The-Hogs.net - Washington Football Discussion, Redskins to Commanders Era

Red_One43 wrote:

Jesus Christ wrote:Do unto other as others as you would have others do unto you. (Matt 7:12)

Hillel wrote:That which is hateful to you, do not unto another.

Siddhartha Gautama(Buddha) wrote:One should seek for others the happiness one desires for himself

langleyparkjoe wrote:Don't hurt others and treat people good.

Hmmmmm!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vRpUD7NFveg

Deadskins wrote:

cowboykillerzRED wrote:Now any grown man can read the bible, "king James the whatever's VERSION" as written by man. What men? Charles Manson types? Hail bop goons?

I don't know if you get National Geographic or not (it's a great magazine, BTW, and I highly recommend it), but last December's issue featured an article about the King James Bible. It is a very scholarly researched book. I really had no idea just how much so until I read that article.

Indeed it is.. I was overly sarcastic but the point remains. King James had to approve the scriptures and must have tossed others. Was he so blessed to know the difference between (in modern terms) psycho babble and prophetic vision? If the book is truly holier-than-thou, then why is it not GODs version?

* I know his "version" is merely the "translation" of 1611, but as King he surely had some say in the matter. I know its been said scholars find it on par with what was before and yada yada, but NO version has a case for whose word was taken as biblical and who was thrown in a dungeon. King James just gets the brunt of that argument for being on "nowadays'" cover.

** as for the kindergarden stories within about apples and snakes and what not.. believing we are all imbread cuz some silly hoe ate an apple is a bit much for me, even when I've had a few!

I truly enjoy the discussion, in no way am I attacking, or supporting anyone.. I just love to analyze, question, and debate... Particularly topics that are faux pas.

Sorry Th.n. ers but this topic gets me going!

If Joel Osteen can like.many before him, get filthy rich off the "word" and make it to heaven... I for one will drop his ass if I get there and laugh all the way down!

Cappster wrote:

KazooSkinsFan wrote:

Cappster wrote:If God exists and religion(s) have it all wrong, again, he should set the record straight. It's a simple concept of "show me conclusively that you (whoever or whatever that is) are God and I will, in turn, give credit where credit is due."

Once again you undercut your own credibility. You're asking the people who believe in God to justify ... your ... views. You don't need God, you don't need us to explain God to you, you're explaining God to us. You don't need anyone else in the thread at all.

You are trying to spin things here, Kaz. Not a surprise, but a spin nonetheless.

I'm spinning nothing. No surprise. People don't like their spin unspun. No surprise, you like to say I'm spinning like others rather then stand behind your own spin. The spin is you keep telling us God's omnipotent, it's God's job to do this and that you think he should. If you're asking us to justify God, then you have to stop spinning that we have to answer your pre-conceived views no one's arguing, that's the spin here.

Cappster wrote:If everyone kept God to themselves the world would be a better place, but no, we have people out their trying to stuff their "God" agenda's down everyone's throats. Everyone has a right to believe whatever they want and more power to them. If God is so obvious then it should be easy to point out the existence of said God. I am just trying to find out how people think they know this God figure. I am choosing the red pill (Matrix reference) if the pill does anything at all. I have yet to feel its effects.

Now you're not arguing "God" you're arguing "Religion." No, they aren't the same. My posts are all pretty clear on that. I started the whole thing saying I believe in God, I don't like religion.

cowboykillerzRED wrote:Sorry Th.n. ers but this topic gets me going!

If Joel Osteen can like.many before him, get filthy rich off the "word" and make it to heaven... I for one will drop his ass if I get there and laugh all the way down!

I hate religion and particularly TV preachers, but he's one of the few that I actually like. Not that I watch his show, but I hear parts because my wife watches him. She is religious. Osteen is what I think religion should be, help people have perspective and live a better life. I've never heard dogma from him, though admittedly I've only had a certain amount of exposure to him.

Deadskins wrote:

Mississippiskinsfan2 wrote:All you just said was that the earth wasnt there really......

That is definitely not what I said, nor is it what "void and without form" means. And for the record, I don't think "earth" here means the planet on which we live, but rather all the matter in the universe.

void-without contents; empty

form-the shape or configuration of something as distinct from its colour, texture, etc
It would of been the heavens not the earth then.

Red_One43 wrote:

Jesus Christ wrote:Do unto other as others as you would have others do unto you. (Matt 7:12)

Hillel wrote:That which is hateful to you, do not unto another.

Siddhartha Gautama(Buddha) wrote:One should seek for others the happiness one desires for himself

langleyparkjoe wrote:Don't hurt others and treat people good.

Hmmmmm! . . . There is a new prophet among us?

I not only believe in someone that I have no scientific proof exists, but I pray to It too!

Mississippiskinsfan2 wrote:

Deadskins wrote:

Mississippiskinsfan2 wrote:All you just said was that the earth wasnt there really......

That is definitely not what I said, nor is it what "void and without form" means. And for the record, I don't think "earth" here means the planet on which we live, but rather all the matter in the universe.

void-without contents; empty

form-the shape or configuration of something as distinct from its colour, texture, etc
It would of been the heavens not the earth then.

Um, no. Do you understand what the term singularity means with respect to black holes or the pre-big bang universe? It means that all the matter is compressed to an infinitely small point. In other words void, and without form.

KazooSkinsFan wrote:

cowboykillerzRED wrote:Sorry Th.n. ers but this topic gets me going!

If Joel Osteen can like.many before him, get filthy rich off the "word" and make it to heaven... I for one will drop his ass if I get there and laugh all the way down!

I hate religion and particularly TV preachers, but he's one of the few that I actually like. Not that I watch his show, but I hear parts because my wife watches him. She is religious. Osteen is what I think religion should be, help people have perspective and live a better life. I've never heard dogma from him, though admittedly I've only had a certain amount of exposure to him.

I've seen and heard way to.much.. I've also seen his estate and fancy cars, that he has money to pay for after selling out football stadiums like he is John Lennon. If he's so full of the voice of the lord and wishes to truly help people, WTF doesn't he go to a bigger venue and make it free?! EVERY time. Turning a profit off of preaching, to me, is blasphemous. ALL preachers should have a JOB and there shouldn't be an "offering" plate. If the church needs something set up a specific goal and have volunteers for tasks to get things done. With the wide array of church goers it should be easy to find someone(s) in the congregation who has the tools/means to help their church. When I go to church and see the pasture driving a Benz, taking money from people whom I KNOW don't have it, it makes me sick. Or when a Christian preaches to me about how Tibetans are going to hell.. like the kindest people are evil? Maybe "god" has a way of getting the.message out to different walks of earth.

If the words the same, be a good fn person, then what's the hang up between religions? No our way or burn in hell for... for .... Eternity! Sftu maybe simple men in simple times are scared of that isht I'm not.

cowboykillerzRED wrote:Turning a profit off of preaching, to me, is blasphemous. ALL preachers should have a JOB and there shouldn't be an "offering" plate.

Now, when you say "turning a profit," does that include drawing a salary? Because preaching IS a full-time JOB. Churches minister to the sick, hungry, and homeless as well as their regular congregations. They are on call 24 hours a day every day of the year. You have absolutely no idea how demanding a job it is. Are there those that abuse the position for greed and profit? Of course, just like any other authoritative position. But for you to cast such a wide net, is idiotic, and shows a total ignorance of the subject.

Deadskins wrote:

cowboykillerzRED wrote:Turning a profit off of preaching, to me, is blasphemous. ALL preachers should have a JOB and there shouldn't be an "offering" plate.

Now, when you say "turning a profit," does that include drawing a salary? Because preaching IS a full-time JOB. Churches minister to the sick, hungry, and homeless as well as their regular congregations. They are on call 24 hours a day every day of the year. You have absolutely no idea how demanding a job it is. Are there those that abuse the position for greed and profit? Of course, just like any other authoritative position. But for you to cast such a wide net, is idiotic, and shows a total ignorance of the subject.

Well obviously if you read the context in which I was casting that net you'd know I was referring to the ones full of greed. I didn't say every preacher ever. I've had great to terrible and all in between.. I've also been a part of a BIG church where the minister felt the need to have a seperate job, and I see I worded that part awfully. My bad. The net you cast is just as broad tho. They don't all go above and beyond- some also are child molesters. I think we both understand each other tho, and I'm sorry I got a little key happy and didn't put forth the appropriate wordage. Total ignorance on the subject is far from what I onsider.myself, having studied philosophy I have a pretty good grip on humanity and religion. As ive said before, in here, I type like I'm talking... And often get ahead of myself..Not like I'm writing an essay to be published or graded.

Deadskins wrote:

Mississippiskinsfan2 wrote:

Deadskins wrote:

Mississippiskinsfan2 wrote:All you just said was that the earth wasnt there really......

