you are not? * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

I understand. Basically, you just said that there is no way you could prove your God exists, since it will be considered "tempting your God". Thus there is nothing left to talk, since you cannot prove anything you say. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

This is not true, since there is no "self employer tax" - you just have to pay those other 7.5% of SS tax. So it should be 7.5 + 7.5 + 19; however since first 7.5 + 7.5 paid reduce your Fed adjusted gross income (unfortunately not state income), you're paying 19% from the rest, not from the total amount. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

I prefer "God blows you". Haven't heard it for a while though. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

You still didn't understand. I'm talking about how could you prove God exist, not what Gospel tells us. That's why I said that I cannot see your point - i.e. what point did you try to make by writing that. Before discussing the way to enter Heaven, I'd like to see a proof there is Heaven. No, I don't. I need a proof the God you believe in exists. Only then it would make any sense to discuss whether it's compassionate or not. I cannot. Allah, Buddha, Odin and Zeus gonna kill me. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

That what you say. It might not be true though; you might be mistaken, or even lying. Obviously I'll need much more proof beyond someone's words. This is just a theory. So far I have never heard about atheists going to church to tell the people that the God does not exist. I, however, have personally seen several prophets (from different confessions) coming to my home, workplace, military unit, whatever to tell us about God and how it loves us. During my whole life I have never seen any atheist ringing the bell to ask me whether I know that the God does not exist. I, however, just in 2008 have met two Christians who came to my home to share their findings with me. I know several religious holidays, and know no atheist holidays. Maybe you had different experience? Hold on, this is not what I asked. Please answer how many hours you spent trying to convince yourself Santa Claus does not exist? Then we could discuss what seems to be another round of Christianity bullshit of how Christians are more accountable, have higher morale and are holier-than-thou in general. It's irrelevant. I know they did not - because so far I have never seen nobody being able to provide any reasonable answers. "Just accept Jesus" cannot answer any question, and this is basically a typical answer. Which God? If I'm serious about seeking the existence of Buddha, Zeus, Odin or Allah Almighty, why should I read Gospels? You don't think any of them is real? But could you prove it? Oh my God is bigger than yours! * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

You missed your earlier quote, which said: "If the object of ones faith is true it will produce good works of great value, over and over again & for every one who places their faith in those objects. Christian teaching as an object of faith will never fail the believer. " So I assumed that those "good works" are somehow visible, and benefit those who places their faith. Now, according to you, it does not benefits the believers in any visible way, and therefore you cannot state that if the object of ones faith is true it will produce anything which could be measured, therefore proving the existence of the object of faith. Note that the question is NOT whether this "object of faith exists and produces something, which makes us happy". The question is that we need to see what's produced, and link it with this "object of faith" to make sure it exists. Maybe I didn't make myself clear in previous reply; hope now it's easier to understand my point. I completely missed your point here. I completely missed your point here as well. You seems to be talking to yourself now. No, it does. If you cured blindness, walked over water and then made a claim like that, it would make sense - you already proved things. What happens now is I'm trying to find a way for you to prove your point, and you are trying to find another way why you cannot prove your point. However at the same time you still think your point is valid, which is kinda amusing. No. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

I would change a lot. First, I'd need to understand its relationship to me. I could perfectly assume a situation where some kind of superdeity cares only about Pluto, and doesn't give a shit about what happens on Earth. I don't. I need proof of his existence. If this proof is absent - non-existense is assumed by default. Otherwise you must as well assume there is an invisible HuttoButto which will eat up your soul if you don't drink at least a bottle of beer a day. After all, do you have any proof that HuttoButto does NOT exist? Do you have any proof that Santa Claus does not exist? It is irrelevant. Nobody says you should not seek God, and if you find one you like (some find Zeus, some Odin, some Jehova, some Budda) - that's good. Personally I only get concerned when someone who believes he found God tries to share his findings with the rest of us, usually in a forcible way like trying to force everyone to study his God in school. They do not. Ask yourself, how many hours have you spent trying to convince yourself that Santa Claus is not real? Same with us. Why is it so hard to understand? * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

Then how it could be proof of the God's existense (see the original post)? I could understand how it could prove it if you receive something - but how could it prove anything if you just give? After all, an atheist and a Christian are giving in the same way, it doesn't look different. A lot. So what? Your Jesus said that if you have two shirts, give away one - so basically if you have more than one shirt, you did not give to poor enough, no matter how good Christian you think you are. You will never be able to give enough. A funny thing also is that Christians give to poor because their Jesus said so, and they have to do it if they want to be saved. Atheists, however, do it because they just think it's right thing to do, and do not expect to be "saved" for doing that. The problem is, where is the proof? I could also claim that anyone who didn't get me $100 will scream in agony after death. Your claim is no different. Well, you are not Jesus. If you did just 1% of what Jesus allegerly did, nobody would ask you to do anything. I'm sorry, my friend, you completely missed the point of discussion. We are not talking about what you should or should not do. We are talking about existence of the God. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

