A truly HORRIFIC tsunami picture

On 8 Jan 2005 18:41:07 GMT, Roland Karlsson wrote:
Fletis Humplebacker ! wrote in :

The triune nature has never been a problem too me.
The problem I have is to see why it should be a problem.

People like things simple and neat.

I think the triune (hmmm ... did not know that word before
is as simple as it gets. "You shall not have any Gods
beside me!" OK - I don't see three Gods - so I see no problems.
Why make things complicated?

so convenient. take some neighboring religions, notice there are now three
gods and simply declare "no, their one."

It's three three three gods in one. Like a toilet bowl cleaner commercial.

TCS wrote in
:

so convenient. take some neighboring religions, notice there are now
three gods and simply declare "no, their one."

As I said - I don't see the three Gods anywhere
in the Christian religion. Others do - like you
I assume - but I don't. You may call it convenient
if you like.

Shiva and Rama and Thor and Brahe and all those.
They are different Gods from one or more religions.

And mind you - I don't really care. If there were
more Gods and the Bible said there was one - just
one more inconsistency among many. The Bible is
written by humans and the information is interpreted
by humans. Why should it be 100% correct?


/Roland

wrote in message
oups.com...

eawckyegcy spewed:

Mxmanic and Inaccessible are completely ignorant and apparently
ineducable; do not follow them around, or you will likely step in
their mental excrement. (It really smells!)

So let me get this straight, if they don't think and believe the same as
you, they are ignorant? How big of you you narrow minded mental midget
cretin.

In article
,
TCS wrote:

Why make things complicated?

so convenient. take some neighboring religions, notice there are now three
gods and simply declare "no, their one."

It's three three three gods in one. Like a toilet bowl cleaner commercial.

And your studying up on what? How to be the chief ass,...stands to
reason.

In article ,
Roland Karlsson wrote:

Inaccessible wrote in newsandemonium-
:

I fail to see the purpose of the universe without me.
Maybe you feel otherwise.

That was probably the most ego-centric thing I ever have read

So - when you die - Universe does not have to exist any more?

My Taoist and Christian beliefs work well together :-)

Only if one believes there is no existence for oneself beyond mortal
life.

In article ,
Mxsmanic wrote:

Inaccessible writes:

A better question to consider is: Are all contemplated ideas possible
in their execution? The answer is it depends.

Some say that anything imaginable is possible, otherwise it could not be
imagined.

I like that saying.

In article
,
TCS wrote:

On Thu, 06 Jan 2005 14:22:41 GMT, Inaccessible
wrote:
In article
,
TCS wrote:


If Bush was killing and invading based on religious arguments, then
perhaps
that would be a valid criticism.
He isn't.


He is. He's admitted it.

Prove it.

Try pulling your head out of your ass sometime and read some news other than
fox.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q...oogle+Sea rch
http://www.economist.com/world/na/di...ory_id=3502861

Mr Bush is in fact in the mainstream of recent presidents. As Michael
Cromartie of the Ethics and Public Policy Centre points out, Jimmy Carter
taught Sunday school while president. Bill Clinton talked about Jesus more
often than Mr Bush and has spoken in more churches than Mr Bush has had
rubber-chicken dinners.

Nor, in the American context, is the president's belief that God is involved
in the world's affairs exactly ground-breaking. The last paragraph of the
declaration of independenceno lessstarts by appealing to the Supreme Judge of
the world and ends with a firm reliance on the protection of divine
providence. Both references in America's founding document are considerably
more sectarian than Mr Bush's comment about God not being neutral between
freedom and fear. They associate God with America's national interest; Mr
Bush did not.

Did you even read the text (probably not).


http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0630-04.htm
http://www.traditionalvalues.org/mod...rticle&sid=808

Based on your quoted text I fail to see how either makes your point.
Basically what you have stated is an opinion, which in my opinion is
incorrect.

In article
,
TCS wrote:

On Thu, 06 Jan 2005 14:22:41 GMT, Inaccessible
wrote:
In article
,
TCS wrote:


If Bush was killing and invading based on religious arguments, then
perhaps
that would be a valid criticism.
He isn't.


He is. He's admitted it.

Prove it.

Try pulling your head out of your ass sometime and read some news other than
fox.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q...oogle+Sea rch
http://www.economist.com/world/na/di...ory_id=3502861

Mr Bush is in fact in the mainstream of recent presidents. As Michael
Cromartie of the Ethics and Public Policy Centre points out, Jimmy Carter
taught Sunday school while president. Bill Clinton talked about Jesus more
often than Mr Bush and has spoken in more churches than Mr Bush has had
rubber-chicken dinners.

Nor, in the American context, is the president's belief that God is involved
in the world's affairs exactly ground-breaking. The last paragraph of the
declaration of independenceno lessstarts by appealing to the Supreme Judge of
the world and ends with a firm reliance on the protection of divine
providence. Both references in America's founding document are considerably
more sectarian than Mr Bush's comment about God not being neutral between
freedom and fear. They associate God with America's national interest; Mr
Bush did not.

Did you even read the text (probably not).


http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0630-04.htm
http://www.traditionalvalues.org/mod...rticle&sid=808

Based on your quoted text I fail to see how either makes your point.
Basically what you have stated is an opinion, which in my opinion is
incorrect.

in regards to this image, yea it is extremely disturbing, and maybe even
unethical, but it shocks us into reality. im a A level photography
student, and feel that this image is disturbing, but it is images like
this one, that are unble to be documented, which shock us into
providing help. images like this are not documented due to the massive
uproar and upset they cause.


--
stevie-lou
brought to you by http://www.wifi-forum.com/

wrote in :

This question only persists because the word "sound" does not have a
single, precise meaning.

Yes, it causes rarifactions and compressions in the air.

No, no human hears a sound, but the rarefactions and compressions of the
air may reach someone too far away to distinguish the sound.

This is acually not true

The reason for the question has nothing to do with semantics
of the word hear. The reason is that one interpretation of
Quantum Theory is that conciousness is needed to collapse
the wave functions. So - no one concious listening/looking/sensing
- nothing happens, and there can be no sound.

Personally - I don't think this interpretation is reasonable.
The main reason for this is the simple question - what happened
before there were any concious beings?


/Roland