That is definitely not what I said, nor is it what "void and without form" means. And for the record, I don't think "earth" here means the planet on which we live, but rather all the matter in the universe.

void-without contents; empty

form-the shape or configuration of something as distinct from its colour, texture, etc
It would of been the heavens not the earth then.

Um, no. Do you understand what the term singularity means with respect to black holes or the pre-big bang universe? It means that all the matter is compressed to an infinitely small point. In other words void, and without form.

The term Singularity has many definitions.

The everyday English definition of Singularity is a noun that designates the quality of being one of a kind, strange, unique, remarkable or unusual.

1. the state of being singular, distinct, peculiar, uncommon or unusual
2. a point where all parallel lines meet
3. a point where a measured variable reaches unmeasurable or infinite value
4. (mathematics) the value or range of values of a function for which a derivative does not exist
5. (physics) a point or region in spacetime in which gravitational forces cause matter to have an infinite density; associated with Black Holes

In the beginning God created the heavens (The universe) and the earth (the earth). 2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters

The Hebrew word form is, "tohuw." It means the shape or external appearance of a body, the figure defined by lines and angles. The shape of our earth is rather round, or some say oblong. It has its Mountain ranges, oceans, valleys, hills, planes, plateaus, etc. Because the earth was covered totally by water, the form or shape of the earth could not be seen. So it would be true that the earth was, "without form."

There are eight Hebrew words for the word, "void." The word in Gen.1:2, is bo-hoo. It means empty, desolate, vacant. Having no zeal or binding force, not effectual to bind parties, or to convey or support a right, not sufficient to produce the effect of what is right. Destitute, as, void of reason, vain, to violate, to transgress. Void is used only one other place in the Old Testament, Jer.4:23.

Ftr I said turning a profit off of "preaching" not performing duties as a minister, brother, pope, etc etc. The argument was against televangelst not so.much churchmen. Although as I said not all of the clergy are as pure as they should be.

cowboykillerzRED wrote:

Deadskins wrote:

cowboykillerzRED wrote:Turning a profit off of preaching, to me, is blasphemous. ALL preachers should have a JOB and there shouldn't be an "offering" plate.

Now, when you say "turning a profit," does that include drawing a salary? Because preaching IS a full-time JOB. Churches minister to the sick, hungry, and homeless as well as their regular congregations. They are on call 24 hours a day every day of the year. You have absolutely no idea how demanding a job it is. Are there those that abuse the position for greed and profit? Of course, just like any other authoritative position. But for you to cast such a wide net, is idiotic, and shows a total ignorance of the subject.

Well obviously if you read the context in which I was casting that net you'd know I was referring to the ones full of greed. I didn't say every preacher ever. I've had great to terrible and all in between.. I've also been a part of a BIG church where the minister felt the need to have a seperate job, and I see I worded that part awfully. My bad. The net you cast is just as broad tho. They don't all go above and beyond- some also are child molesters. I think we both understand each other tho, and I'm sorry I got a little key happy and didn't put forth the appropriate wordage. Total ignorance on the subject is far from what I onsider.myself, having studied philosophy I have a pretty good grip on humanity and religion. As ive said before, in here, I type like I'm talking... And often get ahead of myself..Not like I'm writing an essay to be published or graded.

Well, you did say "ALL preachers," so I responded to that. Anyway, I'd be willing to bet that 99.9% of all preachers didn't get into the profession for the money.

And I stand by that.. All PREACHERS should have a job, out side of just preaching. If that.means doing duties as you listed, of and for the church and community, then they are living a blessed life. I think the way I was using preacher as some one who preaches, and you using it as the head churchmen is the disconnect.

No, I was talking about anyone who goes to Seminary, and then gets a job as a preacher at a church. I wasn't talking about guys standing on street corners preaching, or someone who goes online and gets a document saying he can perform marriages. I was also responding to your comment about the offering plate. No one is forced to give, and there is a reason churches are considered non-profit, charitable organizations.

Ya I just think preachers like Joel, don't deserve all the glammer and glitz of being filthy rich.

I understand why there is an offering, and I know you don't HAVE to give, but I was just thinking aloud on a perfect church. I think it should be more like voting tho..and private. being guilted into leaving ten bucks that you need far more then the church is kinda a slimey way to pay their salaries.

Mississippiskinsfan2 wrote:

Deadskins wrote:

Mississippiskinsfan2 wrote:

Deadskins wrote:

Mississippiskinsfan2 wrote:All you just said was that the earth wasnt there really......