This would imply that he is not sure about the God's good intention to save him, or maybe even questions the existense of God itself! Wouldn't this be a sign of disrespect to God Almighty, which should carry grave cosequences? * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

I personally know several Christians (some of them even being ministers for their whole life) who died in painful death. I personally know more than one Christian family which is poor, and needs some basic stuff. I also suspect that at least some of those who died at 9/11 were failthful Christians, while non-Christian Osama Bin Laden who didn't die (and probably doesn't suffer either) lives just fine. There are of course more examples where Christians are in need, suffer meaninglessly or just die in a wrong way. They all believe in God, and therefore - according to you - it should produce good works of great value, over and over again, for each of them. So why do they suffer? Why the object of their faith failed the believers? Are you sure? Then you should be able to take Billvon's challenge - jump from a plane (or tall building) without a chute, and let your God save you. Make it public, invite a lot of scientists, press and whatever - it will make obvious for any of those damn atheists that the God exists. Since it never failed you, you should be pretty comfortable with this. So where and when could we see it? * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

You sound like a prophet - a lot of words, but nothing specific. What you just wrote could be interpreted in a many different ways. Could you please explain it being more specific? Also nobody challenges that "faith in God" is true. But it's not evidence that God exists. A lot of people truly believe in Tooth Fairy, or Santa Claus - but it doesn't make them real either. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

So what is worth then? In a dispute I need the evidence to convince others, not to convince myself - so it doesn't matter how reliable this "evidence" is to me. That's what most Christians cannot understand - that their "evidence" could only be considered acceptable by other Christians (since it's based on beliefs), and therefore cannot be used when they dispute with non-Christians. They, however, still try to use it, telling us that we should accept their evidence just because they consider it acceptable. Correct. That's why if you are looking for the REAL facts, there are very strict rules about evidence acceptance. The courts, and the science have those. Christians have those rules as well. The difference, however, is that science first considers the evidence, and then makes the theory - which may be changed in future, if there is reliable contradicting evidence. For Christians it's exactly the opposite - they already have the theory, so they just discard all the evidence which does not fit into their theory no matter how reliable the evidence is. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

I already said that every environmentalist should have a strict quota for gas and electricity consuming - to decrease demand. So far, however, it looks like most of them could only do one thing, which is bitching. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

I'd add one more. Obama does not campaign as "the first black President", even though he could. He campaigns as a politician who happen to be black, and doesn't play race card, which is smart from him. Hillary, however, does campaign as "the first woman President", playing the sexism card every time she could. A racism/sexism card might have worked if voting wasn't anonymous. But it is, so it will not. Looks like H. just understood that. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

But then I can say that seeing a flower as evidence of NO God is also accurate according to dictionary definition of "evidence." That's why not all evidence is considered acceptable. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

I wonder that you, as Christian supporter, do not know that. Does your minister tell you that your God wants everyone to be rescued through divine salvation, and there are things that one should do (and other things the one should not do)? If there was really evidence that Christ did resurrect, you wouldn't need any further evidence, not to say logic. The problem is there is no such evidence. The closest thing you have is the second (at least) hand hearsay. You have exactly the same evidence to prove the existence of Zeus and Athena. In fact my kids have much more evidence that Santa Claus exists - they personally witnessed the gifts left by Him - than you have for Jesus resurrection. Could you please make it clear whether you're talking about /scientic/ evidence or you're talking about beliefs? The real evidence is there, and it does not require any beliefs - you do not need to believe into evaporation, inertia or force of gravity. If your "evidence" requires belief - and, in fact, is based on those beliefs - it's not an evidence. And those who already believe do not need any evidence either. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

That's what we are looking for. If Christians just claim that there is a God named Jesus who lives on Pluto and doesn't give shit about anyone else, there would be probably no questions at all. This way the fact whether this Jesus really exists or not is not relevantl for most people, since it does not affect anyone's life. However Christians make it different. After they allege that God exist, they start claiming that this God requires all of us to behave in some specific way, and doing so will benefit everyone. This is where we start getting problems, since the stake is now much higher, and therefore we need at least some evidence to support those changes. That's why nobody really challenges existence of Tooth Fairy or Santa Claus, and you see little to no people challenging existence of Buddha, but you see a lot of people challenging existence of Christian God. Since you cannot prove the existence of your God, and cannot explain why your God cannot prove it himself - being supernatural it should not have any problem to him. Fine; let's give you some handicap and assume that some God exist. Now you need to prove that this God _does_ want something we should do. This means your God must iteract with us in a way, which should be obvious to those people who do NOT do the stuff he wants us to do. Think of it like the police - they make it clear that going over speed limit is wrong. Therefore you must have _scientific_ evidence of how God iteracts to a person who is not doing things right, and how the things changed after the person started doing things right. Could you share it? * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

Continually blaming ANYONE for your problems is not the solution. Only when we stop blaming someone else when we fucked up, we will start making any progress. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *