Tigron-X

That is an absolute fallacy! I don't know where you get your expertise on Christianity, but I'm willing to guess it's all based on some sort of hearsay or elementary conjecture as opposed to any actual study of the Bible and it's history. After all, you've already falsely claimed that the Church founders wrote the scriptures. In the end, one's understanding of Bible scripture will change, but the message remains the same and always has. It's you that changes, not scripture. You're still assuming that every individual who has ever come up to you and claimed to be a Christian actually had knowledge of what that means, let alone a belief structure based on actual scripture. All in all, anything a Christian says regarding the message in the Bible has to be unequivocally based on scripture. If it's not, then I'm sure we both can agree that his/her statements or expressed beliefs are nothing more than a fallacy, and maybe even fantasy. Furthermore, any expressed understanding has to be in harmony on a whole of the Bible and not just in part to be truly Christian. If you want the Christian definition of God, then you open up the Bible just as you would open up a law dictionary to find the meaning of a legal term. You don't just walk up to anyone and ask them to define a term for you. You would open up the respective book just like any educated man would. Bottom line is that there is an exact meaning that was written just as there should be an exact meaning that is to be read, unless you want to throw reading comprehension out the window -- which it already looks like you have. Unless you haven't studied the Bible maturely. Because if you actually have, then you would find that there isn't much left up to mere interpretation. On another note, you got this idea stuck in your head that God or the belief in God is to be blamed for the hinderance of science. The Church opposed Galileo's idea of heliocentrism because it would show that the Church's teachings were NOT based on true knowledge, let alone true knowledge of scriptural texts, thus creating a social atmosphere where the people under rule of the Church would question the authority of its leaders. And, the way Galileo wrote didn't do him any benefit either because his writing didn't honor the authority of the Church, thus instigating resentment of the Church and its leaders. Your claim that societies have had different interpretations of the Bible is unsubstantiated. The truth of the matter is that the Church suppressed scriptural knowledge and scientific discoveries in order to remain in power over their subjects. There is an exact and specific message/philosophies that the Bible teaches.

more or less... But I'm saying more than that too. Most who claim to be Christian are actually false prophets. You arbitrarily claiming these people to be Christian as well. Consider how many know the name of the Christian God. Consider how many will name Jesus as Almighty God. Consider how many claim to believe Jesus died for their sins, yet excercise no faith whatsoever. Consider how many believe sinners will go to hell, and good-doers will go to heaven; or consider how many believe that non-believers will go to hell, and believers will go to heaven. Consider how many believe in the "Holy Trinity" concept. Consider how many believe the soul is some metaphysical thing that is immortal instead of the body you have. Consider how many believe that when you die you go to some after life, or that you will go to purgatory. And the list goes on. All in all , it's the same as one buying pillsbury cake mixes and then claiming he/she is a baker. And you're buying into it.

What's wrong with the limit equation I had for infinity? If x =1 then 1/1 = 1; thus no infinity. By "negating all other possibilities" he is proving it's not a squirrel. What do you mean when you say prove a negative? I really don't know how to answer that question. I've sat here for a good 10 mins trying to find a way to answer that question. And all I keep thinking of is the scene from Pinnapple Express, "What do yo mean the battery is dead?" All in all, why isn't it a squirrel? It's not a squirrel because such and such. By no means am I stating that negative statements can't hold true. The truth of a statement is found by proving a positive. What makes you think the Bible is true and not made up? Because I haven't seen any evidence showing that the principals expressed in the Bible are false. And if I take the metaphors or symbolism expressed in the Bible literally, then I'm being a fool.