That is definitely not what I said, nor is it what "void and without form" means. And for the record, I don't think "earth" here means the planet on which we live, but rather all the matter in the universe.

void-without contents; empty

form-the shape or configuration of something as distinct from its colour, texture, etc
It would of been the heavens not the earth then.

Um, no. Do you understand what the term singularity means with respect to black holes or the pre-big bang universe? It means that all the matter is compressed to an infinitely small point. In other words void, and without form.

The term Singularity has many definitions.

The everyday English definition of Singularity is a noun that designates the quality of being one of a kind, strange, unique, remarkable or unusual.

1. the state of being singular, distinct, peculiar, uncommon or unusual
2. a point where all parallel lines meet
3. a point where a measured variable reaches unmeasurable or infinite value
4. (mathematics) the value or range of values of a function for which a derivative does not exist
5. (physics) a point or region in spacetime in which gravitational forces cause matter to have an infinite density; associated with Black Holes

In the beginning God created the heavens (The universe) and the earth (the earth). 2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters

The Hebrew word form is, "tohuw." It means the shape or external appearance of a body, the figure defined by lines and angles. The shape of our earth is rather round, or some say oblong. It has its Mountain ranges, oceans, valleys, hills, planes, plateaus, etc. Because the earth was covered totally by water, the form or shape of the earth could not be seen. So it would be true that the earth was, "without form."

There are eight Hebrew words for the word, "void." The word in Gen.1:2, is bo-hoo. It means empty, desolate, vacant. Having no zeal or binding force, not effectual to bind parties, or to convey or support a right, not sufficient to produce the effect of what is right. Destitute, as, void of reason, vain, to violate, to transgress. Void is used only one other place in the Old Testament, Jer.4:23.

And I dont think the singularity was coverd in water but I could be wrong.

1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.

4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.

5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

6 And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.

7 And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.

8 And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.

9 And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.

10 And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good.

I think you are taking the words "earth" and "waters" too literally. Look at verses 7 and 8. In verse 7, God divided the waters above and under the firmament (which in verse 8, He called Heaven). Then, in verses 9 and 10, He goes about dividing the waters below into what you are thinking of as the planet Earth. And all this was after creating the heaven and earth in verse 1. I also don't think you can take the word "day" to mean one solar day (the time it takes the Earth to make a full rotation on its axis), either.

cowboykillerzRED wrote:

KazooSkinsFan wrote:I hate religion and particularly TV preachers, but he's one of the few that I actually like. Not that I watch his show, but I hear parts because my wife watches him. She is religious. Osteen is what I think religion should be, help people have perspective and live a better life. I've never heard dogma from him, though admittedly I've only had a certain amount of exposure to him.

I've seen and heard way to.much.. I've also seen his estate and fancy cars, that he has money to pay for after selling out football stadiums like he is John Lennon. If he's so full of the voice of the lord and wishes to truly help people, WTF doesn't he go to a bigger venue and make it free?! EVERY time. Turning a profit off of preaching, to me, is blasphemous. ALL preachers should have a JOB and there shouldn't be an "offering" plate. If the church needs something set up a specific goal and have volunteers for tasks to get things done. With the wide array of church goers it should be easy to find someone(s) in the congregation who has the tools/means to help their church. When I go to church and see the pasture driving a Benz, taking money from people whom I KNOW don't have it, it makes me sick. Or when a Christian preaches to me about how Tibetans are going to hell.. like the kindest people are evil? Maybe "god" has a way of getting the.message out to different walks of earth.

If the words the same, be a good fn person, then what's the hang up between religions? No our way or burn in hell for... for .... Eternity! Sftu maybe simple men in simple times are scared of that isht I'm not.

As I said, I'm not big on religion. I don't really have a problem with preachers being capitalists or paupers. I don't see how either makes them better or worse than the other based on that single factor. I think it's what they do for others. I just like his message because he preaches people have a consistent positive attitude about themselves and others and he's not into condemnation. I wouldn't contribute to him, but if others do, it's fine with me.

Deadskins wrote:

1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.

4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.

5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

6 And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.

7 And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.

8 And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.

9 And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.

10 And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good.

I think you are taking the words "earth" and "waters" too literally. Look at verses 7 and 8. In verse 7, God divided the waters above and under the firmament (which in verse 8, He called Heaven). Then, in verses 9 and 10, He goes about dividing the waters below into what you are thinking of as the planet Earth. And all this was after creating the heaven and earth in verse 1. I also don't think you can take the word "day" to mean one solar day (the time it takes the Earth to make a full rotation on its axis), either.