I very implicitly posted the absolute mathematical proof of infinity. Ok, if you challenge my response, similar to those who have challenged yours, I give you the condition to prove that my mathematical definition is not absolute. Its basic logic, all you have to do is show me one case where my definition has a false conclusion. Actually in order for that to be true, he would have to state with/after each characteristic that those characteristic are that of a lamp, narrowing further you have to list characteristics that are singularly associated with a lamp (i.e. "All lamps have light bulbs). To do that honestly is illogical. It is much easier to simply present one case invalidating than dozens, or hundreds trying to validate. In a logic proof if you were to simply state, the quotes being my statements: This device is not a squirrel. This device has a light bulb. "My generator has a light bulb" This device plugs into a wall. "My generator plugs into a wall" This device emits light. "My generator emits light" Therefore: This device is my generator It doesn't prove that you have a lamp. In fact it was quite simply to invalidate. I mean you can keep going with your "ect." part and listing dozens of quantifiers until you can pretty much narrow it down, assuming nothing is that singularly similar to a lamp as we know it, but that is painful. To disprove it being a squirrel simply state: This device has a light bulb. No squirrels have light bulbs. Therefore: This device is not a squirrel. That is impossible to invalidate and much more simplistic. And logically it is not impossible to prove a negative. Actually, you've proven it to be a device. Thus proving a positive, and not a negative. In other words, it's not a squirrel because!!! it is a device. We can go at this all day. You'll constantly prove a positive.

A paradox? I'm blaming the Christian belief in God, not my belief. As an agnostic, if the Christian God exists then he is to blame for hindering scientific progress because he is defined by Christians. *slaps forehead* Someone running around claiming to be Christian, i.e. Christ-like, is most likely a false prophet. Luke 21:8 (New International Version) He replied: "Watch out that you are not deceived. For many will come in my name, claiming, 'I am he,' and, 'The time is near.' Do not follow them. And out of the book that is recognized as the best translation: Luke 21:8 (New World Translation) He said: "Look out that you are not mislead; for many will come on the basis of my name, saying, 'I am he,' and, 'The due time has approached.' Do not go after them. And who wrote the scripture? Church founders perhaps? :roll: Roll your eyes all you like, but try getting your facts straight before you go running your fingers across the keyboard. Because, neither the Hebrew-Aramaic scriptures weren't written by "Church" founders, nor were the Christian Greek scriptures. The Church does this in the name of God. The Christian God in his absence is defined by the Church, and either he is to blame for the actions of his followers, or he isn't the Christian God at all. The so called "Church" has removed God's name from their texts. So, how could they possibly be doing anything in the name of God? Whatever "God" they worship, it most certainly is not the Christian God; whose name is Jehova in English dialect. The Vatican and all its followers are Babylon the Great. OK, so we are talking about different Gods here. I am talking about the Christian God and you are talking about some entity that doesn't represent Christians. You're definitely talking about something. And it most definitely isn't the Christian God as you have no idea who that is. The Bible is interpreted by every society differently. You sound like a Christian when you talk about true followers. No it isn't. It's clear in what it says. That's not to say that you don't need to understand the past cultures to understand certain metaphors, but it's very clear in its message. Furthermore, Martin Luther inadvertently started the Protest-ant movement when the Church was manipulating the masses for its own gain. This is just one count of how all these different sects that you falsely claim to be Christian came about. A better label would be Christendom as it seems most are still subject to the Church, or its members follow blindly. However, the Church isn't the authority on anything, unless you give it consent. The Church kept the Bible in Latin for decades to keep the truth from people. Thanks to Martin Luther the Bible was translated into the German vernacular. All in all, the truth is there for those who seek it. And, for the record, I'm not Christian. I am just a simple man that has given the Bible a close look, and continue to do so. And, of all the various churches and religious folk I've encountered, whom I've discussed the Bible with, of those people, Jehova's Witnesses are the only one's I've found who have given the Bible it's due diligence, and continue to do so.

You were supposed to prove God, not 1! No sir, you were suppose to show me infinity. Then I am to show you God. have you never done any formal proofs? You're leaning on the edge of trolling at the level of ignorance you're displaying. Or, I've come to the realization that I can only prove what something is, not what something is not. Simple example: Imagine a stage, and someone walks out with a lamp. He says, "This is not a squirrel." And then he goes on to point out the light bulb and how it plugs into the wall and how it emits light, etc, etc, Did he prove that it's not a squirrel? NO! He proved it to be a lamp by pointing out charcteristics that are indicative of a lamp, thus negating all other possibilities such as a squirrel. It's basic logic, not trolling. I'm not required to prove a negative; I'm required to prove a positive. I believe in the first three, although I question where you get the almighty all knowing, and eternal from? The Bible.

Singularities can be found throughout nature. Examples: Snowflakes Finger prints DNA I don't need to prove three; I just need to prove one. As one cannot actually "define" God, I can only give my understanding: Life, love, justice, truth... Almighty, all knowing, and eternal I believe the proper name is Jehova.

It's not murder, so I don't see anything wrong with it. I think each case, however, needs to be very well documented before such a procedure is carried out.

http://www.miamiherald.com/news/southflori...ory/923138.html We'll find out soon enough. Again, I was speaking in general; refering to you, me, whoever. So, let me rephrase it for you: One can gain jurisdiction over another by acquiescence.

I thought you might enjoy this: 1895 TEST This is the eighth-grade final exam from 1895 from Salina, Kansas. It was taken from the original document on file at the Smoky Valley Genealogical Society and Library in Salina, Kansas and reprinted by the Salina Journal. I doubt anyone today could pass this test, even if you modernized the outdated questions.

If you find that I'm repeating myself, then you're not grasping what I'm saying. Assuming that a given treaty has been dishonored: the injured party has the right to seek remedy for any and all damages incurred. Obviously the parties involved are the ones who would seek to "enforce" a treaty that has been dishonored. Whether or not the given treaty is "enforced" successfully may be contingent on which party has the better military prowess should diplomacy fail. I understand that concept very well. No one here is arguing that but you! You assume, for whatever reason, that because a group of people got together and created a governing body, that this so-called governing body automatically has jurisdiction over everyone. When in fact, this so-called governing body only has jurisdiction over members of the governing body, who are typically classified as citizens, unless consent is gained from the "foreign" individual (or alien). If consent is not gained, then the so-called governing body does not have jurisdiction over the individual. The individual is a sovereign; a freeman on the land; a sui juris. Should the so-called governing body decide to move against such an individual, it would be an act of aggression. The individual would be under duress. According to Title 4 USC the proper way to display a flag indoors is to hang it on the wall. However, when you walk into any court room in this country, neither is the flag displayed on the wall nor is it the flag of the united States. It is a military flag of the corporate United States. This is evident by the gold brim. A flag signifies jurisdiction. As it is a military flag, then what you have is a military tribunal; not to be confused with court-martial. Savvy? Let me put it to you this way: In order for one to become a corporate US citizen, which is what you're talking about, then one has to go through such governmental channels. By doing so, one becomes a 14th Amendment citizen. Such citizens are 2nd class citizen. They're not a freeman-on-the-land; a sovereign; a sui juris. He/She is a lower being which is tagged (i.e. numbered), classified, and tracked for the benefit of 1st class citizens. Savvy? You've bought into the lies very well. Now, let's check what the law says: Spoiler! --Click here to view--"Personal liberty largely consists of the Right of locomotion -- to go where and when one pleases -- only so far restrained as the Rights of others may make it necessary for the welfare of all other citizens. The Right of the Citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, by horsedrawn carriage, wagon, or automobile, is not a mere privilege which may be permitted or prohibited at will, but the common Right which he has under his Right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Under this Constitutional guarantee one may, therefore, under normal conditions, travel at his inclination along the public highways or in public places, and while conducting himself in an orderly and decent manner, neither interfering with nor disturbing another's Rights, he will be protected, not only in his person, but in his safe conduct." [emphasis added] II Am.Jur. (1st) Constitutional Law, Sect.329, p.1135. "The use of the highways for the purpose of travel and transportation is not a mere privilege, but a common and fundamental Right of which the public and the individual cannot be rightfully deprived." [emphasis added] Chicago Motor Coach vs. Chicago, 169 NE 22; Ligare vs. Chicago, 28 NE 934; Boon vs. Clark, 214 SSW 607; 25 Am.Jur. (1st) Highways Sect.163. So we can see that a Citizen has a Right to travel upon the public highways by automobile and the Citizen cannot be rightfully deprived of his Liberty. So where does the misconception that the use of the public road is always and only a privilege come from? Spoiler! --Click here to view--"...For while a Citizen has the Right to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, that Right does not extend to the use of the highways, either in whole or in part, as a place for private gain. For the latter purpose no person has a vested right to use the highways of the state, but is a privilege or a license which the legislature may grant or withhold at its discretion." State vs. Johnson, 243 P. 1073; Hadfield, supra; Cummins vs. Homes, 155 P. 171; Packard vs. Banton, 44 S.Ct. 256; and other cases too numerous to mention. The distinction must be drawn between... (1) Travelling upon and transporting one's property upon the public roads, which is our Right; and... (2) Using the public roads as a place of business or a main instrumentality of business, which is a privilege. First off, who said a license restricts someone? I certainly did not. I stated a license grants one permission to act in a certain capacity. Scroll up for youself. Secondly, you're confusing a certifacte with a license. Two different legal documents. Maybe this conversation would be a lot less difficult for you if you actually took the time to read what I was saying. Maybe you have a reading disability? Instead of being so quick to judge, why don't you try thinking for a change? Let me spell it out for you here as well. You grasp that government cannot be perfect because man if fallible. I share this understanding as well. But the step you haven't taken yet (i.e. what you haven't yet realized) is that there is remedy. That's what the due process of law provides. And for the record, you **think** I'm jaded. Don't presume to know my state of mind Furthermore, I have stated there are 2 governments; the de jure and the de facto. I have the knowledge to distinguish the two. You don't. And what exactly am I projecting on 303 million people? Please stop talking in circles, you are simply trying to bury your lack of an argument in a theoretical mess. If this information is too much for you, I'll understand if you don't want to continue. This information is hard to grasp because it forces you to take everything you've been taught and question it. For example, go read the preamble to the United States Constitution. There are various capitonyms. What do all those words actually mean? How about "Attorney at Law?" How is an attorney "at" Law? What does that mean? Let me put it this way: When your expenses exceed your assets, then I don't think you're prosperous. Now, you might be working towards prosperity. However, until you're the creditor and not the debtor, then I don't believe you're prosperous. Now, I'm not going to go into detail on those examples you brought up because if you take a closer look at the transactions you'll realize that there typically is a lack of equal consideration when one assummes such loans or lines of credit. Your question is too ambiguous for me to give a proper response. I would say tyranny is the abuse of power. The question though is who is the governing force? i.e. Who is master; who is servent? That's right. It's not law. It's statute. A statute is a rule of society that has the force of law. However, it is not law. Act of 1871 http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collI...&recNum=454 Enjoy