Well I'll think about this over the weekend and get back to you Monday.I can see why you would think that but its all in how you take the words.

langleyparkjoe wrote:Dear God, why you let evil things happen to people... like child molestation, rape, murder, torture?

I don't have an answer to this, just an observation:
Jesus suffered torture and death upon the cross. The second to last thing He said was "My God, my God, why hast Thou forsaken me?" Seems He didn't have the answer either.

Deadskins wrote:

langleyparkjoe wrote:Dear God, why you let evil things happen to people... like child molestation, rape, murder, torture?

I don't have an answer to this, just an observation:
Jesus suffered torture and death upon the cross. The second to last thing He said was "My God, my God, why hast Thou forsaken me?" Seems He didn't have the answer either.

+100 !!!!

Again, has anyone watched that show "Supernatural"? Started from scratch on Netflix and man oh man, what a good show to watch.. really makes you question a lot of stuff taught to us as kids. (assuming you guys grew up like me with a psycho religious grandmother)

Mississippiskinsfan2 wrote:

Deadskins wrote:

1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.

4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.

5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

6 And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.

7 And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.

8 And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.

9 And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.

10 And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good.

I think you are taking the words "earth" and "waters" too literally. Look at verses 7 and 8. In verse 7, God divided the waters above and under the firmament (which in verse 8, He called Heaven). Then, in verses 9 and 10, He goes about dividing the waters below into what you are thinking of as the planet Earth. And all this was after creating the heaven and earth in verse 1. I also don't think you can take the word "day" to mean one solar day (the time it takes the Earth to make a full rotation on its axis), either.

Well I'll think about this over the weekend and get back to you Monday.I can see why you would think that but its all in how you take the words.

The “big bang” is a story about how the universe came into existence. It proposes that billions of years ago the universe began in a tiny, infinitely hot and dense point called a singularity. This singularity supposedly contained not only all the mass and energy that would become everything we see today, but also “space” itself. According to the story, the singularity rapidly expanded, spreading out the energy and space.

It is supposed that over vast periods of time, the energy from the big bang cooled down as the universe expanded. Some of it turned into matter—hydrogen and helium gas. These gases collapsed to form stars and galaxies of stars. Some of the stars created the heavier elements in their core and then exploded, distributing these elements into space. Some of the heavier elements allegedly began to stick together and formed the earth and other planets.

This story of origins is entirely fiction. But sadly, many people claim to believe the big-bang model. It is particularly distressing that many professing Christians have been taken in by the big bang, perhaps without realizing its atheistic underpinnings. They have chosen to reinterpret the plain teachings of Scripture in an attempt to make it mesh with secular beliefs about origins.

There are several reasons why we cannot just add the big bang to the Bible. Ultimately, the big bang is a secular story of origins. When first proposed, it was an attempt to explain how the universe could have been created without God. Really, it is an alternative to the Bible, so it makes no sense to try to “add” it to the Bible. Let us examine some of the profound differences between the Bible and the secular big-bang view of origins.

The Bible teaches that God created the universe in six days (Genesis 1; Exodus 20:11). It is clear from the context in Genesis that these were days in the ordinary sense (i.e., 24-hour days) since they are bounded by evening and morning and occur in an ordered list (second day, third day, etc.). Conversely, the big bang teaches the universe has evolved over billions of years.

The Bible says that earth was created before the stars and that trees were created before the sun.1 However, the big-bang view teaches the exact opposite. The Bible tells us that the earth was created as a paradise; the secular model teaches it was created as a molten blob. The big bang and the Bible certainly do not agree about the past.

Many people don’t realize that the big bang is a story not only about the past but also about the future. The most popular version of the big bang teaches that the universe will expand forever and eventually run out of usable energy. According to the story, it will remain that way forever in a state that astronomers call “heat death.”2 But the Bible teaches that the world will be judged and remade. Paradise will be restored. The big bang denies this crucial biblical teaching

Mississippiskinsfan2 wrote:Ultimately, the big bang is a secular story of origins

The only way this is true is if you're assigning to God how he created the Universe has to be according to your rules. While you're free to make that assignment to God, I'm thinking he doesn't feel bound by it.

Personally, I think it's more valuable to ponder how God did what he did, rather than tell him if I'm not comfortable with the process, I'm going to declare it out of bounds and not consider it. I think God gave us minds and free will to open doors, not close them.