Courts have ruled it to be lethal. And just because you brought it up: an electric shock to the body by a weapon causing cardiac arrest isn't in the same catagory as drugs causing allergic reactions. There must be some confusion because I've never dictated to you your own state of being. I was pointing out that you cannot possibly know what others know or think; i.e. mental state. So you couldn't possiblly substantiate the claim, "Most men will never know truly who they are but will instead decide who they are not." Unless you're telepathic. How can someone rebel against me when I am not in any position of authority over others. I didn't actually call people sheep or cattle; I used sarcasm to make a point. Granted, people are being classified, tagged, and taser'd like cattle. But, I don't consider people cattle or sheep or any animal. "Again simply having power over another does not make you their god, lord or master." Of course not. Never claimed it did. Power can be gained by force. "I don't know what you mean by 'glory,' "Alice said. Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. "Of course you don't -- till I tell you. I meant "there's a nice knock-down argument for you!'" "But `glory' doesn't mean `a nice knock-down argument,'" Alice objected. "When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said in a rather a scornful tone, " it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less. "The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean different things." "The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master -- that's all." (Underline and bold emphasis added) I'm currently in litigation because I've been charged when refusal to sign/accept a citation, and resisting arrest with non-violence. The deputy never presented a citation, so how could I possibly refuse to sign or accept it? It was never offered. I was asking him questions instead of surrendering my license as he demanded. He didn't like that so he arrested me, even pulled a taser gun on me. And because I didn't jump out of my car fast enough, he charged me resisting arrest. Which, when you think about it, it makes civil disobedience a crime. That's scary. If he was in the right, why did he go so far to lie or omit facts in his Charging Affidavit? If our system is so just, why am I having to disqualify the judge for not following the courts own Rules of Criminal Procedure? I have it all on court record. Satisfied? It can work that way too.